Trump GA Indictment (4 Viewers)

Not content with trying to destroy America’s trust in the US election system with his big lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, Donald Trump is now trying to destroy America’s trust in the US judicial system with another big lie.

The second big lie is that judges, prosecutors, witnesses and juries are corruptly prosecuting Trump as a means of keeping him from being re-elected...........

None of this is easy work under the best of circumstances. With a rogue former president fanning the flames of anger and recrimination, the work is also potentially dangerous.

Trump has called Willis “corrupt”, and worse. He has called Smith “deranged”, among many other epithets and baseless charges. He has leveled similar charges against judges who have already been assigned to hear the cases against him.

We know all too well of the violent proclivities of a subset of Trump supporters. His wild statements endanger people. Willis and her staff have already been threatened, as has Smith, and potential witnesses.

On Monday morning, for example, before the Georgia grand jury even met, Trump posted that he “had been reading reports” that former Georgia lieutenant governor Jeff Duncan would be testifying before the grand jury.

Trump then charged that Duncan “was, right from the beginning of this Witch Hunt, a nasty disaster for those looking into the Election Fraud that took place in Georgia. He refused having a Special Session to find out what went on … and fought the TRUTH all the way.”

Was Duncan intimidated by Trump’s post when he testified on Monday? Did he alter or downplay his testimony out of fear of retribution by a Trump supporter?

We may never know. But the mere possibility of intimidation is itself troubling.............

Trump’s invective is also having a more insidious effect. By casting the criminal justice system as corrupt and partisan – as part of a conspiracy to prevent him from being re-elected – Trump is undermining public trust in that system.

Republican members of Congress have joined Trump in charging that Democrats have “weaponized” the prosecutions against him, even though those prosecutions come through grand juries composed of average citizens.

More than half of Republicans – including 77% of self-identified Maga Republicans – say the indictments and investigations against Trump are an attack on people like them, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll taken soon after the most recent indictment.

“I AM BEING ARRESTED FOR YOU,” Trump posted in all caps on 3 August, the day of his indictment in Washington for seeking to overthrow the 2020 election.

“I’m being indicted for you,” Trump said in June, after being charged with retaining government secrets...............

Optimus Prime said:

After news broke on Monday night of Donald Trump’s indictment in Fulton county, Georgia, attention quickly turned to the possible spectacle of a trial unfolding on television as a former president attempts to rebut charges of racketeering and conspiracy over his efforts to overturn the results of an election.

But before the district attorney Fani Willis can have the opportunity to make her case against Trump with the cameras rolling, she must first clear a key procedural hurdle to keep the case in Fulton county. Trump’s legal team is expected to rely on a little known legal statute to argue the case should be moved to federal court, and that jurisdictional question could delay a trial for months. The stakes of that procedural fight will be high, as a conviction in Fulton county would leave Trump facing years of prison time with no clear pathway to a pardon.

Fulton county is already bracing for a media frenzy when Trump’s case goes to trial, which could happen in March 2024 if Willis gets her way. A Georgia trial could provide Americans with their sole opportunity to see one of the criminal cases against Trump play out in real time, as state law generally requires cameras to be permitted inside courtrooms to cover judicial proceedings. That policy, a stark contrast to rules for federal courtrooms – unless Trump succeeds at moving the case by invoking the federal officer removal statute.

The statute allows a federal official to have a state case moved to federal court if the matter of concern is “for or relating to any act under color of such office”. Trump’s legal team is expected to argue that, as he attempted to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia, he was acting in his official capacity as president, and thus the case is a federal issue.

Some of Trump’s 18 codefendants in the Fulton case may attempt to make the same argument, as the statute also covers “any person acting under” a federal officer. Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, filed a motion on Tuesday to have his case moved to federal court based on this legal doctrine.

A federal judge will be called upon to determine whether Trump’s case will remain in state court. If a judge rules in Trump’s favor, the case would move out of Fulton county, killing the possibility of a televised trial and significantly altering the legal stakes for the former president................

Why is Trump desperate to move the Georgia trial to federal court?

