I grew up in Canada, where artists are the only visual media allowed in every jurisdiction and at all levels of the legal system. And I have a bit of nostalgia for seeing the sketches on the news; it added a real tone of high seriousness to the reportage.
Pretty sure I've seen them on US news for federal trials, and I think I could enjoy the trump proceedings via that medium as well.
There's a good case to be made for courtroom sketch artists for criminal trials. It captures the moment without making the discomfiture of the accused look like a peep show.
I grew up in Canada, where artists are the only visual media allowed in every jurisdiction and at all levels of the legal system. And I have a bit of nostalgia for seeing the sketches on the news; it added a real tone of high seriousness to the reportage.
That's basically the position here also. The absence of photographs and their electronic equivalents point up the seriousness of the accompanying words.
As if Trump has nothing else to do, he takes on the national US women's soccer team:
He wrote on his Truth Social site:
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America - No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA."
From the sounds of it, Trump is skating on thin ice continuing to dish the special prosecutor and demean the appointed judge. There is talk the judge might have to call him back into court and counsel him about consequences of contempt of court. Maybe even putting him in jail. Terrible, not so terrible.
Going back to the requested protective order in Trump's January 6 federal trial, Trump's attorneys argued [PDF] that it violates their client's First Amendment rights. The special counsel's office responded with a filing [also PDF]:
The defendant’s proposed order would lead to the public dissemination of discovery
material. Indeed, that is the defendant’s stated goal; the defendant seeks to use the discovery material to litigate this case in the media. But that is contrary to the purpose of criminal discovery, which is to afford defendants the ability to prepare for and mount a defense in court — not to wage a media campaign. The Court should instead enter the Government’s proposed order.
tl;dr - There is no First Amendment right to publicize discovery materials provided to a defendant to help him prepare his defense.
We'll see which way Judge Chutkan rules, but the special counsel's position seems like the right one to me.
As if Trump has nothing else to do, he takes on the national US women's soccer team:
He wrote on his Truth Social site:
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America - No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA."
I wonder what sort of venn overlap there is between "Americans who are influenced by what Trump says" and "Americans who care about international soccer tournaments".
Serious question. My guess is most people in the overlap would be soccer-apathetic, and only drawn to the issue because their established hero has started spouting off about it. Rather than pre-existing fans dismayed by the women's performance and now finding a champion in Trump.
As if Trump has nothing else to do, he takes on the national US women's soccer team:
He wrote on his Truth Social site:
“Many of our players were openly hostile to America - No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA."
I wonder what sort of venn overlap there is between "Americans who are influenced by what Trump says" and "Americans who care about international soccer tournaments".
Serious question. My guess is most people in the overlap would be soccer-apathetic, and only drawn to the issue because their established hero has started spouting off about it. Rather than pre-existing fans dismayed by the women's performance and now finding a champion in Trump.
There is a history between Trump and the US Women's Soccer team. When Trump was in office and the women's soccer team won the World Cup, a number of them said they would not go to the White House if they were invited. Megan was very outspoken then.
The comment shows just how vindictive the old man is. He does not let go of old grudges.
When just over half of American voters are women, why push their buttons at a
He should have said something along the lines of "Better luck next time," or nothing at all.
When I said Trump hates losers, I am thinking this is the motivation for his continued denial of having lost the last election. He challenged the vote in several state courts and lost all of them. Yet, he refuses to accept what the courts have said, and what many of his advisors have said.
This old man will march to his grave claiming he won the 2018 election just as he won the landslide 2014 election (he did not, Clinton actually won the popular vote) and had the biggest inauguration crowd in history in 2015 (far from it). He is the richest man ever. (No)
This old man will march to his grave claiming he won the 2018 election just as he won the landslide 2014 election (he did not, Clinton actually won the popular vote) and had the biggest inauguration crowd in history in 2015 (far from it). He is the richest man ever. (No)
No wonder Trump is all snippy at the Iowa State Fair.
Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are in possession of text messages and emails directly connecting members of Donald Trump’s legal team to the early January 2021 voting system breach in Coffee County, sources tell CNN.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before a grand jury next week. Several individuals involved in the voting systems breach in Coffee County are among those who may face charges in the sprawling criminal probe.
Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation.
Trump allies attempted to access voting systems after the 2020 election as part of the broader push to produce evidence that could back up the former president’s baseless claims of widespread fraud.
This reporting is based on anonymous "sources", but given that Willis is expected to produce multiple indictments of multiple people in the coming week this seems plausible.
As I understand it, the special grand jury will meet for two days for the prosecutor to give a summary of her case. In all likelihood, she should be able to announce an indictment the end of the week, or the first of next week.
Trump can be as snippy as he wants. He is going down as the most sued, fined, impeached, indicted president in history. Now, to get a felony conviction if not at the federal level, a state level. I would prefer a state indictment myself, because he cannot pardon himself at the state level.
Trump can be as snippy as he wants. He is going down as the most sued, fined, impeached, indicted president in history. Now, to get a felony conviction if not at the federal level, a state level. I would prefer a state indictment myself, because he cannot pardon himself at the state level.
