The GEORGIA RICO TRIAL: Pretrial Decisions

BREAKING NEWS: Judge denies Meadows bid to move his Georgia trial to federal court

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/08/meadows-move-georgia-case-federal-court

 

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23925940/jim-jordan-letter-to-fani-willis.pdf

 

Excellent news, thanks for posting!

 

This is what I think. Jim Jordan needs to first subpoena the DOJ for an accounting of payments to local or state law enforcement agencies. He probably has a whistleblower, unnamed, providing this source. He would need to do tha first unless he has it already. Then he can subpeona any federal grants to the Fulton County DA. That is his oversight. And that is all he can do at the moment. It is a two step process I believe and I think he is trying to cut corners, which is the reason why he failed the bar exam to begin with.

 

Ouch! Two points, for Alwayssa.

 

CNN reports, "The swift conviction of Donald Trump’s former trade adviser Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress sent two warnings to the multiple co-defendants in the ex-president’s approaching criminal trials.

"The first is that nobody, not even former White House big shots claiming to be empowered by presidential authority, is above the law.

"The second is that loyalty to Trump can be hazardous and often gets those who show it cross-wise with the law.

"Navarro was convicted on Thursday for not complying with a subpoena from the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

"It showed how the rule-breaking defiance that powers Trump’s political operation often runs into a brick wall when it comes up against the courts, where bluster and false narratives have to submit to cold hard facts."

This tradition was established in Trump’s presidency when far-reaching moves on issues like immigration were blocked by judges. It was cemented when Trump’s claims of fraud in multiple states after the 2020 election created powerful political momentum among his supporters but were abruptly thrown out of courts because they lacked standing or merit. While the Navarro case is fairly basic compared to Trump’s four criminal probes, it is a cautionary tale that poorly crafted defenses can quickly crumble in court where the standards of evidence, rather than propaganda and political dark arts, prevail.

This extends to Republican voters. Their mindless admiration for Trump will severely weaken their party for a decade or more. That's a fact, and many Republican leaders know it and are saying so. Grassroots blind loyalty to Trump is so weak in conviction that they are unable to respond to this and other reports critical of Trump.

 

I suppose this fits under pre-trial decisions. The Special Grand Jury report is out and they recommended charging 39 individuals in this case. It appears Willis (like any good DA) only sought indictments for those she was confident she could convict.

Nonetheless US Senators were among the others recommended to be charged. Of course when asked about this Lindsey Graham lied to the press-the public again. It’s been adjudicated Lindsey. Your action didn’t fall within your official duties that’s why you had to comply-testify. You know this. Do the honorable thing and resign. Slime bucket.

 

Thanks for the update, but where's the link? And, what really makes a world of difference, in the level of importance of this story: what was his sentence?

A $100 fine would not send the same message, at all, as would a period of incarceration, obviously.

 

That was exactly what she claimed. She said if they request a speedy trial they waive their discovery rights, but they still have to comply with discovery processes to the prosection. She then cited a handful of cases she claimed showed precedent despite those cases having nothing to do with her false claims.

 

Let Peter Navarro speak for himself... pro forma... the left will have to look that up cause CNN won't be covering it..

 

this was to be expected, but I think Trump will try for himself though by December of this year.

 

The subtleties on this information is that it pretty much blows up any GOP argument that the indictments in Georgia were purely political in nature. Not that the GOP and die hard Trump Supporters in the House and Senate would continue to use those arguments, but legally and ethhically it nullifies any such argument.

 

Because he had none. He, as an advisor does not make that decision. The current sitting President does and Trump never made Peter Navarro activities as executive privledge. Hence why the judge ruled and any appeal to that effect will be denied, even by a Conservative Supreme Court.

 

I did an internet search on what you cited on what she claimed before I even responded to you. All I found out was opinions of what she really meant by conservative provocateurs on the internet claiming that is what she said. That's it. Nothing direct.

So, if you have a link on what she said vis a vis on what she claimed to have said, then by all means show it. You are the one who brought up the allegation, and you are the one who needs to provide a link. None so far I have seen in which you made this claim, at least the last couple of posts you have made in this thread.

If and only if you say is true, that should get the case thrown out almost immideately, even with Judge McAfee. No DA is going to risk the charges being dismissed on a dumb ass error like that. No DA I know of, conservative or liberal. There is a legal professionalism that they all adhere to even if some DAs make political hubris statements.

 

According to the two legal and Constitutional experts I've heard evaluate the ruling, it was "devastating" not only for Meadows' chances at appeal (which he's already filed), but for Trump's chances to move his trial, as well. While Judge Jones writes that he will evaluate other such requests, on a case by base basis, the analyst noted that every bit of the reasoning laid out in this ruling, would apply equally to Trump.

