Let me introduce you to inmate No. P01135809

[Baptist Believer]

The charges won’t stick because she is, first of all, bringing charges for “crimes” that did not occur in her jurisdiction. She is a county prosecutor.

The crimes outside of her normal jurisdiction are relevant to what happened within her jurisdiction. And for the purposes of the Georgia RICO law, are relevant and prosecutable.

Second, she has grossly applied the Rico statutes to include political thought. It will never pass constitutional muster.

Um, no. She is prosecuting actions (fraud, harassment, election fraud, compromising voting systems, etc.).

Third, she is charging attorneys for giving legal advice to their clients. It will never pass constitutional muster.

The attorney/client privilege does not apply when the lawyer and client are both involved in committing crimes. Attorneys are not above the law. This issue with Trump's attorneys has already been adjudicated. I guess you haven't been paying attention.

Forth, she released a copy of the indictments on her website before the grand jury actually voted out indictments.

It was apparently an agenda of the grand jury work that day momentarily released through a clerical error.

Clearly violating grand jury secrecy (felony?)...

There might be some repercussions for the clerk, but an agenda for a grand jury where each member is publicly named in the indictment doesn't seem like a felony. I'll defer to legal experts on that. In any case, I doubt that has anything to do with the legitimacy of the indictment.

...and showing the process was flawed at best and illegal at worse.

Um, no.

You see a great case? I see an obvious political attack that will fall into a thousand pieces once the motions start flying from 19 co-defendants. It is already beginning with motions for speedy trial from some.

If that happens, I'll give you credit for your brilliant insight. But I don't think you understand what is going on at all. Time will tell.

 

[JonC]

Right. A never ending cycle of retaliation.

The only question, imo, is do the facts support the charges.

The prosecutor seems to be saying “they claimed there was election fraud, but they knew there wasn’t any…”. Same with Smiths case. The obvious problem is proving what they “knew”

What if the defense attorneys start demanding election officials be deposed.., the SOS for Georgia, the Governor?

I can see them attempting to make the case there was good reason to suspect fraud and they were well within their rights to pursue the evidence.

DT will likely put the whole 2020 election on trial. He may call witnesses from 6 different states. Depose election officials and volunteers. He might even call those former intelligence officials who put out the statement on the lap top.

What if DT uses these trials to get the judicial review of 2020 they he believes he was denied? Hard to imagine, but DT could turn all this around and put the whole election of 2020 on trial.

peace to you

I was thinking the same about the case hinging on Trump knowing something other than he said he believed.

I don't think he'd have a ground to stand on with the 2020 election. Regardless of fraud the election was legal from a federal standpoint. States could prove fraud, but that would not change the certificates sent.

It would be good in that it could identify problematic areas for future elections.

 

[JonC]

I believe you are incorrect. Not a stunt at all, but a required prosecution of racketeering and election fraud (the fake elector scheme).

I disagree. Reading the "evidence" there isn't hard proof that Trump demanded the fabrication of votes. There isn't (that I have seen) proof that Trump was behind the fake elector scheme. And the charge that Trump knew he lost the election while asking that voted be found depends on knowing what Trump believed.

That said, if there is evidence that Trump was behind the fake electors then he does deserve jail time (as do all involved with the fake electors).

I am looking at this as objectively as I can. I am not a Trump supporter because Trump has proven himself a liar. So has Biden.

I can't say what Trump knew. Lying to the American people isn't a crime (I think it should be...but then there wouldn't be a Republican or a Democrat party). I can't say that Trump's words to find votes means to create votes that don't exist.

So that leaves the fake electors.

I welcome proof that Trump was actually behind the fake electors. I don't keep up with it, so I may have missed it.

 

[canadyjd]

I was thinking the same about the case hinging on Trump knowing something other than he said he believed.

I don't think he'd have a ground to stand on with the 2020 election. Regardless of fraud the election was legal from a federal standpoint. States could prove fraud, but that would not change the certificates sent.

It would be good in that it could identify problematic areas for future elections.

He had attorneys advising him he could challenge the electors. Others told him no.

Surprise!! Attorneys disagree on the law at times.

Taking bad advice from an attorney is not a crime. The attorneys having novel views and theories on existing law is not a crime. If it were, these prosecutors could face criminal charges themselves if DT wins.

They ultimately lost in court and VP Pence stood on rock solid integrity and refused to throw the country into a constitutional crisis.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

The crimes outside of her normal jurisdiction are relevant to what happened within her jurisdiction. And for the purposes of the Georgia RICO law, are relevant and prosecutable.

