@Teri_Kanefield Right Federal & State Elections! Are Exempt from Executive Branch Influence & Rightfully!! That's one area that i Believe is Completely Off Limits to Presidential Reach! @DemocracyMattersALot
@Teri_Kanefield The fact that POTUS has no role in overseeing elections appears to be a waterline broadside to Trump’s defense in Georgia. Assuming it’s true, that means he was acting as either candidate or private citizen, which leaves him with no legal (or political) cover.
@Teri_Kanefield I’m totally struck by Eastman referring to the ‘right of revolution’ as a PROVISION of the Declaration of Independence, rather than as a proposition. The man is an intellectual incompetent, somehow always destined to become a traitor.
@MarcC@Teri_Kanefield Exactly. It's the only explanation for all the overtly criminal activity and damn-the-torpedoes behavior. If we win all is forgiven.
Wasn't it Eastman who admitted in an interview that "yes, our intention was to overthrow the government"?
@Teri_Kanefield If Eastman is charged in the J6 case will this piece of evidence be admissible? More generally, is evidence uncovered in one investigation admissible in a trial resulting from a different investigation? (I suspect the answer is, “It depends” 😅)
@Teri_Kanefield Ok, I'm curious. Trump is saying that he's going to reveal a "detailed but(^) irrefutable report" conclusively proving that the Georgia election really WAS rigged. It's my impression that even if he had such a report, which he doesn't, but even if he did, that wouldn't be a defense to any of the Georgia charges. As with all the January 6 "he sincerely believed it" defenses, that just means that he had the right to file a lawsuit and persuade judge, not to take matters into his own hands. Would you concur?
(*) "Detailed but irrefutable" is a weird phrase. It's like "it's very detailed, but nevertheless, rest assured that it's irrefutable." Is that supposed to suggest that there's ordinarily some sort of correlation between the level of detail and the ease of refuting something? I suppose one shouldn't overthink Trump's bizarre approach to English.
@Teri_Kanefield Which makes a certain amount of sense with the federal cases: ok, I don't have a legal defense, but if I can just get elected President I can make the whole case go away, so I'll prioritize that. Fair enough. But do you suppose anyone has told him that this isn't going to work with the Georgia case?
@Teri_Kanefield@prairiedog@jonberger well, he's really, really, really trying to make it about the first amendment. potentially the scotus could try rule that the first amendment protects everything he did, which obviously it doesnt, but if he just pays for a couple more vacations, flights, maybe a few luxury gifts... I know im going into possibilities here, not facts.
@Teri_Kanefield@jonberger A possible basis for federal courts, and ultimately SCOTUS, to take over?
“Mr. Meadows is entitled to remove this action to federal court because the charges against him plausibly give rise to a federal defense based on his role at all relevant times as the White House Chief of Staff to the President of the United States,” Meadows’ attorneys George Terwilliger and Joseph Englert wrote in the Tuesday motion....
Meadows’ petition to move the case to federal court was widely expected — with Trump and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark expected to pursue similar legal motions. If approved, it would allow the case to be heard before a potentially friendlier jury pool made up of residents summoned from Northern Georgia, which is more conservative than heavily Democratic Fulton County. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mark-meadows-seeks-to-move-georgia-case-into-federal-court/ar-AA1fjOom?cvid=6018b03172554ff3bcf6b7bc97301f6b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
@Teri_Kanefield If I recall correctly, the people who took the data got access to the building and computers via a person who had legal right to be in the building.
@Teri_Kanefield@Eka_FOOF_A hmm, would that then quash the charges related to that, or is accessing voting machines itself still a criminal act, certainly would hope so, here in the UK, accessing personal data would certainly draw wroth from the information commissioner, not sure about the US I know some states have data privacy laws.
@Teri_Kanefield what might be Fani Willis’ reasons for having “unindicted co-conspirators”? For Jack Smith it seems to be to focus on Trump and come back to them later, but Willis indicted 19 people (and mentions 30 or so unnamed others)
@Teri_Kanefield A deliberate lie? In some cases, that may well be so.
But do you know what I am going to tell you? I am beginning to suspect that many of the lawyers in that man’s corner are not, in fact, the most brilliant legal minds of their generation.
It's legitimately confusing unless you approach it properly: the act isn't illegal in isolation, but it is illegal in that it is demonstrably part of the commission of a crime.
I dare say, the entire point of RICO is that it's far too easy for a crime boss to say "there's nothing illegal about making a phone call [or whatever]" if you separate it from the context of commission of a crime. Well, RICO takes away that bit of legal cover.
Like buying a burlap bag isn't a crime, but as part of concealing evidence after a robbery, it's something to take into account. (Bad analogy.) But the Republicans have practiced this til it's automatic: hyperbole is a facile way to lie mislead.
The "criminalizing" came up when Obama took over and there was concern that Obama might arrest people for torture, war crimes, and indeed, lying the nation into war.
Very Serious Voices took up the cry that "we can't criminalize policy".
It was literally an argument that crimes committed by people important enough to "make policy" are then not-crimes.
@Teri_Kanefield
When they commit a crime and then point to it as evidence of criminal activity to further justify their additional crimes is just astounding!
@Teri_Kanefield Thank you for a good thread. May I ask a question (or two)?
Yesterday I read that #45 could pardon himself from the federal cases (if found guilty & wins the election), but that he can’t pardon himself in the Georgia-case as that is state law and not federal law.
Today I read that he now might be trying to move the Georgia-case to federal court (based on the Politico story about “Removal statute”).
