Would the defense like to “look after” any of the Grand Jurors children and hold them in an undisclosed location until they get the answers they are looking for? Or just release their names to some MAGA folks for 2nd amendment solutions?
Their names already were released.
Let’s imagine that Trump is the President and he’s done a good job at selecting and appointing judges and DAs, so that they were willing to go after his strongest opponent, Bellagamba, in the 2024 election.
Bellagamba is now in court for a crime that they know they didn’t commit. This is true, they really didn’t commit said crime. Somehow, the grand jury voted to indict them for an imaginary crime. This strongly implies that either evidence was manufactured or that the grand jury was tampered with in some way.
If the current judge just happens to be one that wasn’t appointed by Trump then Bellagamba has a better chance at saving themselves by being able to investigate and argue to the court that the DA can’t be trusted to present an honest case. If they can bring in grand jurors who will testify that the DA had a magical way of always being able to present the next day some document that would exactly prove what they needed to prove based on the previous day’s questioning; that certain jurors who asked such questions had a magical tendency to be dismissed from the court on the same such day; etc. then that would be useful to the defense.
But, the only way that you can get that sort of testimony is if you’re able to interview the grand jurors (both those who served and those who were dismissed) and ask them if there was anything that seemed terribly questionable during the grand jury hearings.
Sorry, you lost me.
I think if there’s one lesson that Trump learned during his time in office it’s that Senate review of appointees is massive. He needs to get his sort in the Senate and/or to fire his way down to a loyal “acting” head for each department. The latter is far more do-able and he probably wouldn’t even bother with trying to appoint anyone in a second term.
His slowness of learning is why so many of this friends went to jail and why he didn’t screw over our economy or national defense by too much during his first term. But I suspect that a second term would be quickly disastrous.
Moderating:
You’re far afield from the topic at hand with this and your prior post. Stop now, and please be mindful to not do this in the future. Posing far-fetched, “what-if” scenarios as a way of making a minor point is not useful in a narrowly-crafted discussion such as this one.
IANAL and I don’t really know how these things work, but my guess is that the defense wants to go on a fishing expedition and try to have some sort of general interrogation so that they can find something to object to and get the indictments tossed.
Meanwhile, the judge is saying that they need to already have a concern to object to in the first place before wasting the grand jury and the court’s time.
It’s like a cop asking for a warrant to search a place so that they can find something to give probable cause. But that’s totally backward.
When you start from the assumption that everything is political and only political, then you end up in Bizzaro world where the only “fact” is
My team honest, good, and Righteous.
Their team dishonest, bad, and pure Evil.
The Reactionary Wacko Traitors have gotten so far down that path they have lost any notion of legality or honesty. If any member of the grand jury is a D, they of course indicted for one and only one reason: the indictee is an R. That is all.
It’s another aspect of “every accusation is an admission”.
Perfectly said.
Also perfectly said.
With small addition that an R who decides such is even worse: a traitor.
An excellent small addition.
As the famous saying went a few years ago, when the modern Right realizes their ideology means they can’t win in a fair democracy, they will not moderate their ideology, they will give up on democracy. We are now at that point.
More good news ahead of the weekend. Rats, sinking ship, etc.
Good for her but… Too little, too late?
I have zero sympathy for her, but if she has spoken out against him, what does she now have to lose by seeking a plea deal in return for giving evidence? Although who knows, her comments are pretty incoherent, simultaneously saying Trump needs to acknowledge his wrongdoing while also talking about witch hunts against him.
things did not go well in clark’s request to move to federal court. trump’s attorneys were in the court room to watch and possibly pick up pointers. however (from the article)…
The hearing ended after about three hours with no ruling from the judge, who seemed visibly frustrated and annoyed at times, with his probing questions directed at one of Clark’s attorneys at one point leading Trump attorney Steve Sadow, who was in the courtroom, to whisper, “This is not good.”
I guess I can see how each defendant’s request to move to remove to Federal court must be heard separately. Are they all being heard by the same judge? I assume that the comments from Trump’s lawyers implies that they are.
ETA: to answer my own question,
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/politics/steve-jones-fulton-case-federal-court/index.html
The judge has ruled on the grand jury questioning. They can question the jurors, the judge will guide and maintain oversight.
This to me looks like a judge appeal-proofing his case. Had he not allowed some limited basis for the defendant to question the grand jurors, it would for sure have been an issue on appeal. Perhaps not a good one, but why leave the door open at all?
The structure imposed by the judge, most notably that the interviews are voluntary only, should go far to limit any shenanigans the legal teams of Chesebro/Powell can do.
Voluntary as in the juror may decline?