The irony, is actually very funny, and satisfying: Judge Jones cites arguments made by the Trump administration/team, itself, that were claiming that state legislatures had the power to cast the state's electoral votes, however they chose, regardless of the citizen popular vote totals, and that the federal government had no right to intervene. So, then, how could Meadows claim the opposite, now, that the casting of a state's electors was not wholely, a state issue, in which the federal government, played no role?

Three cheers for Judge Jones!

 

True, but since when has Trump listened to legal wisdom when it comes to filing motions? Hence my point.

 

That's exactly what she said...



https://technofog.substack.com/p/da-fani-willis-violates-the-law

 

She is not arguing that they cannot get discovery, it is arguing that the defendants in a speedy trial cannot use the ten-day minimum requirement to file a motion ten days before trial. and she cited state court decision in that argument in Smith v State. Care to look that up?

 

You should have read the accompanying link...

"This is not true. Georgia law requires DA Willis to produce a broad spectrum of evidence “no later than ten days prior to trial.” Ga. Code Ann. § 17-16-4. A Defendant’s request for speedy trial does not waive this obligation."

 

Sure, I think we all take it as a given that Trump will file every appeal he possibly can, just as a delaying tactic. But the writing on the wall is getting clearer, that Trump will need face trial in Georgia, which means, for certain, on camera. While I don't expect most of Trump's true believers to be swayed by any amount of proof, I still think there is value in having the events at the close of the 2020 election adjudicated openly, for all to see, and to be so accessibly part of the public record.

 

LOL, I read the law, and the accompanying Georgia State Case. Whoever was writing that op-ed link really do not know what they are talking about. The discovery of evidence is a must, even the Brady Court Case makes that clear, but what the indictment stated was that if a speedy trial was to commence, and the Supreme Court has never identified specifically what a speedy trial is, that the Discovery is a given. What they cannot do is within the 10 days of Trial file motions to delay the Trial. And that is what it says per the link. The article completely misinterpreted what the first statement is making. It is not discovery per se. It is motions before the court that cannot be made within 10 days of trial.

However, considering that March 2024 is the set trial date, the question you need to ask yourself is "is that a speedy trial under the 6th amendment?" And since the Supreme Court has not clearly defined in days or months what is a speedy trial, that is anyone's guess.

 

Yeah, having cameras in the courtroom is not going to make Trump happy at all I believe. But the one thing I worry about cameras in the courtroom is that the defense team may play to the cameras. But it will be interesting and I think more people will watch this trial than they did in the OJ Simpson trial.

 

Defense lawyers always "play to" the jury. How would playing to the cameras, for those watching on t.v., differ? I don't think they would depart from their defense case. If, however, they were to try, consistently, getting on some soapbox and speechifying on things not directly related to Trump's legal defense, I believe the Judge would bring that nonsense to a speedy end. Besides, if they are going to violate the judge's instructions, Trump can always just get on social media, where he doesn't have to compete against the visual of his active trial.

You are not alone in fearing that Trump will try to make this into a show, but I disagree. I've heard that in all the charging recommendations, by either the Grand Jury or Specl. Purpose Grand Jury, there was always at least one "no" vote. And that was in a situation with no defense, at all. It would be the height of foolishness to not play for that one "no" vote, at trial. And I see the better path to that, as involving a show of self restraint and decorum, not a disorderly casting off of the judge's directions.

 

There is a difference between playing to the jury and playing to the camera. The judge will need to set clear rules on both sides in which to not lose control of the courtroom, unlike the OJ Simpson trial did. But it is the one thing I worry about when those cameras are in play.

Look, cameras have been in on certain criminal trials. Law and Crime and other website televise these trials. But most people don't really go into that thing. But with Trump, you will see instant and constant commentary from the left and the right, and hopefully, the jury will refrain from reading or listening to those opinions. And that is the other issue when this trial starts, will the jury be sequestered during the trial? We don't know at this time. Too early to tell.

 

Even in the OJ Trial, the defense team presented their case, effectively enough to get a "not guilty" verdict. So they did what they were supposed to do, in the court system. I did not really watch that trial. Is it all that you are saying, that you're afraid the defense will be more dramatic, in their presentation? They are entitled to be dramatic, up to a point, regardless of whether or not there are cameras present.

Yes, it's a given, that both prosecution & defense, being aware of that audience, might add a bit more flourish, to their cases, psy extra attention to their appearance, & so forth. I don't see the big concern there. At first, I'd thought you had meant that they would focus solely on trying to foment a Trump supporter riot, or some such. Now I really don't know, what you mean. Could you possibly come up with an example of the difference, which concerns you?

Oh, and while the trial is ongoing, I certainly don't think that those broadcasting it, are going to talk, over the proceedings.