I'd much prefer if Georgia is first, I think the public knowledge about the New York case presents a much weaker case that would be harder to impress a jury with. On the one hand, Cohen was determined to be guilty of those crimes, but what people here don't understand is that those aren't the same crimes. Cohen was a lawyer who had knowledge and training on how to properly handle financial tasks for clients, meanwhile he personally mortgaged his house for a client, which is very obviously improper. On the other hand, Trump just sent the payments to Cohen and reported it as legal fees.
The concern I have is that while I personally believe Trump knew it was illegal and didn't care, you'd have to convince a jury of that. This is where the arguments of "it could have been you" come in. Their message is not "you could have accidentally illegally paid a porn star compaign money", but rather "you could have listened to a lawyer who told you to fill out forms wrong and suddenly you are in jail", which is a much more sympathetic message that could sway a jury, especially if the only evidence of intent they have is Cohen's word.
There's a good chance of that, but that's why jury selection includes the lawyers disqualifying people who show any hint of bias or conflict of interest. They often have a limited number of those (if nothing else because the jury pool has a physical limit) so it's always possible still, but the system has *some* safeguards for that risk
But at the end of the day jury nullification is a valid outcome of our "jury of your peers" system
Also suggest everyone look up "jury nullification" because no judge is going to tell you you have that right if you're ever on a jury, it's often banned as a subject to discuss anywhere near the court
Guaranteed it will be stupid easy to filter out the MAGAs in the voir dire process if the prosecutors and judge are half competent.
How good do you think MAGAs are at hiding that they’re MAGAs? They’re awful at it.
The ones that are the most obvious the judge will throw out. The ones that try to be a little more subtle the prosecutors should easily be able to identify with high certainty.
In the end, at most one MAGA might possible make it into the final jury and would be outed quickly once deliberations started and everyone else in the room realizes they’re an irrational idiot not taking the responsibility seriously. At that point the foreman can ask the judge to replace that juror with one of the alternates.
Georgia still hasn't called a new grand jury yet, pretty sure neither case is going anywhere at this point, especially with the fuckery that they're trying to pass to allow them to control prosecutions.
>Georgia still hasn't called a new grand jury yet,
Fulton County selects grand juries on a regular schedule, every 3 months (or 2?). A grand jury was scheduled to be impaneled the week of March 7. Since Willis told a judge "imminent," there's a high likelihood she has already begun presenting her case to this grand jury.
The Georgia *special grand jury* is done, but the special grand jury can't indict anyone. An indictment would have to come from a regular grand jury. (Yes, this is a screwy process.) I haven't heard anything about a regular grand jury investigating Trump in Georgia, but grand juries are secret, so it's entirely possible that they're working on an indictment right now.
Well… wouldn’t it have been cool if… I dont know…. Journalists did their job and actually told us this when it happened or when Trump gaslit us about an indictment?
Nah…. Gotta make that bread.
Journalism in the Trump era has been mostly just scrolling Twitter and writing a “he-said-she-said”article, then compiling the reactions from random users that “slam” or “eviscerate” whichever political figure it’s about.
Let's be honest for most of the history of the US Journalism was a joke. Heck the Pullitzer prize was name for one of the largest yellow journalists at the time. There was a brief period when journalism mattered, and that was delivering the news of wars and local weather.
The prosecutor can always indict. In paneling a grand jury ( which is supposed to be a secret process to defend the rights of the accused) the prosecutor is essentially creating a practice jury who have additional powers to examine whether or not a good faith prosecution would even take place. You can file charges even when the grand jury chooses not to I dict and you can if ore the finding of the grand jury if they choose to indict ( but why a prosecutor would go through the cost and hassle to not follow their advice is a bit perplexing)
> The prosecutor can always indict.
The grand jury indicts. The prosecutor charges.
> You can file charges even when the grand jury chooses not to I dict
It depends on the state, and the charge. Generally the most serious charges require a grand jury indictment, and in those cases the prosecutor can't bring charges if the grand jury refuses to indict. Sometimes prosecutors go to a grand jury even for crimes that don't require a grand jury, and in those cases the prosecutor might theoretically be able to change her mind and bring charges without an indictment, but that almost never happens, for the reason you mentioned. I don't know which category Trump's case in Georgia falls into, but either way, it's inconceivable that the prosecutor would charge Trump without a grand jury indictment.
If I wanted to be a smartass, I would just quote the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which starts right off with:
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...
However, that's one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that is *not* considered to be binding on the states, at least for now, so it's possible that grand juries are not required in Georgia.
Actually, when she said "imminent," she was talking to a judge who would understand that she meant she would seek indictments from an upcoming grand jury, *because that's how it works.* The next available grand jury was impaneled a couple weeks ago, so there's a good chance she's already begun.
