Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[horse2H5]

Chuck, I don't know if you are a criminal or a civil attorney. Have you ever met a prosecutor that didn't think they would win the case? I'm joking a bit, but most I know, though I love them, are always right. lol. To be a good prosecutor I guess you have to be that way and understandably so.

 

[Dragon]

Chuck, I don't know if you are a criminal or a civil attorney. Have you ever met a prosecutor that didn't think they would win the case? I'm joking a bit, but most I know, though I love them, are always right. lol. To be a good prosecutor I guess you have to be that way and understandably so.

I am confident that Chuck has a significantly deeper understanding of law than you do. Have you even read the document? As usual, instead of addressing the facts presented in the report, you resort to attacking the messenger when you cannot dismiss the evidence.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Man they for once did not do a trump suckup. I guess they realized they would be totally in the dirt rep-wise if they did this.

They tried though.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Answers an oft asked question
=======================


Why wasn’t Donald Trump ever charged with the crime of insurrection?

It’s a question that has been looming over the federal prosecution of the president-elect, with his allies and supporters using the fact that he wasn’t to downplay the charges against him as well as the January 6 attack itself.

In his final report on Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, former special counsel Jack Smith revealed that his office “considered” but “ultimately opted against” accusing Trump of committing or enabling an insurrection against the government, fearing the charges would open a minefield of litigation that could derail the entire case.

Smith explains there was just not enough legal groundwork over the last century to properly define “insurrection” and “incitement” to define what happened on January 6, despite judges across the country routinely labeling that — and putting the blame squarely on Trump.

“The office recognized why courts described the attack on the Capitol as an ‘insurrection,’ but it was also aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute,” Smith explained.

Case law reviewed by his office found that an insurrection “typically involves overthrowing a sitting government, rather than maintaining power, which could pose another challenge to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump’s conduct on January 6 qualified as an insurrection given that he was the sitting president at that time,” the report says.

But the evidence fit, according to Smith.

Evidence showed that violence “was foreseeable” to Trump, and “he caused it, that it was beneficial to his plan to interfere with the certification, and that when it occurred, he made a conscious choice not to stop it and instead to leverage it for more delay,” according to the report.

Smith even believed his office had enough incidence to prove Trump “incited” rioters with his January 6 speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.

But Smith did not find any explicit evidence showing that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators had planned for that to happen, and had instead exploited what his bogus narrative of election fraud had inspired.

And prosecutors could not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection “for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside.”……….

Why didn’t Jack Smith charge Trump with insurrection?

Evidence shows Trump ‘caused and benefited’ from the violent attack. The law and the country weren’t prepared for a case showing how a sitting president, not an outside force, could be responsible, Alex Woodward reports

www.independent.co.uk

 

[MT15]

And the case got derailed anyway. It’s a shameful chapter in US law. Trump should have been brought up on charges shortly after Jan 6. Hell, he should have been impeached Jan 7 to be totally honest.

This country is in deep trouble with the expectations of a fair administration of justice. I mean, money has always talked, but in Trump’s case he just defies the law openly and with open contempt.