I wish every defendant could have such an apparently good lawyer, and also that more politicians were moderates like Willis.
Trump losing the election, and winning this case on some technicality, would be ideal from my standpoint (although, as a pessimist, I expect the opposite).
According to the cnn article, sinnerman ran to ag Willis… and is number 4.
I still think 3 is digenova, I haven’t seen that confirmed anywhere. He is the only person that was standing with Giuliani, Ellis, and Powell at the “hair dye” presser.
Can someone please explain to me the significance of the “unindicted co-conspirators?” If they were co-conspirators, why weren’t they indicted? Are they likely to be indicted in the future, or are they getting a pass on their illegal activities?
I’ve been told that there is hope that at least some of them will plea bargain — “flip” — that is, offer evidence that will help ensure a conviction of one or more of those already indicted, in exchange for relative leniency (i.e., for some, no indictment; for others — those for whom evidence already is strong of their guilt — indictment and pleading guilty with a lighter sentence than if they’d gone to trial),
In addition to what everyone else will say, the more people indicted, the more sources of trial delay. It’s been argued by pundits that it already is too complex a case.
There is a balance between letting many people get away with lots of crimes, and speedy justice. In a few years we’ll have a better idea whether this indictment found a good balance.
Speaking of unindicted co-conspirators, when the DoJ DC-indictment came out, did anyone else have a flashback to Watergate? The Watergate 7 case that had the most famous unindicted co-conspirator ever? This time, it was one indicted and 6 unindicted, but the one in both cases was the (ex-)President.
I think he’ll try to skate pretty close to the line on:
“4. The Defendant shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of this case with any person known to him to be a codefendant in this case except through his or her counsel.”
So what if be breaks one, or all of those conditions? What’re they gonna do, round him up and throw is ass in the slammer? What do they do for normal people who break conditions of bail?
Can someone with experience in criminal trials weigh in on whether those are normal conditions, or extraordinary ones targeted at this particular defendant?
Also, how open to interpretation is “perform no act to intimidate”? If Trump refers to someone at a rally and the crowd boos, is that intimidation? And how likely is something like that to tie up the courts determining whether it’s a violation or not?
What I’d LIKE to happen at bare minimum if Trump violates any condition:
The Judge requires him to meet him/her at the jail where people who don’t post bond are kept while awaiting trial. The jail officials show Trump the cell where he will be kept. They introduce him to some of the folks he’ll be living with. Just very kindly showing him what he can expect.
I’ll await their participation, but I recall our legal experts saying there likely will be interim sanctions, but he would absolutely find his ass in jail if he continues to ignore the court. My impression is also that the judge is the arbiter of his compliance (or lack thereof), as well as deciding the appropriate sanctions.
)