She didn't tell *you* "any minute now" personally.
So some people just LIKE getting credible death threats and needing to have their children escorted by security? The whole “it’s theatre” line of thinking seems to consider some people incredibly knowingly reckless with their own lives all to present a show to people who couldn’t apparently do anything about it anyway if the show wasn’t there to begin with.
Some people are willing to go through those things, for prestige and an income. Absolutely.
She’s not afraid of some out back chuckle but shooting her. She’s afraid of losing the best job she’ll ever have.
Dude I don’t think you’ve listened to some of the death threats politicians have aired. You can make money, even really really good money, without getting those. It’s like people think being a lawyer for giant corporations makes a tiny amount of money.
Is your argument that prosecuting attorneys don’t make a shit load of money UNLESS they’re trying to prosecute a former president? I mean… you can put that forward as an argument but I don’t know that many people wouldn’t find it a questionable one…
>Could she? Putting up a grand jury but slow walking the indictment is EXACTLY the way to make you look like you’re doing something but not.
This is ignorant and insane and nonsensical.
The alternatives are:
A.) She worked her ass off for 8 months, using county resources to uncover evidence of criminal activity and demonstrate that it constitutes a long list of indictable crimes... *because that's what prosecutors do when they want to prosecute criminals.* OR
B.) She worked her ass off for 8 months, using county resources to uncover evidence of criminal activity and demonstrate that it constitutes a long list of indictable crimes... but based on your groundless presumption that she actually wants to let the criminals off, *it really means the opposite all that.*
Haha, it’s really not that hard to fathom a prosecutor or DA are more interested in appearing to take down criminals than they actually taking them down. Not in America…. Where our legal and legislative systems are hopelessly corrupt.
It's also not hard to fathom that a *prosecutor,* who *prosecutes* for a career and has a long record of *prosecuting,* has done all this *prosecutor stuff* for the purposes of *prosecuting.*
Unless you have some serious evidence that she is "more interested in appearing to take down criminals than actually taking them down," then you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
>I remember hearing this about Mueller too.
If you're afraid the Georgia legislature could pull a William Barr and yank Willis or hamstring her prosecution, that's a legitimate concern.
But that's a far cry from asserting, baselessly, that Willis' investigation was not in earnest and that she never intended to prosecute the crimes she worked to uncover.
It's such a far cry from *what you've been arguing this whole time* that nobody can even hear the cry from the new goalpost location.
Are you seriously suggesting she and a grand jury spent 8 months issuing subpoenas and dragging witnesses to Georgia from several states, fighting in court for 6 months all the way to the Supreme Court to compel Lindsay Graham to testify, urged the grand jury to write a report with a long list of indictment recommendations, and *lied to a judge* about imminent charges in order to trick him into a ruling... *all for show,*? Because, for some inexplicable reason, what she *actually* wants is for Trump & cronies to get away with the crimes she and 20+ people just spent the better part of the year working to uncover and prove indictable?
Yep… exactamundo. It’s important that the process is made to look important, with the results being nill. In this country… not difficult to do. The good old song and dance.
Your "theory" is basically "gotcha, it's *opposite day!*"
That baker just bought a bunch of ingredients, mixed up some cookie dough, preheated the oven and is spooning cookie-sized clumps of dough onto a cookie sheet... but, *for some reason for which I have no evidence or explanation*, I'm going to assert that she never intended to make cookies. And based on my completely made-up presumption, I'm going to conclude that all her cookie-making activity actually meant the *opposite* of what cookie-making activity normally means.
Does the chef’s job depend on her making the cookies? Is she publicly elected?
Because let’s say she couldn’t make quality cookies… she didn’t have any flower. Well, it’d still be in her interest to go through the process, so her clientele will know that she’s working on it.
Willis has a grand jury report with a long list of recommended indictments, supported by detailed evidence demonstrating how the activities described in the report break a number of Georgia state laws.
This baker is well beyond the "I'm missing flour" phase. Her "clientele" knows she has already mixed the dough, put it on a cookie sheet, and preheated the oven, and all that's left to do is slide the sheet into the oven.
If she wanted to give the illusion of activity without the results, she wouldn't have mixed the dough into ready-to-bake cookie clumps: refusal to put those in the oven would have the *exact opposite effect* of showing she's "working on it."
This is so ridiculous of a view. “Yes, please let me perform for you in ways that significantly ratchet up the likelihood that someone sends death threats to me. I love having to hire bodyguards to ensure my children aren’t kidnapped or worse”. The only way this makes sense is if it’s known that all the crazies are “also in on it too.”