Ex-president faces years of prison if convicted in Fulton county, but if case is moved to federal court it might result in dismissal of charges

www.theguardian.com

Click to expand...

So let's talk a little more about federal officer removal and removal procedure.

First, it's important to understand that each defendant can simply remove the case to federal court. There is a basic showing required in the filing, but it happens automatically - neither the state court or the opposing party has a mechanism to keep removal from happening in the first instance. Instead, what happens is that the federal court must promptly determine if the removal was proper. This means that the court must review the basis for removal and determine if "summary remand" is appropriate (meaning that it's obvious to the court that the removal was not warranted as a jurisdictional matter). If summary remand is not warranted, the court can then either set a schedule for a hearing or briefing on any jurisdictional issues the court believes are appropriate for consideration, or the court can simply allow the removal to go forward on usual scheduling and wait and see if the other party moves for remand. Those are the three possible courses of action after the removal is filed. Note that there are special provisions for criminal case removal that allow the state proceedings to go forward if the jurisdictional issues are being contested at federal court.

Meadows is the first GA defendant to remove, meaning he already filed his removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The judge assigned to the case is District Judge Steven C. Jones - who has been on the bench since 2010 (Obama) and before that was a state court judge and an assistant district attorney.

Yesterday, Judge Jones ruled that Meadows's removal does not present grounds for summary remand, but the court wishes to resolve jurisdiction promptly and has set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on August 28. There, the court will examine evidence and argument as to the three prongs of the federal officer removal jurisdiction: (1) Was Meadows acting as a federal officer in the context of the criminal allegations, (2) Was meadows acting 'under the color of federal law/authority' and (3) Does Meadows present a 'colorable federal defense'. Note that in 2011, Congress intentionally "broadened" the scope of federal officer removal, which means that the courts will have to take into consideration Congress' intention to have federal officer removal be a more expansive doctrine than before that legislation.

Importantly, Judge Jones's order states that the criminal case in state court may proceed in the meantime - which I think means that the "surrender by August 25" for booking order remains in place.

What does this mean for the other defendants? They all theoretically have a right to assert federal officer removal because the rules and caselaw allow for when private parties acted on the direction of a federal officer (this sometimes comes up with federal contractors). Each defendant will have a different case to make and some of them might actually be subject to summary remand. The others, especially the actual federal employees like Trump and Clark, will likely go through an evidentiary hearing like Meadows - and Jones's ruling(s) will likely be appealed. But similar to Meadows, I think we can expect the state case to go forward, including with booking. It's possible the defendants could move to postpone booking pending resolution of federal officer removal jurisdiction but we'll have to see how that goes (in other words, the height/weight bet might get postponed but perhaps not).

Finally, I think that under federal docketing procedure, Judge Jones will get any other removal case that's filed on this matter. UNLESS the defendants get crafty and explore removal venue rules. I'm not 100% sure that the defendants would have to remove to the Northern District of Georgia, that's additional research that I don't have time to do at the moment.

superchuck500 said:

So let's talk a little more about federal officer removal and removal procedure.

First, it's important to understand that each defendant can simply remove the case to federal court. There is a basic showing required in the filing, but it happens automatically - neither the state court or the opposing party has a mechanism to keep removal from happening in the first instance. Instead, what happens is that the federal court must promptly determine if the removal was proper. This means that the court must review the basis for removal and determine if "summary remand" is appropriate (meaning that it's obvious to the court that the removal was not warranted as a jurisdictional matter). If summary remand is not warranted, the court can then either set a schedule for a hearing or briefing on any jurisdictional issues the court believes are appropriate for consideration, or the court can simply allow the removal to go forward on usual scheduling and wait and see if the other party moves for remand. Those are the three possible courses of action after the removal is filed. Note that there are special provisions for criminal case removal that allow the state proceedings to go forward if the jurisdictional issues are being contested at federal court.

Meadows is the first GA defendant to remove, meaning he already filed his removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The judge assigned to the case is District Judge Steven C. Jones - who has been on the bench since 2010 (Obama) and before that was a state court judge and an assistant district attorney.

