‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election

There's four GA state laws that Trump might have violated, but this one below, in particular, is noteworthy

Now, the point of contention would be 'known to be materially false', and given that Trump was advised by Raffensberger that there was no
evidence to Trump's claims of fraud in GA, he couldn't possibly not have known, but chose to ignore it.

Dems in the jury will vote against Trump, some Repubs who are sympathetic to Trump will probably hang the jury, which was my fear stated in the OP.

 

And we can be assured that those on the right will continue to conflate legitimate criticism with hate, every time, given that doing so, they perceive, forwards the right wing agenda.

 

I disagree because if Trump is the nominee, then there will always be the possibility he could win, and that would be far more destructive for America than a DeSantis win.

Even though DeSantis fairs better against Biden than Trump does, I would much rather see DeSantis the nominee. Actually, I'd like to see a traditional conservative, but, fat chance of that.

 

so, TS/SCI and 'restricted data' (nuclear secrets) documents in Trump's office's desk is okay for you?

Bias noted.

 

Not in a consideration as to whether or not to indict, of course, however, it's just a concern once the decision to indict is executed.

 

Too late. The Orange Stain reeks of third world after his attempts to overthrow an election he lost culminating in him provoking an Insurrection.

 

How can you have been here as long as you have and seen my posts and ever once assumed I was his base? You people?

 

I typically don’t look at the poster and look at the words stated. I think it is a disservice to the foundation of our laws if presidents are given exception from anything they do while in office.

 

I think if she was serious she wouldn't say things are "imminent", she'd just say it.

 

So if he's not charged then you think the DA doesn't believe in the rule of law?

 

Now you are projecting. If Republicans weren't 'insatiable for power', they would have convicted Trump during the impeachment processes, for there was plenty of evidence.

If Republicans weren't insatiable for power, they's ask Santos to step down, but no, McCarthy needs his vote.

If Republicans werent insatiable for power, they wouldn't have gerrymandered all of their districts immediately following the moment Scotus gutted the Voting Rights Act. Sure, some Dems followed, but they were forced to in order to maintain some semblance of balance of power, it was a reaction, but Republicans initiated the process, and they have gerrymandered districts across America.

I can give you many examples where Republicans disregarded what was good for the nation in order to cling to power, and yet you are totally oblivious to it.

You are clearly blind to all the damage Trump has done, all the despicable things he has done and said which I have listed on many of my arguments in the past. His deeds, words, far exceed in terms of being despicable and damaging to the country are legion, are far beyond any other president in history, and he fully deserves his plight. Hell, look at all the lawsuits and criminal investigations that surround him, look at all the people who were indicted and convicted that surround him. This is not happening in a vacuum, all you partisan hacks on the right will believe 'dems are out to get Trump' ignoring inconvenient facts that the Mueller Investigation was initiated by a Trump appointed republican and the Mueller was a republican, himself.

TDS is a thought-terminating cliché and not a merit worthy argument.

A data point, in order to be valid, must be non partisan, and since the ONLY people that think TDS is a data point are republicans and those on the right, it's obviously a thought-terminating cliché and not a valid data point. But, because of your extreme partisan hackery, you can't see it, nor will you ever be able to see it.

By that measure, having a reasonable debate with you is not possible so I think now the best place for you to be is on my ignore list.

 

Read that criminal stature again and you'll find your problem(as well as the DA's). I'll highlight it for you: B) "By the procurement, tabulation or casting of ballots known by the person to be materially false, fictitious or fraudulent". Now, there's twofold activities to which Trump is alleged/shown to have done: One is the call to the GA Secretary of State, asking him to find more votes in the State for him. It'll be very hard, if not laughable to claim this to be procurement. We also know that it didn't meet the standard of blackmail or intimidation either, since well Trump is powerless with regard to how state elections are carried out. There's an important distinction between inappropriate and criminal. Trump's call may or may not have been inappropriate in nature, but I doubt even the DA would attempt to use it in a litigious matter.

And that leaves the grand story: The fake electors, people who were selected by either Trump's people(or trump supporters within the Republican Party delegating themselves as electors) as opposed to the electors chosen by the State. Does this constitute as fraud as the statue is written? No, actually it doesn't. The fake electors did not scheme to replace Biden ballots with Trump ballots. Nor did they attempt to procure Trump ballots. Central to the claim of Donald Trump is that certain ballots themselves were fake(ie: Trump himself is alleging fraud.)

Now, those in charge of these election proceedings have all said the coast is clear, the election's legit, etc. But that actually means nothing in a manner of criminally speaking. As far as Trump is concerned, he feels its fraud and those feelings are the impetus of his actions. If we as people accept mens rea as a fundamental of our criminal justice system, we cannot replace the person's intent with our interpretation of their intent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea

Trump did not intend to defraud the people of Georgia(at least in his mind). In his mind, he sought to find the 'true' result, which would be of him winning in Georgia. The same can be said of the fake electors, they genuinely believed(regardless of how false it was), that it was the right thing to do. I do not believe a jury would convict the fake electors of fraud, as the vote was never materially impacted. I don't believe Trump would be convicted for much of the same.