Um, no. She is prosecuting actions (fraud, harassment, election fraud, compromising voting systems, etc.).

The attorney/client privilege does not apply when the lawyer and client are both involved in committing crimes. Attorneys are not above the law. This issue with Trump's attorneys has already been adjudicated. I guess you haven't been paying attention.

It was apparently an agenda of the grand jury work that day momentarily released through a clerical error.

There might be some repercussions for the clerk, but an agenda for a grand jury where each member is publicly named in the indictment doesn't seem like a felony. I'll defer to legal experts on that. In any case, I doubt that has anything to do with the legitimacy of the indictment.

Um, no.

If that happens, I'll give you credit for your brilliant insight. But I don't think you understand what is going on at all. Time will tell.

No, crimes outside her jurisdiction are not her concern. As stated, she has grossly misinterpreted Georgia law that bring these charges.

Again, criminalizing election challenges are going to put everybody in jail. Can you Sat Stacy Abrams?

Concerning the leak, you simply don’t understand. The leak is proof the fix was in. They released the indictment BEFORE the grand jury VOTED to indict.

And yes, leaking grand jury info is a felony. How nice of you to give them a pass.

BTW, a grand jury indictment is a one sided (prosecutors side) statement. There is no cross examination. There is no defense presentation of evidence.

Peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

There isn't (that I have seen) proof that Trump was behind the fake elector scheme.

If you want to read it in the federal indictment itself, then you can go here and begin at section 53.

A simpler summary is in this AP article -- you can compare it against the indictment document to ensure that AP is reporting correctly.

And the charge that Trump knew he lost the election while asking that voted be found depends on knowing what Trump believed.

Among other places, a brief explanation of some of the ways they know Trump was aware can be found in sections 11 and 12 in the indictment. Remember that all of this is backed up with documents and testimony.

That said, if there is evidence that Trump was behind the fake electors then he does deserve jail time (as do all involved with the fake electors).

I agree. Some of the electors were allegedly deceived and told their registration would not be used if Trump's legal efforts failed. I don't think those people should get jail time.

I welcome proof that Trump was actually behind the fake electors. I don't keep up with it, so I may have missed it.

All I can offer is a statement of the evidence. Much of the detailed evidence is not available to the public at this time, but is available to Trump and his defense team. Apparently Mark Meadows and other high-level persons are cooperating with the investigation, so it will be enlightening to hear what they have to say in their testimony and cross-examination.

 

[Baptist Believer]

He had attorneys advising him he could challenge the electors. Others told him no.

Surprise!! Attorneys disagree on the law at times.

He consistently went out of his way to find attorneys to establish his scheme. Moreover, the one who came up with the electors scheme, Chesebro, conceded to Trump that it was not legal. John Eastman also told Trump that his theory would lose in court.

Taking bad advice from an attorney is not a crime.

Committing crimes under the advice of an attorney is still a crime. Otherwise, you can simply find corrupt attorneys and claim immunity to commit crime, which is what has apparently happened here.

...VP Pence stood on rock solid integrity and refused to throw the country into a constitutional crisis.

I agree. I wish he would show that integrity all the time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, crimes outside her jurisdiction are not her concern. As stated, she has grossly misinterpreted Georgia law that bring these charges.

False. Just watch.

Again, criminalizing election challenges are going to put everybody in jail. Can you Sat Stacy Abrams?

If you had read the indictments, you would know that Trump is not being charged with challenging election results. But you either don't know that (blatant ignorance) or you are making a deceptive argument (lying). Which is it?

Concerning the leak, you simply don’t understand. The leak is proof the fix was in. They released the indictment BEFORE the grand jury VOTED to indict.

Every time before I go to the polls, I look up what the ballot will look like for the election so I can be sure to research all of the candidates and issues. Having an indictment of Trump prepared for the grand jury to review and vote upon is not evidence of "a fix." It is evidence of the prosecutor's office and the grand jury preparing to do their work.

And yes, leaking grand jury info is a felony.

Leaking grand jury testimony without a judge's order is against the law. A list of potential indictments probably is not.

How nice of you to give them a pass.

I've given no one "a pass," but you don't miss an opportunity to make false accusations.

BTW, a grand jury indictment is a one sided (prosecutors side) statement.

It is a claim of the Prosecutor regarding the actions of the person indicted. The grand jury determines whether or not the prosecutor can move forward on the case.

There is no cross examination.