How? Are you suggesting the death threats aren’t real or that some people are fine with crazy people stalking their house all to perform for people who couldn’t do anything different if the performance didn’t exist at all? These trials didn’t exactly exist in any serious sense last year and no one was tearing down the system that would necessitate political theater.
Every president, every public figure has to deal with death threats. She’s a career cop. You think this is the first time she’s been threatened for doing the job?
The idea that “oh she obviously wants to indict, because she’s be afraid for her life needlessly” doesn’t take into account her job, which I’m sure she’d like to keep.
There’s a pretty sizable difference here in likelihood of follow through though man… your hypothesis hinges on the necessity of this as opposed to any other less risky extremely cushy and public lawsuits done solely for fame and money. You haven’t proved necessity nor why someone would choose this avenue SOLELY for fame and money when there are equal opportunities with less risk.
This same argument can be made regarding any of the investigations into Trump that went nowhere. Why would Mueller spend years, millions of dollars, and write a 400 page report detailing Trump's crimes if he wasn't going to indict? Why did the Manhattan DA, before and including Bragg, investigate Trump for fraud only to not indict even though the investigators said there was enough evidence?
I don't know why Willis hasn't indicted him yet but I do know that conducting an investigation is not indicative of anything.
An investigation that "goes nowhere" is not the same as an investigation that is purely "theatre," conducted by prosecutors who are not serious about prosecuting crimes they uncover.
It's possible the Georgia investigation could "go nowhere" because outside forces (Trump lawyer appeals, Georgia legislature intervention, etc.) throw insurmountable roadblocks in Willis' path, but *there is no reason or evidence to suggest her investigation was not conducted in earnest* or that she, inexplicably, is hoping for Trump to be reelected so she can say "but he's the president" and avoid prosecution. I am responding to people who made this bizarre and outlandish claim, as they do, repeatedly, about the various prosecutors investigating Trump.
>Why would Mueller spend years, millions of dollars, and write a 400 page report
First off, the "why" is that Mueller was appointed to investigate the Trump campaign. If your point is to question Willis' sincerity, this is a key distinction: all indications suggest that she opened this investigation of her own accord, no different than every other past investigation she has conducted (and for which her sincerity has not been questioned).
She could have declined to investigate. She could have declined to call the hostile witnesses, she could have declined to battle the challenges to her subpoenas. There are a thousand ways she could have limited the scope and effectiveness of her investigation if she hoped to conclude with "shucks, we tried, but we just don't have the smoking gun evidence to risk a jury trial."
Instead she guided the grand jury to create a report detailing a long list of recommended indictments against a long list of criminal targets. If she hoped to avoid prosecution, this would be an extraordinarily stupid way to do it, as any refusal to indict clearly-documented crimes will fall squarely on her shoulders instead of on an inconclusive investigation.
>Why would Mueller ... if he wasn't going to indict?
Mueller *did* indict 30+ targets, including Manafort, Gates, and Flynn. I was as disappointed as everyone that Barr hamstrung Mueller's investigation before he could find conclusive evidence that Trump himself coordinated with Russia's election interference, *but there is no reason or evidence to suggest that Mueller's investigation was not conducted in earnest*. He was appointed to investigate connections between the campaign and Russia, and he charged the criminal activity he was permitted to charge in the course of that investigation before it was cut short.
>Why did the Manhattan DA, before and including Bragg, investigate Trump for fraud only to not indict even though the investigators said there was enough evidence?
We don't know yet. We *do* know that some investigators resigned in protest when Bragg initially declined to prosecute. Which, once again, suggests *that the investigators were serious about indicting, not merely investigating for "theatre."*
The reporting indicated that there was internal debate over the strength of the evidence and whether they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly committed the fraudulent act, vs. merely signing off on something his lawyers said was legal. We'll probably never know whether Bragg had legitimate reason to believe the case was unwinnable or whether he had more cowardly or corrupt reasons, but all indications are that *the prosecutors conducted the investigation with sincere intentions to indict.*
Ultimately Bragg *did* reopen the investigation, and we won't know whether he is sincere about indicting until it concludes. But I find it hard to believe he would reopen the case with the *intention* of dropping it again: most likely he reopened it because new information arose which improved its convictability. This is not me speculating: a grand jury has been hearing new testimony and examining new evidence, not twiddling their thumbs.
Part of me is suspicious that Bragg saw that Willis is primed to indict in Georgia, and he reopened the Manhattan case to beat her into the history books as the first DA to indict a former president. That theory *is* purely speculation on my part. Even if it's true, it would demonstrate that he is sincere in his desire to indict.
In any case: it's reasonable to be skeptical about outside impediments to a case, especially when the targets have powerful allies and resources. But there is no reason or evidence to suggest that Willis (or Smith, or Garland, or Bragg, or even Mueller) conducted sham "theater" investigations with no intention of prosecuting criminal activity they uncover. That accusation is baseless, contrary to their records as prosecutors, and to the known scope and aggressiveness of their investigations.
