Judge in Georgia election interference case quashes some charges against Trump

Oh, so you didn't know that states, including Georgia, have RICO laws as well ?

You must be black.

 

You referred to the RICO Act, passed by Congress. Georgia doesn't have a "RICO Act".

Why must I be black?...lol. Is that supposed to be some kind of insult?

 

Yet everyday all day it's lefties like yourself starting posts about Trump. TDS is still alive and well, damnedest thing I've ever seen.

 

It's glaring how much the left try to get away with in the name of abusing their power for political purposes.

 

Which would be a crime but since he did not attempt to get him to commit a crime as the judge noted in his ruling.

 

And without the underlying crime where is the RICO?

 

Yeah, you guys might want to read up on this some more. He didn't actually "quash" anything and told the prosecutors needed to do to fix the technicalities.

 

They also figured they could ramp this up and not only get tons of publicity out of it and perhaps their own political gain but they could financially game the system and enrich themselves.

 

Quash means to "legally reject."

The judge rejected/quashed the charges. They're dismissed. Fani can get a new grand jury, introduce evidence, get sign-off from a new grand jury, and then go through pre-trial motions on these charges again if she'd like to prosecute this. It could take her beyond the election, though. That's what "fixing" the "technicalities" (also known as due process violations) means. Quash is a correct term for what the judge did.

 

Just applying your own standard to you.

 

Oh, you mean like what Trump has done all his life.

So why would you object to it ?

 

They did on the other 10 lol

 

What standard is that? Are you saying black folks are stupid?...lol

 

And they call conservatives fascists.

 

No, you did, in a previous post.

 

Where did I say black folks are stupid? Post an exact quote.

 

Done

 

Right. I never said it. Good job exposing yourself...lol

 

No, the judge ruled that the crime wasn't identified in a specific enough manner for the court.

 

The judge ruled that the commission of the crime was specific enough.

 

Do the quick fix, narrow the references to the constitution/s, take it back to the grand jury.

Done. It's not a biggie...

 

"The Court's concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned's opinion, fatal."

He specifically allowed the prosecution to respond with a correction.

 

You people should stop assuming you know everything...

Under United States law, an element of a crime (or element of an offense) is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)

Now, let's look at the quote from the ruling you posted...

"The Court's concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned's opinion, fatal."

 

Explain the "quick fix" you're referring to.

 

It's in the following clause..."narrow the references to the constitution/s" as the judge advised... The judge indicated that the changes were necessary, but would be reasonably simple to achieve.