@stadsplanering@Teri_Kanefield it could be a delay tactic. I dunno if it's a thing in criminal law but an attorney told me that defendants in civil cases will first try to request to move cases to federal court not because they will succeed but because the process will take time and drag things out.
My question was based on this story from Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/trump-georgia-case-removal-federal-court-00111240) where they write about it. Would not surprise me if they try to do it (even if the probability for it succeeding is not highest). Also done in a way to stall everything because we know that #45 like to stall everything possible as much as possible.
@Teri_Kanefield@cadenza@stadsplanering: If any MAGA candidate other than Trump were to win the presidency, they would likely pardon him. If he were to win, legalities and the Constitution would be moot. Either way, we would no longer be a democracy or a country based on the Constitution.
That said, if every eligible voter (or even most) votes and has their vote counted, the GOP won’t win.
@Teri_Kanefield I'm pretty sure that some of those who've been following all the details could figure out who some of the unindicted co-conspirators are. And that designation often indicates a cooperator.
There are a bunch of "unindicted #N" entries in the indictments, but none are Mike Flynn and Mike Flynn was involved in Georgia. We'll have to see how it plays out, even though I want to know NOW NOW NOW. :)
@Teri_Kanefield I’m kind of enjoying knowing that the 30 unnamed co-conspirators means there’s probably 130 co conspirators out there, sweating hair dye, wondering if they are next and what to do about it. More will shake loose, no doubt.
May I ask, considering the (as yet) uncharged co-conspirators, are there time limits on bringing charges against them for these crimes either in the federal or state legal systems?
(Apologies, I'm sure I don't have the terminology correct.)
@Teri_Kanefield@Bam Thanks, Teri. I get that his facilitation of the call is part of the job, but his actually telling Raffensperger what Trump was telling him, only in Meadowsese instead of Trumpese, is the only thing I see that differentiates his facilitating it and being on the call from actually partaking in the crime itself by asking Raff to do Trump’s bidding. I hope I’m right.
@GottaLaff@Teri_Kanefield@Bam Meadows seem to be one of the only smart ones. He may have been careful enough to get away with it, but he's still a criminal.
@Teri_Kanefield@Bam@colo_lee@GottaLaff actually, I read he plans to try get the case dismissed once in federal court. I guess once in federal court there's some federal law he is then going to try and rely on to get it dismissed, that doesnt exist in georgia state law. but this is only from an article I read.
@Bam@Teri_Kanefield@colo_lee@GottaLaff not sure, the article didn't actually say! then again, trumps huge report which will apparently exonerate him next monday, we don't know what's in that either!!
@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff@Bam@colo_lee How significant would a move to federal court be, as far as the actual trial? Folks seem to be suggesting it would be very beneficial to the defendants — is that the case?
@GottaLaff@Teri_Kanefield@Bam Lawrence's show played the section last night--I didn't realize until then how active that was. It wasn't just doing introductions around the call or something like that. Yeah.
@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff@Bam It’s a “just following orders” defense, isn’t it? When Trump ordered Meadows to participate in a crime, did Meadows have a legal responsibility to refuse, if it meant he’d lose his job? (I think so, but I’m not a lawyer.)
@JamesGleick@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff@Bam if I understand correctly this does not amount to a defense. The bar for removal to Federal court is lower. It is simply that you were doing something under color of law as a federal agent, not that that something was kosher necessarily
@ashmueli@JamesGleick@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff Which also makes me wonder whether someone (eg the federal court or the United States on its own) is going to cause the United States to offer its views on that question. 🤔
@Teri_Kanefield@Bam Cassidy Hutchinson knew when “the job” crossed the line. She sounded the alarm to her boss and she cautiously reversed course without his support. Mark Meadows isolated himself in his office and ignored everyone’s advice EXCEPT for the group phone texts instructing him to follow through with his predetermined part of an ill conceived plan that he participated in designing. If it had succeeded, he would no doubt be celebrating the part he played.
@Teri_Kanefield@jeaux@Bam thats very eye opening, Teri. ie the difference between a good argument for trump being held in pre trial detention, in my opinion is, he is going close to that line and will endanger people if he gets the slightest chance, may not be a legal one.
@Teri_Kanefield
"conspiracy requires mutual understanding between co-conspirators"
We got that in J6 — Trump states in response to violence by Proud Boys "Stand back and stand by" NOT "stand down" acknowledged by the Proud Boys. Rally is called "Stop the Steal" "Be there, will be wild" and again acknowledged in social media followed by many overt acts in furtherance culminating in J6.
Only because it is wide in the open doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy. Same-o-same-o Russian-email-request. 🤦♀️
@Teri_Kanefield a commentator said there’s a law that former Fed Personnel should be tried in Fed court for crimes committed while in office. What are the chances GA cases move to Fed court???
@Teri_Kanefield@Kim_Luxhoj oh. no.
so, as this could be argued that it was part of his responsibility as president, ie to try and remain president and in that role of office, he might get it into pardoncourt. not good!
or does it have to directly link to duties performed as president, rather than acts performed to try become a dictator.
@Teri_Kanefield
Pardon-wise, if convicted in GA a US President can't pardon these crimes and there is a board in GA that has to approve any pardons, not the governor.
So I guess the GA case is our best bet if a republican gets elected us president soon?
Interesting, I have wanted to see RICO charges brought against the 2020 Antifa and BLM rioters for some time. I wonder if Garland will ever do anything about those criminals?
Add comment