Grand juries ask questions of the prosecutor and sometimes the witnesses to determine whether or not the potential charges are credible. But yes, there is no cross-examination by the defense. The defense doesn't get notified of the charges unless the grand jury decides to indict based upon the evidence of a crime.

There is no defense presentation of evidence.

Of course! That's reserved for the trial. Are you just learning how the legal system works?

 

[JonC]

If you want to read it in the federal indictment itself, then you can go here and begin at section 53.

A simpler summary is in this AP article -- you can compare it against the indictment document to ensure that AP is reporting correctly.


Among other places, a brief explanation of some of the ways they know Trump was aware can be found in sections 11 and 12 in the indictment. Remember that all of this is backed up with documents and testimony.


I agree. Some of the electors were allegedly deceived and told their registration would not be used if Trump's legal efforts failed. I don't think those people should get jail time.


All I can offer is a statement of the evidence. Much of the detailed evidence is not available to the public at this time, but is available to Trump and his defense team. Apparently Mark Meadows and other high-level persons are cooperating with the investigation, so it will be enlightening to hear what they have to say in their testimony and cross-examination.

There is not evidence that Trump knew he had lost the election, only that he had been told so. That is what I mean.

Many have told me that the Bible is nothing but a man-made book. In fact, I have read several academic scholars explain away the Resurrection. I don't believe that means I know the Bible is nothing but a man made book, or that the Resurrection is a lie.

That said, if it were illegal for politicians to lie for political gain then DC would be one large prison. Hilary Clinton said the election was stolen even though she was told she had lost. That isn't a crime.

What needs to be shown is that Trump was actively behind the fake electors. Or that Trump, knowing he had lost, pressured others to create votes in his favor.

As it stands, the proof seems more political than not.

Regardless, Trump is not a man suitable for the office. He is a liar and has lied about things he knew about (like his father's country of birth, the economy under his administration).

 

[canadyjd]

If you want to read it in the federal indictment itself, then you can go here and begin at section 53.

A simpler summary is in this AP article -- you can compare it against the indictment document to ensure that AP is reporting correctly.


Among other places, a brief explanation of some of the ways they know Trump was aware can be found in sections 11 and 12 in the indictment. Remember that all of this is backed up with documents and testimony.


I agree. Some of the electors were allegedly deceived and told their registration would not be used if Trump's legal efforts failed. I don't think those people should get jail time.


All I can offer is a statement of the evidence. Much of the detailed evidence is not available to the public at this time, but is available to Trump and his defense team. Apparently Mark Meadows and other high-level persons are cooperating with the investigation, so it will be enlightening to hear what they have to say in their testimony and cross-examination.

The indictment is one sided. I know that. I don’t need to read it to know that because all indictments are one sided. It is the prosecutors version of events. They only put in it what they think supports their case and they leave everything else out.

When the trials begin, the case falls apart. I promise you if anybody is convicted of “rico” violations I will humbly apologize to you.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

...When the trials begin, the case falls apart. I promise you if anybody is convicted of “rico” violations I will humbly apologize to you. ...

suppose this initial case - he is found guilty - would you apologize then or wait until the appeal to the SCOT?US -- if he is found guilty - there is no doubt that Trump will appeal that decision! ........................

 

[Revmitchell]

The indictment is one sided. I know that. I don’t need to read it to know that because all indictments are one sided. It is the prosecutors version of events. They only put in it what they think supports their case and they leave everything else out.

When the trials begin, the case falls apart. I promise you if anybody is convicted of “rico” violations I will humbly apologize to you.

peace to you

D.A. Bragg in NY and wahtsherface in Georgia both campaigned on getting Trump. The indictment at Mary Largo was made because the D.A. flew in people from D.C. to sit on the Grand Jury. They are judge hunting and grand jury hunting. They don't even care if he wins or wins on appeal. It's all about stopping Trump from being the next President. The dems have nothing to run on and they are scared. They will not be able to cheat like they did this last time. They are just trying to tie him up in court through the election season. None of this is legitimate.

 

[Salty]

But knowing Trump - he WILL find a way to make this an advantage to him

 

[Salty]

To the OP
You must really enjoy seeing people arrested- even if they are free on bail!
In that case, you must love New York - as virtually everyone who is arrested is given bail
WITHOUT having to put up any cash!
So since this to your liking- you should move to NY.
and there is probably plenty of room - since people are moving out
by the hundreds - if not the thousands!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The indictment at Mary Largo was made because the D.A. flew in people from D.C. to sit on the Grand Jury.