Yesterday, Judge Jones ruled that Meadows's removal does not present grounds for summary remand, but the court wishes to resolve jurisdiction promptly and has set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on August 28. There, the court will examine evidence and argument as to the three prongs of the federal officer removal jurisdiction: (1) Was Meadows acting as a federal officer in the context of the criminal allegations, (2) Was meadows acting 'under the color of federal law/authority' and (3) Does Meadows present a 'colorable federal defense'. Note that in 2011, Congress intentionally "broadened" the scope of federal officer removal, which means that the courts will have to take into consideration Congress' intention to have federal officer removal be a more expansive doctrine than before that legislation.

Importantly, Judge Jones's order states that the criminal case in state court may proceed in the meantime - which I think means that the "surrender by August 25" for booking order remains in place.

What does this mean for the other defendants? They all theoretically have a right to assert federal officer removal because the rules and caselaw allow for when private parties acted on the direction of a federal officer (this sometimes comes up with federal contractors). Each defendant will have a different case to make and some of them might actually be subject to summary remand. The others, especially the actual federal employees like Trump and Clark, will likely go through an evidentiary hearing like Meadows - and Jones's ruling(s) will likely be appealed. But similar to Meadows, I think we can expect the state case to go forward, including with booking. It's possible the defendants could move to postpone booking pending resolution of federal officer removal jurisdiction but we'll have to see how that goes (in other words, the height/weight bet might get postponed but perhaps not).

Finally, I think that under federal docketing procedure, Judge Jones will get any other removal case that's filed on this matter. UNLESS the defendants get crafty and explore removal venue rules. I'm not 100% sure that the defendants would have to remove to the Northern District of Georgia, that's additional research that I don't have time to do at the moment.

Click to expand...

What's the tl;dr summary, Chuck?

GrandAdmiral said:

What's the tl;dr summary, Chuck?

Click to expand...

That was the tl:dr summary

Come on, do it anyway you dumb piece of shirt.. you're gonna let some "legal advisors" talk you out of it? Weeaaak.

Former President Donald Trump's promised press conference to refute the allegations in the indictment handed up by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office is now very much in doubt, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

Sources tell ABC News that Trump's legal advisers have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems and some of his attorneys have advised him to cancel it.

Click to expand...

i would love to see this "proof", i hope it doesn't get cancelled. i have no doubt it'll be a rambling bunch of conspiracies that have already been proven false..

the Idiot through not paying Lawyers now only has two law firms one 5 person firm and one two or three person team. one of those Lawyers is actually a witness in one of his cases. he has screwed over so many lawyers or caused them to break laws he screwed himself. its really sweet. The christian lady codefendant is asking god for help and a christian gofundme website. Love how christians want gods help to break the law or get away with breaking the law.

superchuck500 said:

That was the tl:dr summary

Click to expand...

I was seriously expecting that response.

fooferdoggie said:

The christian lady codefendant is asking god for help and a christian gofundme website. Love how christians want gods help to break the law or get away with breaking the law.

Click to expand...

You mean Dr. Jenna Ellis, Esquire*?

The one who was fired from her job as an assistant district attorney for traffic court? Who then got a teaching job teaching pre-law at a Colorado Christian college that she then used to back her later claim to have been a "constitutional law professor"? And then self-published her own book, grandly titled The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America's Constitutional Crisis but is really just a rant against the gay marriage decision that one reviewer described as "[Ellis's] weaknesses in Constitutional law, theology, and philosophy shine throughout, with poor prose espousing impoverished thinking."

She's everything that's wrong with the modern, Trumpian right. She's not an intellectual - she's actually highly pedestrian, if not unintelligent. She has no relevant experience or even a basis to offer competent analysis on anything, but with a grossly exaggerated resume and a self-published book of junk about why God disagrees with legal liberalism, she can get a job at the White House.

Note that the Colorado bar association censured her for false comments she made regarding the election (on the basis of the requirement of members' candor to the public) and to avoid a more serious penalty, she admitted to at least 10 misstatements.