I used to think no member of the executive branch would ever beat Vice President Aaron Burr in this department (indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey and put on trial for treason over a separate matter), but here we are.
I am reading reports that failed former Lt. Governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury. He shouldn't. I barely know him but he was, right from the beginning of this Witch Hunt, a nasty disaster for those looking into the Election Fraud that took place in Georgia. He refused having a Special Session to find out what went on, became very unpopular with Republicans (I refused to endorse him!), and fought the TRUTH all the way. A loser, he went to FNCNN!
IANAL, but this seems like something that was lifted directly out of a legal textbook as an example of witness tampering, especially that bit I've bolded.
Yes, it's going to be very interesting to see if his various judges take into account crap that he does in other trials to threaten witnesses, tamper with the jury pool, and etc. I rather think at least one of them will.
I've seen it argued that instead of jailing the monster, she might simply move the trial up--which is the one thing he wants least. That might be a pretty effective discourager, though it would have to happen in at least one case before we saw its effects on his behavior in others.
I've seen it argued that instead of jailing the monster, she might simply move the trial up--which is the one thing he wants least. That might be a pretty effective discourager, though it would have to happen in at least one case before we saw its effects on his behavior in others.
“‘I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,’ Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. ‘I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.’ . . .
“‘Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,’ Chutkan added later. ‘The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool . . . the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.’”
Ten indictments in the Georgia case, no details yet on who's been indicted, but we can hope...
My understanding is ten indictments returned by the grand jury, at least one of which relates to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election in Georgia, but it’s possible that some relate to other, unrelated cases.
And CNN is now reporting that a 98-page indictment has been unsealed. Numerous defendants are named, including Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Sidney Powell and others. I think they said 19 defendants in all.
All total Trump is facing over 78 indictments, including federal and state jurisdictions. The Georgia indictments include 41 counts between 19 people.
House of Cards, here. It only takes one conviction.
The interesting thing is Georgia law allows for televised hearings. I hope they can get close to the front of the line. Would love to see that before August of next year.
For those who are interested the full Georgia indictment can be found here [PDF]. A couple interesting points:
In addition to Trump and eighteen other named defendants the indictment mentions another thirty "unindicted co-conspirators". That's a lot of people who might be in legal jeopardy later.
Mark Meadows is included among those indicted, but only on two counts: the racketeering charge that everyone has been charged with and "solicitation of violation of oath by public officer" (charge 28). Charge 28 (p. 87) is the infamous call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, demanding that Raffensperger "find" enough votes to flip Georgia. I suppose it would have been impractical to charge Trump for this and not Meadows, who was also on the call. It's long been speculated the Meadows has avoided indictment up until now by cooperating with prosecutors. His indictment here points to a few possibilities.
Meadows was cooperating with the feds but not the state of Georgia
Meadows was cooperating with both the feds and Georgia and this was the best deal Georgia was willing to offer him
Meadows is cooperating with neither and has avoided federal indictment so far by luck and/or Jack Smith's uncertainty about obtaining a conviction against him
I am personally disappointed that Lindsay Graham is not among the indicted. He rather publicly lobbied the government of Georgia to overturn their election and submit a Trumpist slate of presidential electors. Maybe he did this on his own initiative, meaning Georgia's RICO statute wouldn't apply to him.
The interesting thing is Georgia law allows for televised hearings. I hope they can get close to the front of the line. Would love to see that before August of next year.
Fani Willis, in her public statement, said she would argue for a trial date in the next six months but that the ultimate decision was in the hands of the judge assigned to the case.
Another point about Georgia law on pardons. The convicted person has to serve out his or her sentence and then have a clean record for five years. It is granted only by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Governor cannot give a pardon.
Another point about Georgia law on pardons. The convicted person has to serve out his or her sentence and then have a clean record for five years. It is granted only by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Governor cannot give a pardon.
Another thing to note is that a conviction under Georgia’s RICO statute, as I understand it, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
Another point about Georgia law on pardons. The convicted person has to serve out his or her sentence and then have a clean record for five years. It is granted only by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Governor cannot give a pardon.
Another thing to note is that a conviction under Georgia’s RICO statute, as I understand it, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
And now I know it's possible to have 4 pairs of crossed fingers and 2 of toes all at once.
Another point about Georgia law on pardons. The convicted person has to serve out his or her sentence and then have a clean record for five years. It is granted only by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Governor cannot give a pardon.
I don't know the exact history of criminal pardons in Georgia, but I do know that it is a felony disenfranchisement state. No one convicted of a felony can vote until they've completed their sentence, including probation, parole, and paying off any fines owed. As you might suspect, in the context of the American criminal justice system this affects black Georgians a lot more frequently than white Georgians, which was kind of the point when it was enacted. Anyone who receives a full pardon has, by definition, completed the terms of their sentence so you can see why the Georgia state governments of times past would want to make it as difficult as possible to have the franchise restored in this way.
