Judge in Georgia election interference case quashes some charges against Trump

Denial is in Egypt.
Meanwhile…

https://www.analyzingamerica.org/2023/12/731389/

 

So answer the question , why did you not know that Georgia had RICO laws on the books ? Is it because you are black ?

 

I never said they didn't...lol.

You're not very good at this. Are you?

 

I’m very good at hanging you with your own words.

 

Obviously not, because those aren't my words... LMAO!

 

Yes the judge said there was no identified crime here, nothing the defense could possible "defend" against, just as I have been saying for years and you nor anyone else able to point to one. We have a fundamental principle in this country in that if the government is going to charge you with a crime in order to punish you it has to be able to tell you WHAT IS THE CRIME what the law you violated so you can mount a defense. The vast majority of writings on this matter have pointed out Willis can't state exactly what was this crime he committed.

And of course RICO has to based on the underlying crimes.......

 

That's not a quick fix since that has been the problem from the get go, the can't, there was no crime to begin with.

 

The judge stated that the crime wasn't spelled out with enough specificity.

There is no reason to believe the specifics can't be provided, thus allowing the charge to be readmitted.

Also, let's remember that there are numerous individual charges against Trump in this case.

Other courts have found Trump guilty on some of these charges, passing state supreme court review - the cases where Trump was shown not to be qualified to be on the ballot.

 

1. They can't be resubmitted without a new grand jury, new pre-trial calendar, due process, etc. Additionally, there's no reason to think that if Fani could have been more specific, she would have been. Being "more specific" could also mean it's possible the judge still dismisses them for not being valid.

2. States didn't bring up these "charges" against Trump. Those were civil matters, there was no guilty verdict, and they were overturned for being the illegal rantings of lunatics who were attacking our democracy. It was determined that he was qualified to be on the ballot and the unelected officials who removed him did so in a flagrant violation of our Constitution.

 

Your 1 will be worked out. It's only one charge.

Your 2 seems counter to what happened. For example, in CO, the case was whether Trump could pass the test of section 3. Trump's phone call is evidence in that case. And, their case found Trump disqualified, as confirmed by their SC.

There is no violation of our Constitution here.

 

Not necessarily, every state is different so I'd have to research some more, but the RICO charge relies on these underlying charges. A major part of their case was the defendants trying to convince state officials to act in their benefit. If they separate them out they could have double jeopardy issues because this information will come up during trial, even if they aren't charged, in attempt to prove the RICO charges. By prosecuting this case to its fullest they could ruin their ability to bring these underlying charges. Double jeopardy is a major reason why these charges were dismissed in the first place.

Nobody ever gave Griswold or the state courts that authority. They all blatantly violated the Constitution. You should read the dissent in that case, even the liberal SCOTUS judges were citing it. That was the correct decision under state and federal law, but everyone else had a terminal case of TDS. Griswold could only verify the qualifications clause, which also happens to only be the checkboxes on the form she validates. That is her function as SoS. Maine, and a large extent Colorado, lied and said Trump falsified his application to keep him off the ballot. They severely overstepped their authority and attacked our democracy. Additionally, the phone call was illegally recorded which poses fruit of the poisonous tree issues on top of the basic fact that people rely on the initial false media reports before the audio was released. It's getting laughable how many people still bring up the phone call and believe Trump was asking someone to falsify votes.

 

Sure they are , you accused blacks of screwing up the Trump prosecution in Georgia because they were black. A clearly racist post.

 

Even if it is decided that "the phone call" can't be fixed to continue as a crime, it is still very clear evidence.

There is absolutely NO doubt that Trump was asking someone to falsify the outcome of the state election.

 

Blacks are involved in corruption and criminal activity at a higher rate than any other demographic. How is it racist to point that out?

 

Only if you haven't read the transcript.

 

I've read the transcript and listened to the phone call recording.

There is NO question about what Trump is trying to do.

 

There's no evidence of what you think he was trying to do.

 

So, it's a comprehension problem. Okay, not any better.

 

They are ? In DA offices , coast to coast ? You can prove this or is this just another racist post to justify your previous racist post ?

BTW, implicit in your claim is that whites are involved in more corruption and criminal activities by volume. So it is likely that he Orange Stain that you worship is not only a racist but a felon.

 

IF they are, consider the fact that racism still exists and they have a lot more hurdles to over come just to get anywhere in life. People ( regardless of color) who turn to crime , many times do so out of desperation. Not all are hardened psychopathic criminals from birth. (again....regardless of pigmentation)

 

YES they could not specifically name the crime.................don't you think that if the government is going to charge you with a crime they should tell you not just specifically but unequivocally what is that crime so you can prepare a defense against the accusation? As I and others have stated for months THAT is the issue here she brought no specificity to the charges, they did not make sense as she stretched the law and tried to wrap these possible minor unconnected charges into some big RICO case.

There is EVERY reason to believe the defendant would be FULLY informed in the GREATEST specificity EXACTLY what are the charges they face. EVERYONE had that right it is call DUE PROCESS. You do support due process under the law don't you?

Yes charges that are rapidly being sweetheart pled away or dropped by the judge let's remember half the charges dropped were against those other individuals and several of those have outstanding motions to dismiss.

NO court has found Trump guilty on anything to do with these charges these charges are specific to GA. And those courts that attempted to get him removed from ballots were also 9-0 overruled by the SCOTUS for their lack of due process and jurisdiction in the matter.

 

Yes, I've stated that, too. In the opinion of the judge, the charge wasn't specific enough. He left open an opportunity to make the charge more specific.

Do you believe the president should be allowed to coerce state election officials to tilt a presidential election toward himself?

THIS is the case which addresses Trump's election activities.

The USSC ruling concerning section 3 is broadly derided by legal experts as not being Constitutional.

However, my own view is that it is better that insurrectionists, including those running for congress and the presidency, should be allowed on ballots where the people can decide if insurrection is something they want to vote for. Going forward, there is too much opportunity for section 3 to be used in a purely political manner. Of course, that's not an opinion that the USSC could choose, as my opinion here is unconstitutional - just like yours, I suspect.

 

That's hilarious. Let me guess: Luttig and Tribe????
The President is not an officer of the United States and never has been. The courts have said that a million times. The only reason these "experts" said otherwise was due to TDS. The law and the courts have clearly stated otherwise. Additionally, there were multiple drafts of Section 3, some of which included the President. They chose to remove that position from the ratified version. This was debated ad nauseam on this forum, and I can't remember how many times I had to tell people this. Nobody could refute me in any way, yet people continued repeating this nonsense, citing Luttig and Tribe despite it being patently obvious one guy was suffering from massive TDS to the point of paranoia, and the other idiot just agreed with him without saying why. It was truly a case of dumb and dumber on MSNBC and CNN. Neither of them had a pair of functional firing neurons when it came to this case, whatsoever.

Edit: LOL called it.


Section 3:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress [Not Trump], or as an officer of the United States [Not Trump], or as a member of any State legislature [Not Trump], or as an executive or judicial officer of any State [Not Trump], to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Even if you somehow believe Trump "engaged in insurrection" for some absurd reason, you have to show how Section 3 applies to the President... which you can't because it doesn't and never has.

 

The idea that the president isn't an officer of the USA is not considered serious by anyone whose opinion matters.

The USSC clearly does not agree with you, for example.

 

Yes. The reason is that you're cherrypicking. It's a matter of poverty, not race. Poorer whites are involved in more crimes than wealthier whites. The percentage of blacks living at or below poverty levels is higher than that of whites.