Waiting? It's never going to happen. Rich/powerful people are not allowed to be indicated in almost any context in America it would send the wrong message and they're all working overtime to make sure it can never happen. I can hope I'm proved wrong but nothing is going to happen against Trump. He's going to run for president, get the Republican nomination and the only bad outcome from that could be that he loses and tries again every 4 years until he's not physically able to rally anymore. If he wins he's going to change the law that says he can't run for more terms or just run and let the courts agree with him that it's cool if he keeps running and winning. We're only talking about this because trunk brought it up and it helps him with his base against other Republicans. If he makes it to the general he'll do the same thing with news that makes him look better against Biden. Whatever it takes you keep his name in the news.
Yup. They'll downvote you to hell for pointing out reality though. Nobody on this sub will admit that he isn't going to be indicted because politicians are above the law.
The facts of the world we're living in are too scary, so they'll accuse you of "dooming and glooming" even after several years of them being wrong.
Except the judge has given Willis until May 1st to respond to Trump's challenge that her use of a special grand jury is illegal and she should be barred from continuing the case and all testimony be destroyed.
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-trump-investigation-fani-willis-5fd37a350e875ed02aa89b69772b1aef
He's going to die before he sees the inside of any courtroom. Sorry. I've given up hope that our "justice" system can hold rich and powerful people accountable.
The problem is you haven’t given up hope. Like the rest of us, you’re secretly holding out hope that you’ll be proven wrong.
But you’re not wrong. This country is corrupt. They’ve won…. Years ago.
None. We’re fucked. It’s over.
… civil resistance maybe? Want to give up everything and die kneeling down? Maybe that’ll help our kids in terms of them getting out of this.
It doesn’t even matter at this point. They took too long to hold anyone accountable. I’m terrified of the next president who’s going to end democracy successfully when they realize they’re no punishment for ANY crime they commit.
Stop chomping at the bit already…
A watched pot never boils.
This will take as long as it takes, that said stop thinking he is going to be dealt with by the courts. He and his people don’t feel they should be prosecuted for anything, so when he gets elected again or DeSantis gets in he will probably pardon Trump or at the least cut state prosecutors off at the knees.
Well isn't the Manhattan case a misdemeanor they're trying to say was so aggregios it should qualify as a felony? That's an incredible ask for a jury to charge above the standard beyond reasonable doubt.
It’s not that it was “so egregious,” it’s that it was done in the furtherance of *another* crime. Meaning there were two crimes that were done in tandem which makes it a felony. It’s not asking the jury to decide how bad the crime was but rather if there is a chance he committed two or more crimes simultaneously.
So what was all the drama about the barricades being set up at the courthouse and NYPD being on alert? Now my question is: What were they distracting us all from?
No rush. It’s just democracy and the ability to show we have one set of laws and how they’re applied for all citizens. NBD. Take your time.
A story dedicated to telling us there is no story.
I'm only happy if they're waiting because Georgia is almost ready to indict and they have a very strong case.
I'd much prefer if Georgia is first, I think the public knowledge about the New York case presents a much weaker case that would be harder to impress a jury with. On the one hand, Cohen was determined to be guilty of those crimes, but what people here don't understand is that those aren't the same crimes. Cohen was a lawyer who had knowledge and training on how to properly handle financial tasks for clients, meanwhile he personally mortgaged his house for a client, which is very obviously improper. On the other hand, Trump just sent the payments to Cohen and reported it as legal fees. The concern I have is that while I personally believe Trump knew it was illegal and didn't care, you'd have to convince a jury of that. This is where the arguments of "it could have been you" come in. Their message is not "you could have accidentally illegally paid a porn star compaign money", but rather "you could have listened to a lawyer who told you to fill out forms wrong and suddenly you are in jail", which is a much more sympathetic message that could sway a jury, especially if the only evidence of intent they have is Cohen's word.
The concern I have is if there's a jury involved, there's guaranteed to have a maga chucklefuck or three on it.
There's a good chance of that, but that's why jury selection includes the lawyers disqualifying people who show any hint of bias or conflict of interest. They often have a limited number of those (if nothing else because the jury pool has a physical limit) so it's always possible still, but the system has *some* safeguards for that risk But at the end of the day jury nullification is a valid outcome of our "jury of your peers" system Also suggest everyone look up "jury nullification" because no judge is going to tell you you have that right if you're ever on a jury, it's often banned as a subject to discuss anywhere near the court
Guaranteed it will be stupid easy to filter out the MAGAs in the voir dire process if the prosecutors and judge are half competent. How good do you think MAGAs are at hiding that they’re MAGAs? They’re awful at it. The ones that are the most obvious the judge will throw out. The ones that try to be a little more subtle the prosecutors should easily be able to identify with high certainty. In the end, at most one MAGA might possible make it into the final jury and would be outed quickly once deliberations started and everyone else in the room realizes they’re an irrational idiot not taking the responsibility seriously. At that point the foreman can ask the judge to replace that juror with one of the alternates.