False in a number of ways.

(1.) Jack Smith is a federal Special Prosecutor, not a D.A. (District Attorney).

(2.) Smith was working on alleged crimes in numerous federal districts, but primarily out of Washington D.C. He worked with a grand jury in D.C. as his team developed the indictment.

(3.) Smith decided to pursue indictments for the "documents" case separately from the "January 6th" case. Because Trump left Washington D.C. before his presidency ended so he could avoid going to Biden's inauguration, the alleged crimes involving the documents began and were generally committed in Florida. Therefore, it was most appropriate to prosecute in the federal district in Florida.

(4.) So Smith impaneled a grand jury OF FLORIDA CITIZENS in the federal district in Florida (he didn't bring grand jurors from D.C.) and went through the process of presenting information to them, as well as the testimony of witnesses, and the Florida grand jury believed it was compelling enough to indict Trump and his cohorts. This is standard practice.

(5.) Florida citizens indicted Trump, not grand jurors from D.C.

They are judge hunting and grand jury hunting.

They went to a judge that is generally perceived to be pro-Trump in a state that is generally pro-Trump. That shows they are not hunting for a favorable judge or jury. The evidence they have is extremely strong.

They don't even care if he wins or wins on appeal.

That's nonsense. They wouldn't build a case that strong and well-documented if they were not trying to win.

You really need to get your facts straight if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I promise you if anybody is convicted of “rico” violations I will humbly apologize to you.

You don't need to apologize for being wrong. Sometimes people make mistakes or misjudge a situation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is not evidence that Trump knew he had lost the election, only that he had been told so. That is what I mean.

Apparently there is testimony that Trump told Mark Meadows and others on several occasions that he knew he lost the election. Meadows appears to be cooperating with the federal investigation. That part of the supporting evidence for the federal indictments is not public yet. However, the January 6th Committee received testimony to that effect back in 2022.

Moreover, the federal January 6th indictment does not hinge or whether or not Trump believed the election was stolen. They simply need to show that Trump knew that, without his alleged criminal actions, Congress was going to certify Joe Biden as the winner of the election. One is not allowed to commit crimes even if you believe you have been wronged.

What needs to be shown is that Trump was actively behind the fake electors.

It looks like they have specific evidence of that. I have previously posted that information.

Or that Trump, knowing he had lost, pressured others to create votes in his favor.

Or disqualify legitimate votes to shift the election, which is what is has been indicted for.

 

[Revmitchell]

Judge in Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents case demands to know why the DOJ wants to use a grand jury from out of state as she hands Jack Smith multiple blows | Daily Mail Online

 

[Revmitchell]

Judge Cannon asks about legality of using DC grand jury in Florida-based Mar-a-Lago case

 

[JonC]

Apparently there is testimony that Trump told Mark Meadows and others on several occasions that he knew he lost the election. Meadows appears to be cooperating with the federal investigation. That part of the supporting evidence for the federal indictments is not public yet. However, the January 6th Committee received testimony to that effect back in 2022.

Moreover, the federal January 6th indictment does not hinge or whether or not Trump believed the election was stolen. They simply need to show that Trump knew that, without his alleged criminal actions, Congress was going to certify Joe Biden as the winner of the election. One is not allowed to commit crimes even if you believe you have been wronged.


It looks like they have specific evidence of that. I have previously posted that information.


Or disqualify legitimate votes to shift the election, which is what is has been indicted for.

I was talking about evidence, not testimony.

So far there has not been evidence presented.

Let me put it this way - if you were a suspect given the same type of evidence for another type of crime charges would not even be issued. All of the "evidence" would be circumstantial or assumed.

I am not a Trump-er. I wouldn't support him and I pray he is not elected.

But what we see is the judicial system being lowered and used for political purposes.

That said, if evidence actually exists then they should go forward. But so far no actual evidence has been presented - just testimony with contradicting testimony and assumptions.

They need an email, a letter, an audio file, a video a smoking gun.... Something other than nothing substantial. It looks like there was a desire to prosecute and a rush to do so on several fronts.

At least with Biden there was a laptop and correspondence from his son. With Nixon there was a bug in the hotel. With Bill Clinton there was a dress. With Hilary there were emails.

With Trump....so far....there is the word of some people against the word of others. There is a political candidate speech, not actually urging violence....with words urging peaceful demonstration shortly before. There was s criticism of not responding quickly enough. There is questioning the results of the election. There is stating the election was stolen. But no actual evidence.