LIVE THREAD BREAKING...Trump Indicted

[Kamaji]

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

And none of that will be implicated unless (a) the prosecutor refuses to provide a bill of particulars after Trump requests one, (b) the court refuses to dismiss the indictment for failure to state the underlying facts, and (c) the case goes to trial and Trump is convicted.

Why do you think the NY Penal Code provides for a bill of particulars?  Just for shits and giggles?

If the indictment is deficient, then the course of action is to either have it dismissed, or have it supplemented via a bill of particulars.

[MeshugeMikey]

And none of that will be implicated unless (a) the prosecutor refuses to provide a bill of particulars after Trump requests one, (b) the court refuses to dismiss the indictment for failure to state the underlying facts, and (c) the case goes to trial and Trump is convicted.

Why do you think the NY Penal Code provides for a bill of particulars?  Just for shits and giggles?

If the indictment is deficient, then the course of action is to either have it dismissed, or have it supplemented via a bill of particulars.

the accused MIGHT BE  less worroed about the NYC case that the GEORGIA CASE...

that hes as worried as he clealy is...points toward an expected conviction.

his people..sorry lot though they are.... have infomed the donny that it looks very very BAD for him

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I personally think the Georgia case is utter crap.  Trump clearly believed personally that there was large-scale fraud in Georgia.  Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial because criminality requires criminal intent, and that is a subjective state of mind.

If he believed there was fraud, then asking the governor of that state to get evidence of that fraud is perfectly legal.  It's only if he didn't believe it, and is asking the state to manufacture false evidence of fraud, that criminality arguably occurs.

[Kamaji]

I personally think the Georgia case is utter crap.  Trump clearly believed personally that there was large-scale fraud in Georgia.  Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial because criminality requires criminal intent, and that is a subjective state of mind.

If he believed there was fraud, then asking the governor of that state to get evidence of that fraud is perfectly legal.  It's only if he didn't believe it, and is asking the state to manufacture false evidence of fraud, that criminality arguably occurs.

[MeshugeMikey]

I personally think the Georgia case is utter crap.  Trump clearly believed personally that there was large-scale fraud in Georgia.  Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial because criminality requires criminal intent, and that is a subjective state of mind.

If he believed there was fraud, then asking the governor of that state to get evidence of that fraud is perfectly legal.  It's only if he didn't believe it, and is asking the state to manufacture false evidence of fraud, that criminality arguably occurs.

Found not gullty by reason of insanity.....

the suspect had NO IDEA......never has had..and  never will

[roamer_1]

I personally think the Georgia case is utter crap.  Trump clearly believed personally that there was large-scale fraud in Georgia.  Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial because criminality requires criminal intent, and that is a subjective state of mind.

If he believed there was fraud, then asking the governor of that state to get evidence of that fraud is perfectly legal.  It's only if he didn't believe it, and is asking the state to manufacture false evidence of fraud, that criminality arguably occurs.

That's right.

[Hoodat]

I personally think the Georgia case is utter crap.  Trump clearly believed personally that there was large-scale fraud in Georgia.

I'm 100% certain that there has been fraud on the GOP side in the last five Georgia elections - 2020 primary and general, 2021 runoff, and 2922 primary and general.

[roamer_1]

I'm 100% certain that there has been fraud on the GOP side in the last five Georgia elections - 2020 primary and general, 2021 runoff, and 2922 primary and general.

I have followed your relentless reporting on the subject, and I will back you on that.

Even so, the only corruption that matters is the corruption you can prove in court.

There IS some use outside of that maxim - If you can convince the People, they may move the legislature(s) without the court... BUT, proof in court, I would say, is the standard.

[Kamaji]

I'm 100% certain that there has been fraud on the GOP side in the last five Georgia elections - 2020 primary and general, 2021 runoff, and 2922 primary and general.

Fraud committed by the GOP, or against the GOP??

[corbe]

   Ronna is unavailable for comment on the former charge.

[Hoodat]

Fraud committed by the GOP, or against the GOP??

By the GOP, against candidates they don't like.  I had a friend who was going to run against Hank Johnson in GA-4.  But because she wouldn't bow to the State GOP, they found another candidate to challenge her in the GOP primary.  They even filled out all the paperwork and paid all the fees of their token candidate.  Naturally, this token candidate ended up winning the GOP nomination even though he didn't campaign.

There was a lot of shady things that went down in that primary.  Thousands of votes disappeared from the tally.  So she challenged the election.  Not as a candidate (which is very important), but as a voter.  Which means that she was not challenging the results, but was challenging the integrity of the election itself.  The State GOP didn't like that, so they approached her and said that if she dropped the challenge, they would declare that the tally was wrong and that she was the real winner, making her the nominee.  She refused.

Not sure where that challenge is right now, but the November elections proved that the fix was in.  The State GOP basically cut a deal with the Dems.  The GOP kept all State offices in exchange for the US Senate seat.

[sneakypete]

By the GOP, against candidates they don't like.  I had a friend who was going to run against Hank Johnson in GA-4.  But because she wouldn't bow to the State GOP, they found another candidate to challenge her in the GOP primary.  They even filled out all the paperwork and paid all the fees of their token candidate.  Naturally, this token candidate ended up winning the GOP nomination even though he didn't campaign.

There was a lot of shady things that went down in that primary.  Thousands of votes disappeared from the tally.  So she challenged the election.  Not as a candidate (which is very important), but as a voter.  Which means that she was not challenging the results, but was challenging the integrity of the election itself.  The State GOP didn't like that, so they approached her and said that if she dropped the challenge, they would declare that the tally was wrong and that she was the real winner, making her the nominee.  She refused.

Not sure where that challenge is right now, but the November elections proved that the fix was in.  The State GOP basically cut a deal with the Dems.  The GOP kept all State offices in exchange for the US Senate seat.

@Hoodat

I really do wish with all my heart that I could argue with that,but I can't.