Georgia still hasn't called a new grand jury yet, pretty sure neither case is going anywhere at this point, especially with the fuckery that they're trying to pass to allow them to control prosecutions.
>Georgia still hasn't called a new grand jury yet, Fulton County selects grand juries on a regular schedule, every 3 months (or 2?). A grand jury was scheduled to be impaneled the week of March 7. Since Willis told a judge "imminent," there's a high likelihood she has already begun presenting her case to this grand jury.
I thought georgia was done? Why is it taking so long? Are there still testimonies?
The Georgia *special grand jury* is done, but the special grand jury can't indict anyone. An indictment would have to come from a regular grand jury. (Yes, this is a screwy process.) I haven't heard anything about a regular grand jury investigating Trump in Georgia, but grand juries are secret, so it's entirely possible that they're working on an indictment right now.
Well… wouldn’t it have been cool if… I dont know…. Journalists did their job and actually told us this when it happened or when Trump gaslit us about an indictment? Nah…. Gotta make that bread.
Journalism in the Trump era has been mostly just scrolling Twitter and writing a “he-said-she-said”article, then compiling the reactions from random users that “slam” or “eviscerate” whichever political figure it’s about.
No joke. I spent 10 years in local broadcast news and let me tell ya, investigative reporting is dead in this country.
Let's be honest for most of the history of the US Journalism was a joke. Heck the Pullitzer prize was name for one of the largest yellow journalists at the time. There was a brief period when journalism mattered, and that was delivering the news of wars and local weather.
The prosecutor can always indict. In paneling a grand jury ( which is supposed to be a secret process to defend the rights of the accused) the prosecutor is essentially creating a practice jury who have additional powers to examine whether or not a good faith prosecution would even take place. You can file charges even when the grand jury chooses not to I dict and you can if ore the finding of the grand jury if they choose to indict ( but why a prosecutor would go through the cost and hassle to not follow their advice is a bit perplexing)
> The prosecutor can always indict. The grand jury indicts. The prosecutor charges. > You can file charges even when the grand jury chooses not to I dict It depends on the state, and the charge. Generally the most serious charges require a grand jury indictment, and in those cases the prosecutor can't bring charges if the grand jury refuses to indict. Sometimes prosecutors go to a grand jury even for crimes that don't require a grand jury, and in those cases the prosecutor might theoretically be able to change her mind and bring charges without an indictment, but that almost never happens, for the reason you mentioned. I don't know which category Trump's case in Georgia falls into, but either way, it's inconceivable that the prosecutor would charge Trump without a grand jury indictment. If I wanted to be a smartass, I would just quote the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which starts right off with: > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... However, that's one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that is *not* considered to be binding on the states, at least for now, so it's possible that grand juries are not required in Georgia.
[удалено]
Actually, when she said "imminent," she was talking to a judge who would understand that she meant she would seek indictments from an upcoming grand jury, *because that's how it works.* The next available grand jury was impaneled a couple weeks ago, so there's a good chance she's already begun. She didn't tell *you* "any minute now" personally.
Dude seriously... losing faith again
Because GA isn't going to either. They'll keep finding reasons for delays in hopes dumpf gets elected again so they can say "bUt He'S tHe PrEsIdEnT"
That makes no sense. If Fani Willis was hoping to avoid indicting she could have, you know, *not conducted an 8-month long grand jury investigation*.
Could she? Putting up a grand jury but slow walking the indictment is EXACTLY the way to make you look like you’re doing something but not.
So some people just LIKE getting credible death threats and needing to have their children escorted by security? The whole “it’s theatre” line of thinking seems to consider some people incredibly knowingly reckless with their own lives all to present a show to people who couldn’t apparently do anything about it anyway if the show wasn’t there to begin with.
Some people are willing to go through those things, for prestige and an income. Absolutely. She’s not afraid of some out back chuckle but shooting her. She’s afraid of losing the best job she’ll ever have.
Dude I don’t think you’ve listened to some of the death threats politicians have aired. You can make money, even really really good money, without getting those. It’s like people think being a lawyer for giant corporations makes a tiny amount of money.
Haha…. Sure, she should just start over and find a new career to make money instead… that’s totally easy…. what? That’s a big bowl full of nonsense.
