Let me introduce you to inmate No. P01135809

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

 

False. Just watch.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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