* lawyers typically don't refer to themselves as esquire, that's something others use to call you as respect - and no lawyers call themselves doctors despite technically having doctoral degrees. Good lord she's so stupid.

fooferdoggie said:

the Idiot through not paying Lawyers now only has two law firms one 5 person firm and one two or three person team. one of those Lawyers is actually a witness in one of his cases. he has screwed over so many lawyers or caused them to break laws he screwed himself. its really sweet. The christian lady codefendant is asking god for help and a christian gofundme website. Love how christians want gods help to break the law or get away with breaking the law.

Click to expand...

superchuck500 said:

You mean Dr. Jenna Ellis, Esquire*?

The one who was fired from her job as an assistant district attorney for traffic court? Who then got a teaching job teaching pre-law at a Colorado Christian college that she then used to back her later claim to have been a "constitutional law professor"? And then self-published her own book, grandly titled The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America's Constitutional Crisis but is really just a rant against the gay marriage decision that one reviewer described as "[Ellis's] weaknesses in Constitutional law, theology, and philosophy shine throughout, with poor prose espousing impoverished thinking."

She's everything that's wrong with the modern, Trumpian right. She's not an intellectual. Has no relevant experience or even a basis to offer competent analysis on anything, but with a grossly exaggerated resume and a self-published book of junk about why God disagrees with legal liberalism, she can get a job at the White House.

Note that the Colorado bar association censured her for false comments she made regarding the election (on the basis of the requirement of members' candor to the public) and to avoid a more serious penalty, she admitted to at least 10 misstatements.

Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis censured for falsehoods about 2020 election

Jenna Ellis acknowledged making 10 separate false statements on television and Twitter about the election. At the time, Ellis was a senior attorney for Trump's campaign.

www.pbs.org

* lawyers typically don't refer to themselves as esquire, that's something others use to call you as respect - and no lawyers call themselves doctors despite technically having doctoral degrees. Good lord she's so stupid.

Click to expand...

superchuck500 said:

You mean Dr. Jenna Ellis, Esquire*?

The one who was fired from her job as an assistant district attorney for traffic court? Who then got a teaching job teaching pre-law at a Colorado Christian college that she then used to back her later claim to have been a "constitutional law professor"? And then self-published her own book, grandly titled The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America's Constitutional Crisis but is really just a rant against the gay marriage decision that one reviewer described as "[Ellis's] weaknesses in Constitutional law, theology, and philosophy shine throughout, with poor prose espousing impoverished thinking."

She's everything that's wrong with the modern, Trumpian right. She's not an intellectual - she's actually highly pedestrian, if not unintelligent. She has no relevant experience or even a basis to offer competent analysis on anything, but with a grossly exaggerated resume and a self-published book of junk about why God disagrees with legal liberalism, she can get a job at the White House.

Note that the Colorado bar association censured her for false comments she made regarding the election (on the basis of the requirement of members' candor to the public) and to avoid a more serious penalty, she admitted to at least 10 misstatements.

Former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis censured for falsehoods about 2020 election

Jenna Ellis acknowledged making 10 separate false statements on television and Twitter about the election. At the time, Ellis was a senior attorney for Trump's campaign.

www.pbs.org

* lawyers typically don't refer to themselves as esquire, that's something others use to call you as respect - and no lawyers call themselves doctors despite technically having doctoral degrees. Good lord she's so stupid.

Click to expand...

man she is more of a loon then I knew. I did not h]need to look her up to know she was a loon but this is over the top.

Booker said:

Click to expand...

I think that talk of flipping and division in the GOP is premature. They all remain unified in their defense of trump - it’s crazy. Until she faces real jeopardy, I doubt it matters that Trump cut her off, it’s too risky to turn on the whole party at this point.

Those darn copycats, lol

MT15 said:

Click to expand...

For some incredibly stupid reason I misunderstood. That was me. Trump 6’3” 260. (slinking away ashamed)

MT15 said:

Those darn copycats, lol

Click to expand...

bastages