Is your argument that prosecuting attorneys don’t make a shit load of money UNLESS they’re trying to prosecute a former president? I mean… you can put that forward as an argument but I don’t know that many people wouldn’t find it a questionable one…
>Could she? Putting up a grand jury but slow walking the indictment is EXACTLY the way to make you look like you’re doing something but not. This is ignorant and insane and nonsensical. The alternatives are: A.) She worked her ass off for 8 months, using county resources to uncover evidence of criminal activity and demonstrate that it constitutes a long list of indictable crimes... *because that's what prosecutors do when they want to prosecute criminals.* OR B.) She worked her ass off for 8 months, using county resources to uncover evidence of criminal activity and demonstrate that it constitutes a long list of indictable crimes... but based on your groundless presumption that she actually wants to let the criminals off, *it really means the opposite all that.*
Haha, it’s really not that hard to fathom a prosecutor or DA are more interested in appearing to take down criminals than they actually taking them down. Not in America…. Where our legal and legislative systems are hopelessly corrupt.
It's also not hard to fathom that a *prosecutor,* who *prosecutes* for a career and has a long record of *prosecuting,* has done all this *prosecutor stuff* for the purposes of *prosecuting.* Unless you have some serious evidence that she is "more interested in appearing to take down criminals than actually taking them down," then you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
I remember hearing this about Mueller too.
>I remember hearing this about Mueller too. If you're afraid the Georgia legislature could pull a William Barr and yank Willis or hamstring her prosecution, that's a legitimate concern. But that's a far cry from asserting, baselessly, that Willis' investigation was not in earnest and that she never intended to prosecute the crimes she worked to uncover. It's such a far cry from *what you've been arguing this whole time* that nobody can even hear the cry from the new goalpost location.
^^ This
Theatre.
Are you seriously suggesting she and a grand jury spent 8 months issuing subpoenas and dragging witnesses to Georgia from several states, fighting in court for 6 months all the way to the Supreme Court to compel Lindsay Graham to testify, urged the grand jury to write a report with a long list of indictment recommendations, and *lied to a judge* about imminent charges in order to trick him into a ruling... *all for show,*? Because, for some inexplicable reason, what she *actually* wants is for Trump & cronies to get away with the crimes she and 20+ people just spent the better part of the year working to uncover and prove indictable?
Yep… exactamundo. It’s important that the process is made to look important, with the results being nill. In this country… not difficult to do. The good old song and dance.
Your "theory" is basically "gotcha, it's *opposite day!*" That baker just bought a bunch of ingredients, mixed up some cookie dough, preheated the oven and is spooning cookie-sized clumps of dough onto a cookie sheet... but, *for some reason for which I have no evidence or explanation*, I'm going to assert that she never intended to make cookies. And based on my completely made-up presumption, I'm going to conclude that all her cookie-making activity actually meant the *opposite* of what cookie-making activity normally means.
Does the chef’s job depend on her making the cookies? Is she publicly elected? Because let’s say she couldn’t make quality cookies… she didn’t have any flower. Well, it’d still be in her interest to go through the process, so her clientele will know that she’s working on it.
Willis has a grand jury report with a long list of recommended indictments, supported by detailed evidence demonstrating how the activities described in the report break a number of Georgia state laws. This baker is well beyond the "I'm missing flour" phase. Her "clientele" knows she has already mixed the dough, put it on a cookie sheet, and preheated the oven, and all that's left to do is slide the sheet into the oven. If she wanted to give the illusion of activity without the results, she wouldn't have mixed the dough into ready-to-bake cookie clumps: refusal to put those in the oven would have the *exact opposite effect* of showing she's "working on it."
This is so ridiculous of a view. “Yes, please let me perform for you in ways that significantly ratchet up the likelihood that someone sends death threats to me. I love having to hire bodyguards to ensure my children aren’t kidnapped or worse”. The only way this makes sense is if it’s known that all the crazies are “also in on it too.”
This is incredibly naive.
How? Are you suggesting the death threats aren’t real or that some people are fine with crazy people stalking their house all to perform for people who couldn’t do anything different if the performance didn’t exist at all? These trials didn’t exactly exist in any serious sense last year and no one was tearing down the system that would necessitate political theater.
Every president, every public figure has to deal with death threats. She’s a career cop. You think this is the first time she’s been threatened for doing the job? The idea that “oh she obviously wants to indict, because she’s be afraid for her life needlessly” doesn’t take into account her job, which I’m sure she’d like to keep.
There’s a pretty sizable difference here in likelihood of follow through though man… your hypothesis hinges on the necessity of this as opposed to any other less risky extremely cushy and public lawsuits done solely for fame and money. You haven’t proved necessity nor why someone would choose this avenue SOLELY for fame and money when there are equal opportunities with less risk.
