DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

Commode Flusher wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

From JustSecurity, here's an annotated copy of the Jan 6 indictment with highlights and commentary on what they believe will be admissible following from the SC Presidential Immunity decision. Highlights are red (most likely inadmissible) to green (most likely admissible). Still lots of stuff in the middle (yellow) for Chutkan to sort out.

Link:www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/upload...

I'm not a lawyer, but it still looks like there remains a solid case for election interference but the case for inciting the violence of Jan 6 is a lot weaker than it would be on the full body of evidence.

That's a really interesting (and hopeful) analysis. Shows the difficulty the court and the lawyers will have in parsing all this.

I think it's too optimistic because it doesn't seem to acknowledge the crazy evidentiary rulings the SCOTUS made. They have essentially barred evidence of Trump's motives and his communications with anyone from the case. I don't see how any prosecutor could prosecute any criminal if they are subject to such crazy rules.

I re-read the SCOTUS ruling and they are pretty clear that (1) Judge Chutkan must make a ruling on the allegations in the Indictment and (2) the SCOTUS will review it all before trial. So that would be next term. Basically next July before the SCOTUS rules again. I don't see this ever going to trial. I really hope the prosecution charges Trump's co-conspirators and starts putting all the evidence against Trump into those criminal proceedings. I think that's the most justice America is going to get here.

Commode Flusher wrote:

I would never want to be in Judge Merchan's position of having to sentence Trump. I can't imagine the pressure. Merchan even has his family's safety to think of -- we know how many MAG@s react to adverse opinions. Then he has the optics pressures of sentencing a presidential candidate, which he should discount completely as no one is supposed to be above the law, but how do you discount that in this insane society? Merchan also has a criminal case before him where it would normally be easy to sentence a defendant to a fine and short probation. But Merchan has this criminal jackass Trump who has violated multiple court orders, show nothing but scorn for the court and the judicial system, and is absolutely unrepentant and unremorseful despite clear guilt. How do you let Trump off easy? It's almost impossible.

I suppose the easy thing for Merchan to do here would be kick sentencing until after the election, and then if Trump wins, figure out another way to stay it. The prosecution has nicely handed him that out for now.

Link:www.foxnews.com/us/bragg-defers-mercha...

RETARD ALERT wrote:

Commode Flusher wrote:

I would never want to be in Judge Merchan's position of having to sentence Trump. I can't imagine the pressure. Merchan even has his family's safety to think of -- we know how many MAG@s react to adverse opinions. Then he has the optics pressures of sentencing a presidential candidate, which he should discount completely as no one is supposed to be above the law, but how do you discount that in this insane society? Merchan also has a criminal case before him where it would normally be easy to sentence a defendant to a fine and short probation. But Merchan has this criminal jackass Trump who has violated multiple court orders, show nothing but scorn for the court and the judicial system, and is absolutely unrepentant and unremorseful despite clear guilt. How do you let Trump off easy? It's almost impossible.

I suppose the easy thing for Merchan to do here would be kick sentencing until after the election, and then if Trump wins, figure out another way to stay it. The prosecution has nicely handed him that out for now.

Link:www.foxnews.com/us/bragg-defers-mercha...

Remind me again of the violent outrage Trump supporters give to "adverse" opinions? Do they attempt to assassinate their political rival? Do they burn down cities? Do they run over an 80 year old man with an ATV? How about gang up and violently beat someone for wearing a hat? Do they attack veterans? How about shoot up political caravans in Portland?

RETARD ALERT wrote:

Commode Flusher wrote:

I would never want to be in Judge Merchan's position of having to sentence Trump. I can't imagine the pressure. Merchan even has his family's safety to think of -- we know how many MAG@s react to adverse opinions. Then he has the optics pressures of sentencing a presidential candidate, which he should discount completely as no one is supposed to be above the law, but how do you discount that in this insane society? Merchan also has a criminal case before him where it would normally be easy to sentence a defendant to a fine and short probation. But Merchan has this criminal jackass Trump who has violated multiple court orders, show nothing but scorn for the court and the judicial system, and is absolutely unrepentant and unremorseful despite clear guilt. How do you let Trump off easy? It's almost impossible.

I suppose the easy thing for Merchan to do here would be kick sentencing until after the election, and then if Trump wins, figure out another way to stay it. The prosecution has nicely handed him that out for now.

Link:www.foxnews.com/us/bragg-defers-mercha...

Remind me again of the violent outrage Trump supporters give to "adverse" opinions? Do they attempt to assassinate their political rival?

Commode Flusher wrote:

RETARD ALERT wrote:

Remind me again of the violent outrage Trump supporters give to "adverse" opinions? Do they attempt to assassinate their political rival?

Not that I'm aware of. I mean maybe Nancy Pelosi, but that was more a failed kidnapping than an assassination attempt.

Do they burn down cities?

Not that I'm aware of.

Do they run over an 80 year old man with an ATV?

Not that I'm aware of.

How about gang up and violently beat someone for wearing a hat?

No, not specifically for wearing a hat. At least not that I'm aware of.

Do they attack veterans?

Probably. I'd say it's probable that some of the Capitol police were veterans. You could go look it up in trial transcripts.

How about shoot up political caravans in Portland?

Not that I'm aware of.

---------------------
I got to say RETARD ALERT, that those were pretty much a bunch of nonsensical questions. I get that you're trying a whaddaboudyou thing, but it really sucked bad. It just didn't work at all. Ask anyone. You look like a hysterical kid posting like that.

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

The view of the linked analysis seems to think that activities with private lawyers (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro (co-conspirators 1, 2, 3, 5 respectively)) and with campaign figures without federal government positions are not "official acts". This seems sensible, but we'll see how it sorts out.

Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment in the January 6 case following from the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.

Link:storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Co-conspirator indictments remain for actors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and a "political consultant" whose identity is not clear from context respectively). Indictment against co-conspirator #4 (Jeffrey Clark, then employed by the Justice Department) is dropped from the new submittal.

In the "Manner & Means" section the alleged DOJ involvement has been dropped. Communications with state officials "pressuring them to illegally overturn" results, creation of alternate electoral certificates (John Eastman), attempts to get Pence to reject state results, and pressuring Members of Congress to delay the electoral count in the immediate aftermath of violence of 1/6 remain.

In short, Smith seems to have taken out that which clearly falls within the bounds of the immunity ruling and left that which is plausibly grey area under the SC ruling and will thus force the courts to sort out the extent and application of the immunity ruling.

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

The view of the linked analysis seems to think that activities with private lawyers (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro (co-conspirators 1, 2, 3, 5 respectively)) and with campaign figures without federal government positions are not "official acts". This seems sensible, but we'll see how it sorts out.

Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment in the January 6 case following from the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.

Link:storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Co-conspirator indictments remain for actors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 (Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and a "political consultant" whose identity is not clear from context respectively). Indictment against co-conspirator #4 (Jeffrey Clark, then employed by the Justice Department) is dropped from the new submittal.

In the "Manner & Means" section the alleged DOJ involvement has been dropped. Communications with state officials "pressuring them to illegally overturn" results, creation of alternate electoral certificates (John Eastman), attempts to get Pence to reject state results, and pressuring Members of Congress to delay the electoral count in the immediate aftermath of violence of 1/6 remain.

In short, Smith seems to have taken out that which clearly falls within the bounds of the immunity ruling and left that which is plausibly grey area under the SC ruling and will thus force the courts to sort out the extent and application of the immunity ruling.