Thanks. I’ll read those. I do know Epshteyn is in it up to his neck, as is Flynn. These are 2 people (of quite a few more) that I believe Jack Smith has bigger plans for down the track. And I don’t envision either of them as cooperators.
Here’s Wonkette’s summary of Willis’ letter, presented in a humorous way, if you don’t want to read the real thing (or just want more commentary). They used many of the same pull quotes people in this thread have been enjoying.
Indictment only takes a preponderance of the evidence. Conviction is a higher bar -beyond a reasonable doubt. Grand juries also do not need to be unanimous; criminal convictions take a unanimous jury. The grand jury vote was 13 yes, 7 no, and 1 abstain on indicting Graham. Grand juries also do not hear defenses.
Only 62% of the grand jury thought Graham met the lower evidentiary bar in a hearing without a counterargument. The prosecutor, unsurprisingly, chose to not waste any more time on that case. The odds of conviction were tiny.
The headline is priceless:
“Fani Willis Roasts Jim Jordan’s Dick Over Open Fire”
…
Here’s the short version of the rest of the first half: 1) Get your dick off my federalism/states’ rights, you creep; 2) Get your dick off my separation of powers, because Congress is not law enforcement; and 3) Get your fucking dick off my administration of criminal justice.
…
The tea leaf readers on tv believe she targeted the people with the highest vote count (logical) and the ones who were Georgia centric (also logical).
It appears the federal judge is really wrestling with the “one act” question.
Georgia grand jury recommended charging Lindsey Graham | Reuters.
The grand jury does not have to be unanimous. But the petite jury does. If you can’t get a near-unanimous grand jury, I question whether you will get a petite jury conviction.
Question to anyone who knows: How rare is it that a grand jury isn’t unanimous, and the indictment goes forward?
P.S. These votes are for special/investigating grand jury. We don’t know how the charging grand jury voted.
Meadows DENIED in his motion to remove:
Judge Jones declines to remove Meadows’ case to federal court.
This was the ruling I was hoping for! It was hard to think it would go otherwise, but I take nothing for granted anymore…
He made us really wait on this.
I thought meadows had the best chance… glad to see it declined.
Me, too. It would have set such a dangerous precedent had it gone the other way.
One piece about the denial of Meadow’s efforts was that the judge mentioned that the Hatch act served as guidance for what is and is not within the realm of duties. So, while it’s been largely toothless against Trump’s team in terms of direct consequences, the fact that their ignoring it came around to bite them in the ass did give me a little smidgen of joy.
Yes, that was particularly delightful.
Meadows was caught between a conspiracy and hatch violations.
I really don’t understand what Meadow’s hoped to gain by incriminating himself by testifying. Okay, so his case moves to federal court and?
A wider net for the jury to be drawn from, and possibly a more sympathetic judge?
I don’t know either.
And an excellent chance for a pardon, if and when DJT regains the White House.
No, because it’s just a change of venue. He would still be charged under the Georgia statute. If convicted under that statute, the President would not have any power to pardon him.
Still a state prosecution
Just like the Carroll civil trial was decided under NY state law, even though tried in a federal court.
AIUI, the primary reason was the more sympathetic jury pool. A jury pool drawn from Fulton County is largely blue-leaning, from the Atlanta area. Had the case gone to the federal court, the jury pool would be more red.
This is literally all they’ve got to hang their hats on.
The judge factor could’ve gone both ways, though. The current judge is a Kemp appointed white man and presumably a Republican who seems to be very fair ….he could’ve done a lot worse in the federal court lottery.
I think it has to do with federal court being the only venue where he could assert a Supremacy Clause defense, mostly. Had he been successful in his appeal for removal, his next step would’ve been to move for dismissal under the grounds that he was acting as a federal officer when he committed the crimes.