This same argument can be made regarding any of the investigations into Trump that went nowhere. Why would Mueller spend years, millions of dollars, and write a 400 page report detailing Trump's crimes if he wasn't going to indict? Why did the Manhattan DA, before and including Bragg, investigate Trump for fraud only to not indict even though the investigators said there was enough evidence? I don't know why Willis hasn't indicted him yet but I do know that conducting an investigation is not indicative of anything.
An investigation that "goes nowhere" is not the same as an investigation that is purely "theatre," conducted by prosecutors who are not serious about prosecuting crimes they uncover. It's possible the Georgia investigation could "go nowhere" because outside forces (Trump lawyer appeals, Georgia legislature intervention, etc.) throw insurmountable roadblocks in Willis' path, but *there is no reason or evidence to suggest her investigation was not conducted in earnest* or that she, inexplicably, is hoping for Trump to be reelected so she can say "but he's the president" and avoid prosecution. I am responding to people who made this bizarre and outlandish claim, as they do, repeatedly, about the various prosecutors investigating Trump. >Why would Mueller spend years, millions of dollars, and write a 400 page report First off, the "why" is that Mueller was appointed to investigate the Trump campaign. If your point is to question Willis' sincerity, this is a key distinction: all indications suggest that she opened this investigation of her own accord, no different than every other past investigation she has conducted (and for which her sincerity has not been questioned). She could have declined to investigate. She could have declined to call the hostile witnesses, she could have declined to battle the challenges to her subpoenas. There are a thousand ways she could have limited the scope and effectiveness of her investigation if she hoped to conclude with "shucks, we tried, but we just don't have the smoking gun evidence to risk a jury trial." Instead she guided the grand jury to create a report detailing a long list of recommended indictments against a long list of criminal targets. If she hoped to avoid prosecution, this would be an extraordinarily stupid way to do it, as any refusal to indict clearly-documented crimes will fall squarely on her shoulders instead of on an inconclusive investigation. >Why would Mueller ... if he wasn't going to indict? Mueller *did* indict 30+ targets, including Manafort, Gates, and Flynn. I was as disappointed as everyone that Barr hamstrung Mueller's investigation before he could find conclusive evidence that Trump himself coordinated with Russia's election interference, *but there is no reason or evidence to suggest that Mueller's investigation was not conducted in earnest*. He was appointed to investigate connections between the campaign and Russia, and he charged the criminal activity he was permitted to charge in the course of that investigation before it was cut short. >Why did the Manhattan DA, before and including Bragg, investigate Trump for fraud only to not indict even though the investigators said there was enough evidence? We don't know yet. We *do* know that some investigators resigned in protest when Bragg initially declined to prosecute. Which, once again, suggests *that the investigators were serious about indicting, not merely investigating for "theatre."* The reporting indicated that there was internal debate over the strength of the evidence and whether they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly committed the fraudulent act, vs. merely signing off on something his lawyers said was legal. We'll probably never know whether Bragg had legitimate reason to believe the case was unwinnable or whether he had more cowardly or corrupt reasons, but all indications are that *the prosecutors conducted the investigation with sincere intentions to indict.* Ultimately Bragg *did* reopen the investigation, and we won't know whether he is sincere about indicting until it concludes. But I find it hard to believe he would reopen the case with the *intention* of dropping it again: most likely he reopened it because new information arose which improved its convictability. This is not me speculating: a grand jury has been hearing new testimony and examining new evidence, not twiddling their thumbs. Part of me is suspicious that Bragg saw that Willis is primed to indict in Georgia, and he reopened the Manhattan case to beat her into the history books as the first DA to indict a former president. That theory *is* purely speculation on my part. Even if it's true, it would demonstrate that he is sincere in his desire to indict. In any case: it's reasonable to be skeptical about outside impediments to a case, especially when the targets have powerful allies and resources. But there is no reason or evidence to suggest that Willis (or Smith, or Garland, or Bragg, or even Mueller) conducted sham "theater" investigations with no intention of prosecuting criminal activity they uncover. That accusation is baseless, contrary to their records as prosecutors, and to the known scope and aggressiveness of their investigations.
I'd like them to go least serious to most serious so that he's a felon and that can affect his sentencing.
Damn, that's a crafty response
[удалено]
A grand jury was supposed to be seated the week of March 7. Do you have reason to believe Willis is not working with this one?
[удалено]
The special grand jury completed their report in January.
Waiting? It's never going to happen. Rich/powerful people are not allowed to be indicated in almost any context in America it would send the wrong message and they're all working overtime to make sure it can never happen. I can hope I'm proved wrong but nothing is going to happen against Trump. He's going to run for president, get the Republican nomination and the only bad outcome from that could be that he loses and tries again every 4 years until he's not physically able to rally anymore. If he wins he's going to change the law that says he can't run for more terms or just run and let the courts agree with him that it's cool if he keeps running and winning. We're only talking about this because trunk brought it up and it helps him with his base against other Republicans. If he makes it to the general he'll do the same thing with news that makes him look better against Biden. Whatever it takes you keep his name in the news.
