Yep. Good recall. I had mercifully forgotten about that asshole.
I had a similar thought. I’m actually downright optimistic about this ruling because it shows a seriousness to move this case forward. Further, getting rid of things that might enable an appeal, cast doubt on the overall proceedings, or bog things down with more time-wasting defense motions seems to me a good sign, not a bad one
3 Likes
Nope.
Why don’t the judges do that BEFORE it goes to the grand jury?
And again…I must be naive but why didn’t the judge ‘evaluate’ the charges before it went to the Grand Jury?
Because there’s no case before the grand jury issues an indictment.
ETA: And there’s no pleading deficiency if the defendant doesn’t complain about it.
7 Likes
But what if there is a flying DeLorean involved? 
2 Likes
Because GJs determine if there is sufficient grounds to indict. Then it goes to a judge to begin trial proceedings.
3 Likes
Well, many people say they “love” their car. That wasn’t anything like the guy who claimed he would marry his laptop because he was against the ruling that made gay marriage legal?
The Founders did plan for this. McConnell flinched.
8 Likes
I have a question for you. I follow lawyers and former federal prosecutors, and you in a way, but only you have questioned the strength of the RICO charges. In fact most of the others have said the case is quite strong. My question is; what makes them wrong and you right?
This is not a criticism of your comments, I am truly curious.
And besides, think of what an enormous waste of judges’ time this would be. They are busy enough as it is with the cases that get through a grand jury. This system, aside from its intrinsic logic (see txlaywer), puts pressure on the prosecutors to do their job properly and thoroughly.
I’ve always thought that Trump had a defense for “just find me 11,whatever votes.” He could say, of course I meant that Raff. should conduct a further, legitimate review of all the votes cast. I phrased things as I did because I was confident that he would find that I had won by at least 11,whatever votes… Would the defense work? That’s another question, but if Trump was willing to point to other times he has phrased things poorly, it might.
Thank you. Unfortunately your facts didn’t matter for a lot of Hivers who have spewed a lot of vitriol at you because you suggested Fani Willis may not be this paragon of judicial competence that they’ve suddenly decided she must be.
3 Likes
If I can’t have a fling with @txlawyer, than I don’t want a fix.
1 Like
“In particular, McAfee ruled that prosecutors failed to specify what part of the federal constitutional oath and Georgia constitutional oaths Trump was supposed to have been asking officials to violate.”
Oh come the fuck on. Hey, make up 12,000 votes and just hand them to me and make me the winner, because fuck democracy and fuck the voters. How about they violated the entire fucking oath, the part about following the law. This kind of picking lint out of your fucking navel has to stop.
3 Likes
So it’s not unconstitutional to break the law, invent 12,000 votes and install any fascist you want in any elected office you want? What’s next? Violating the constitution is constitutional? And perfectly legal?
1 Like
Because they’re all forgetting about SCOGA, which is a very bad court that will definitely spring trump if he ever gets convicted. Plus, the indictment really contorted the facts to find predicate acts that fit the crimes alleged for RICO purposes. If you want more detail, take a read through that second post I linked at the outset of this thread.
FWIW, I regard the NY hush money documents case as underwhelming but still likely to obtain conviction, the J6 case as overwhelming and almost certain to obtain conviction, and the stolen documents case as idiot-proof but not judicial malice-proof.
7 Likes
Tell ya what, here’s the Constitution. You tell me where it prohibits that stuff. Then go read Bush v. Gore, just for good measure.
Trump was doing something different. He was arguing that so many votes had been stolen from him that it would be morally okay if Raffensperger stole just the amount needed to change the results. And besides Raffensperger should worry about legal trouble for himself and his staff if
he didn’t.
Fortunately Raffensperger knew that the vote count in Georgia was honest.