TLDR: This will be much ado about nothing.

 

You think?

I don't think you think correctly. .

She'll do what she believes is right, which is withholding the report, in order to protect 'future defendants' from having a prejudiced jury, which, thereefore, is the right thing to do.

If there were no 'future defendants', there would be no reason to withhold the report. But, she will release soon, after the indictments are handed down.

Indictments.

Indictments of those who participated in the plot to overturn the election.

Who might that be?

Well, I don't recall any Democrat plotting to overturn the election, given that we won.

 

No, if that were to happen, though I can't imagine it happening, it will only because the DA is not certain she can achieve a conviction. I think she, much more so than Garland, will indict if there is a reasonable shot at a conviction. I think the bar for Garland is probably higher.

Prosecutorial discretion, is allowed in law.

 

Or before holding office (depending on Statute of Limitations)
Or after holding office.

Frankly, of the 3 time periods, their time in office should be the absolute highest bar for prosecution.

 

Or so he believed, but he had the responsibility to know the truth, and the truth was that his 'belief' was a lie.

I think there is a point at which a president must be responsible, at least as much as other presidents.

Trump's clinging to the belief that he was defruaded of votes, despite being told that he was not, by Raffensberger, by Cipillone, by Barr, is criminal.

Why? Because he has the responsibility to heed the advice of competent senior advisors, that of Raffensberger, Cipillone, Barr, and others (there are more who so advised him). When you are president, and especially when you are president, you don't get to shout 'I didn't know'.

Trump believed he was defrauded of some 400k votes, he so stated it during the telephone conversation.

However, Raffensberger told him that that was not true, and he stated it more than once. Cipillone told him, so did Barr, so did others.

As President, he has the responsibility: to know that even if it were true, which it wasn't, Raffensberger couldn't just pull out 11780 votes. Trump would have to sue and win in court, and have a judge invalidate the election

Any president worth his salt would know this,. Clearly, Cipillone would have advised him of this, we know he did, and we know that the AG Barr did as well.

Having knowledge of this, he'd know that trying to get the GA state to toss the vote and give him the election, the very effort is illegal. But it doesn't stop there, there was the fake elector scheme, there were other illegal acts, (as I understand it)

Now, defense counsel will argue that 'he actually believed he had a right to 11,780 votes'.

Prosecutor will argue that no president worth his or her salt would have disregarded the advise of GA SoS, of WH Counsel, and that of the AG and thus the argument is bogus, he knew. The prosecutor will argue that there is no way in hell Trump didn't know, and that his argument is a ruse to avoid conviction. Moreover, we have much testimony by many others as revealed by the 1/6 committee that he did, in fact, know.

That he did, in fact, know his contention was the lie that he was 'defrauded of 400k votes in GA' equals 'knowingly, willfully deprive....' aspect of the law.

Moreover, the law I cited wasn't the only law, there are about 3 others, as well, he could be in violation of.

 

Fully disagree with the bold... Once they signed a document saying (without any conditional wording) they were the "duly elected and qualified electors.... for the state of Georgia" and mailed that document to the source designated to receive those documents, that's undeniably attempted fraud. They may have "believed it was the right thing to do", but there is no rationale to believe they were the duly elected electors of Georgia as of December 14, 2020.

Hard as it is to believe, those electors are actually in worse potential legal shape than even Trump is....

 

You hope Trump lands in jail 'cause you don't want Trump as president again.

 

There's a problem with that(and the flat earth thing is a lame example, but let me just go with it.). Everyone could say that the earth is round and evidence backs it up, but a person could still believe that the earth is flat and acts as though it is flat. For all intents and purposes, this is the 'reality' on which the person's actions are based. Or another way of phrasing it is: He heard, but he did not listen/or even want to listen. He wanted to live in his own world. his own version of events.

Criminally(not logically), we as a society determined that if we're going to find someone guilty of a crime then they have to have the impetus of mind to have done it.(This could also shift to an insanity defense. And I'd probably win it too.).

 

Problem is. 85 million Americans will not see this as anything other than a political jailing. I’m saying for every action there is a reaction. Biden will be impeached. As useless as that is it will happen. So then next President will be impeached. And Biden will go through criminal investigations like Trump. The list goes on and on. When and where does it stop?

 

100% this is my thoughts. I have the same problem with police officers not being held to the highest standard — these people are public servants. Too many treat them as something more.

 

So you feel we shouldn’t prosecute someone for criminal action because we are worried about the actions of a party that is probably going to do to what you are concerned about anyway?

To that I have a single response: we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists

 

Probably the most intelligent and realistic response i've seen on this forum in ages.

 

Much in the same way we don't want Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC to be in business anymore...

 

Every politician in the country is a criminal. But to be fair, I don't believe they will be able to prove a crime or find a jury to convict. Many Americans believe no crime was committed on 1/6.