Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[DaveXA]

 

[Taurus]

It does sound like something Christie would say, though.

Whoever says it first and owns it, will moonwalk to the nomination.

 

[DaveXA]

Whoever says it first and owns it, will moonwalk to the nomination.

Christie is definitely owning it. He's been crapping all over Trump for a while now. He's got some really high negatives, but he's always marched to the beat of his own drum for the most part, so that does help him.

Reminds me a bit of McCain.

 

[DaveXA]

Oh, and I'm sorry, but McCarthy is a sheet bag. Keeps repeating that nonsensical "equal justice" line. He's so full of it.

There's zero similarities in the two cases. And what Hunter pled guilty to never results in prison time as far as I know.

 

[coldseat]

Further perspective on the WaPo article about the DOJ moving slowly on Trump:





I’m okay that they moved slowly, although if they did it to avoid being called partisan that was a mistake. As we can see, the Rs are doing that anyway in the face of extreme deference by the DOJ.

I was one complaining months ago about how long it was taking, just because is seemed like they were never going to get to an indictment. But now that it's happened, I have no quarrels. Better late and sure than never.

I do wish it would have happened earlier just to have more time before the election. But other than that, the indictment itself is strong.

 

[J-DONK]

I was one complaining months ago about how long it was taking, just because is seemed like they were never going to get to and indictment. But now that it's happened, I have no quarrels. Better late and sure than never.

I do wish it would have happened earlier just to have more time before the election. But other than that, the indictment itself is strong.

I don't know if Trump can stall the trial until after the election, but a huge chunk of the primaries are over by early March.

 

[Lapaz]

Christie is definitely owning it. He's been crapping all over Trump for a while now. He's got some really high negatives, but he's always marched to the beat of his own drum for the most part, so that does help him.

Reminds me a bit of McCain.

McCain and Christie shouldn't be on the same plane. While I appreciate that Christie is currently being honest, I don't trust him. I don't think Christie has a lot of integrity, although he seems to have huge integrity compared to the rest of the Republican field. As far as I know, McCain was a man with great integrity.

 

[MT15]

Oh, and I'm sorry, but McCarthy is a sheet bag. Keeps repeating that nonsensical "equal justice" line. He's so full of it.

There's zero similarities in the two cases. And what Hunter pled guilty to never results in prison time as far as I know.

From what I’ve read what Hunter did rarely results in criminal charges - even misdemeanors.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I hope when Biden is re-elected, he gets another AG; one that will finish the job and go after every Republican congress person and senator who participated in the coup attempt. Nothing republican supporters say or do should deter a new AG from going after all of them and going hard after them.

Let 'em try J6 again. Biden should offer them "una celda o plomo"?

 

[DaveXA]

From what I’ve read what Hunter did rarely results in criminal charges - even misdemeanors.

Yep.

 

[DaveXA]

McCain and Christie shouldn't be on the same plane. While I appreciate that Christie is currently being honest, I don't trust him. I don't think Christie has a lot of integrity, although he seems to have huge integrity compared to the rest of the Republican field. As far as I know, McCain was a man with great integrity.

I'm not really talking about integrity, but more practical public policy positions. He's more of a pragmatic politician than most other Republicans.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Judge Cannon sets August 14 trial date. This will certainly be continued but it should dispel the notion that the court is just going to let this thing meander along for years and years.

August 14th? For two weeks? That sounds ambitious to say the least. I'm sure that every poster on here is smart enough to know that is a legal fiction.

They have to schedule the trial quickly under the Speedy Trial clause of the constitution (6th Amendment). Either side can delay that date with pre-trial motions, so the 6th is a bit of a farce. They still give it lip service by scheduling a trial withing the stated time limit.

 

[DaveXA]

August 14th? For two weeks? That sounds ambitious to say the least. I'm sure that every poster on here is smart enough to know that is a legal fiction.

They have to schedule the trial quickly under the Speedy Trial clause of the constitution (6th Amendment). Either side can delay that date with pre-trial motions, so the 6th is a bit of a farce. They still give it lip service by scheduling a trial withing the stated time limit.

You apparently missed the next 3-4 posts where we discussed and stated pre-trial motions, continuances etc would push back the timeline. We all know the trial probably won't start in earnest until sometime after the motions are resolved and worked through.

The judge has to give a timeline and set a schedule. I don't see what the problem is with setting it at 2 weeks to start with. We all know it's gonna be longer than that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You apparently missed the next 3-4 posts where we discussed and stated pre-trial motions, continuances etc would push back the timeline. We all know the trial probably won't start in earnest until sometime after the motions are resolved and worked through.

The judge has to give a timeline and set a schedule. I don't see what the problem is with setting it at 2 weeks to start with. We all know it's gonna be longer than that.

I saw that from Superchuck and I hereby congratulate him by name, having already expressed my confidence that every poster on here was intelligent enough to know that.

There is no serious problem with setting it at two weeks, so long as all all aware that it is a purely fictitious timeline. However, unlike the Speedy Trial requirement, I don't know of any requirement that trial length be set for such an unrealistically short amount of time.

Maybe someone knows about that, better than I.

 

[FullMonte]

You apparently missed the next 3-4 posts where we discussed and stated pre-trial motions, continuances etc would push back the timeline. We all know the trial probably won't start in earnest until sometime after the motions are resolved and worked through.

The judge has to give a timeline and set a schedule. I don't see what the problem is with setting it at 2 weeks to start with. We all know it's gonna be longer than that.

To be honest, I'm not sure that it would last much longer than that. Assuming all of the issues regarding Trump being a former president are worked out in pre-trial motions, and we are down to a case of whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, that might not take that long. Based on the indictment, the DOJ has laid out a very clear case, and has some pretty clear evidence. I don't know that it would take more than 2 weeks to present that evidence to a jury. The only question mark is how much evidence will the defense present.

 

[DaveXA]

To be honest, I'm not sure that it would last much longer than that. Assuming all of the issues regarding Trump being a former president are worked out in pre-trial motions, and we are down to a case of whether or not the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, that might not take that long. Based on the indictment, the DOJ has laid out a very clear case, and has some pretty clear evidence. I don't know that it would take more than 2 weeks to present that evidence to a jury. The only question mark is how much evidence will the defense present.

Oh, I don't doubt that part. The question for me is how long does it take to go through all of the pre-trial motions and what would be the new trial start date? I think that could take some time. But I don't have any idea what's typical in similar cases.

Of course, how the judge handles all of that seems to be an open question.

 

[superchuck500]

I saw that from Superchuck and I hereby congratulate him by name, having already expressed my confidence that every poster on here was intelligent enough to know that.

There is no serious problem with setting it at two weeks, so long as all all aware that it is a purely fictitious timeline. However, unlike the Speedy Trial requirement, I don't know of any requirement that trial length be set for such an unrealistically short amount of time.

Maybe someone knows about that, better than I.

A two week trial is entirely reasonable for this case. But that will ultimately depend on how many witnesses there are. It’s not a hard limit.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I don't know if Trump can stall the trial until after the election, but a huge chunk of the primaries are over by early March.

I would say that there's a 99.9% chance that Trump would try to fire his defense team after the judge makes her pre-trial rulings. If Judge Cannon allows that, it would restart the whole process of his new defense team acquiring their security clearances.