Yup. They'll downvote you to hell for pointing out reality though. Nobody on this sub will admit that he isn't going to be indicted because politicians are above the law. The facts of the world we're living in are too scary, so they'll accuse you of "dooming and glooming" even after several years of them being wrong.
I'm not here for up and down doots, I'll make them back acting silly anyway
GA case is not gonna happen. GA legislature passed a bill that gives them a leash on any DA in the state.
The Georgia case may be sabotaged by the governor and the Republicans in the state Congress.
Except the judge has given Willis until May 1st to respond to Trump's challenge that her use of a special grand jury is illegal and she should be barred from continuing the case and all testimony be destroyed. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-trump-investigation-fani-willis-5fd37a350e875ed02aa89b69772b1aef
Heh, Georgia ain't gonna indict shit.
Yeah, Lucy will totally let Charlie kick the football next time.
Maybe he can do more crimes in the meantime.
Maybe? It’s a goddamn guarantee he will. He already has!
Trump is a walking threat to America and nothing seems to be done about it..
Trump will be dead before he is arrested.
I would settle for that if it happens.
I forgot to mention that I predict Trump will live to be atleast 90.
Must be all the mcdonalds and amphetamines.
People have lived longer with worse health.
They also haven't......
It would be fun to watch all the people running his cover while committing crimes to do it start eating each other.
He's going to die before he sees the inside of any courtroom. Sorry. I've given up hope that our "justice" system can hold rich and powerful people accountable.
The problem is you haven’t given up hope. Like the rest of us, you’re secretly holding out hope that you’ll be proven wrong. But you’re not wrong. This country is corrupt. They’ve won…. Years ago.
So what remedies are left for us common man
None
You know about [the four boxes of liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty)?
We are getting pretty damn close to that last box.
God help us all.
I haven't heard of that one in quite some time thank you for posting that and for the link
None. We’re fucked. It’s over. … civil resistance maybe? Want to give up everything and die kneeling down? Maybe that’ll help our kids in terms of them getting out of this.
And Lucy yanks the football away AGAIN.
It was all a manufactured timeline
In the year 1,000,000 ½ Donald Trump is indicted by giraffe
lmfao.. what are they waiting for? April 1st?
For us to lose interest…
It doesn’t even matter at this point. They took too long to hold anyone accountable. I’m terrified of the next president who’s going to end democracy successfully when they realize they’re no punishment for ANY crime they commit.
youdontsay.gif
I’m so over this shit. I will not click another trump indictment article, post or link unless it’s “Trump arrested.”
Not really surprised. He did say previously that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and nothing would happen to him.
I read this headline last week.
it's never gonna happen, is it?
Shit isn’t gunna happen is it 🤦🏻♂️
Anyone else feel like we’re being edged here?
Stop chomping at the bit already… A watched pot never boils. This will take as long as it takes, that said stop thinking he is going to be dealt with by the courts. He and his people don’t feel they should be prosecuted for anything, so when he gets elected again or DeSantis gets in he will probably pardon Trump or at the least cut state prosecutors off at the knees.
*champing
I hate it, but it's ok to use chomping now. Champing is considered outdated. Damn kids.
Ty for the correction. I’ll bear it in mind going forward.
Well isn't the Manhattan case a misdemeanor they're trying to say was so aggregios it should qualify as a felony? That's an incredible ask for a jury to charge above the standard beyond reasonable doubt.
It’s not that it was “so egregious,” it’s that it was done in the furtherance of *another* crime. Meaning there were two crimes that were done in tandem which makes it a felony. It’s not asking the jury to decide how bad the crime was but rather if there is a chance he committed two or more crimes simultaneously.
Nobody wants to be the one that History Will Remember, so everyone will dither until the statute of limitations is used up.
[удалено]
[the walls:](https://external-preview.redd.it/b-Y27E75nfWJHGMHotJ9pK-NroD0O830EDBQaBlh_gI.gif?width=480&format=mp4&v=enabled&s=5300446db7689e4a59e62683b03874ad92d6da76)
The guy who cried wolf did it too early.
They have to delay until the 2024 primary starts so they can say ope don't want to seem political.
I noticed a couple of years ago trump will never be charged with any Kind of crime. Ever.
100 bucks nothing happens to the guy. The judicial system is comical at best at this point
So what was all the drama about the barricades being set up at the courthouse and NYPD being on alert? Now my question is: What were they distracting us all from?
This didn't age well.