Donald Trump probably doesn't care about his ability to vote in Georgia elections (though some of his fellow indictees might), but he's doubtless finding the knock-on effects of this policy regarding pardons to be inconvenient.
I would think if he would not be allowed to vote--assuming he were convicted, he would not be able to run for any office in that state.
Not when you’re talking about running for president. He’s a resident of Florida, so he’d never be eligible to vote in Georgia, or in any other state but Florida, even if he wasn’t a convicted felon.
Besides, there’re also the workings of the Electoral College to take into account. At the general election, when voters in Georgia cast a vote for “Trump,” the officers they’re actually electing are the electors nominated by the Georgia Republican Party. I assume those nominated to serve as Georgia’s electors do have be registered Georgia voters.
I assume those nominated to serve as Georgia’s electors do have be registered Georgia voters.
I'm not sure about that. The U.S. Constitution stipulates only that:
. . . no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I don't know if Georgia has any additional requirements, but under the U.S. Constitution you don't even have to be an American citizen to be a presidential elector.
I assume those nominated to serve as Georgia’s electors do have be registered Georgia voters.
I'm not sure about that. The U.S. Constitution stipulates only that:
. . . no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I don't know if Georgia has any additional requirements, but under the U.S. Constitution you don't even have to be an American citizen to be a presidential elector.
Hmmm, you may be right. I just took a quick look at this document from the National Association of Secretaries of State, and I could find a handful of states that are noted as having a requirement that electors be registered or qualified voters, but Georgia wasn’t in that handful.
In practical terms presidential electors are usually party loyalists who hold no federal elected or appointed office (i.e. "an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States"). In this case the three indicted fake electors are David Shafer (chair of the Georgia Republican party), Shaw Still (Georgia state senator), and Cathy Latham (former chair of the Coffee County Republican party), which seems fairly representative of the kind of folks who serve as presidential electors.
They all probably care very much about their ability to vote in Georgia.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon.
Not a chance. 19 defendants all trying to get ready for trial and exchanging discovery and taking possibly conflicting positions? RICO cases are complicated almost by definition. Not only will the trial be long, but it will take a long time to come to trial even if all the participants are acting in good faith to bring the case forward. Which they probably aren't.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon.
Not a chance. 19 defendants all trying to get ready for trial and exchanging discovery and taking possibly conflicting positions? RICO cases are complicated almost by definition. Not only will the trial be long, but it will take a long time to come to trial even if all the participants are acting in good faith to bring the case forward. Which they probably aren't.
My guess is that by the time they get to trial, there won’t be 19 defendants anymore. I suspect a good many of the 19 will work out plea deals in exchange for testifying against the remaining “big name” defendants.
Can Mr Trump ask for a trial in Court A to be delayed because he is appearing in Court B elsewhere?
I am reminded of a student friend of mine who asked for an extension on an English essay because it was due the same day as a Music essay. He then went to the Music department and got an extension there as well.
As you may or may not know Donald Trump promised/threatened to have a press conference on Monday (August 21) to present a report detailing all the "evidence" of election fraud that he has frequently referenced but never delivered. You will probably be less than surprised to find out this might not happen after all.
Former President Donald Trump's promised press conference to refute the allegations in the indictment handed up by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office is now very much in doubt, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Sources tell ABC News that Trump's legal advisers have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems and some of his attorneys have advised him to cancel it.
On one hand, if Trump was willing to take the advice of competent lawyers he wouldn't be in as much trouble as he is right now. On the other hand it provides a convenient excuse to back out of what seems likely to be an embarrassing debacle.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
I've always been confused by that particular terminological kit. If I think of the calendar days as a line of stationery things in front of me, and I change the day of the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'd say I'm pushing it forward.
But I guess if I think of the days as coming AT me, and I change the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'm pushing it back.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
I've always been confused by that particular terminological kit. If I think of the calendar days as a line of stationery things in front of me, and I change the day of the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'd say I'm pushing it forward.
But I guess if I think of the days as coming AT me, and I change the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'm pushing it back.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
I've always been confused by that particular terminological kit. If I think of the calendar days as a line of stationery things in front of me, and I change the day of the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'd say I'm pushing it forward.
But I guess if I think of the days as coming AT me, and I change the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'm pushing it back.
Must be a result of living down under.
Do you mean me? I've never been to Australia, or even the southern hemisphere in general.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
Agreed. FWIW, in all my years of dealing with alterations to court calendars, trials or hearings were generally “moved up” (sooner) or “moved/pushed back” (later).
I agree that usage can be confusing. It can be helped by the verb used. To ‘bring an appointment forward’ seems to me to be clearly moving it nearer in time - i.e. an earlier date/time, to ‘push it back’ means later.
A non-directional verb I think can be confusing if you simply ‘move’ something forward does it go further on in the direction of travel, or does it come nearer to you? Are you travelling through time or is time flowing towards you?
Comments
Yes, same in the USA back in the day.
That's basically the position here also. The absence of photographs and their electronic equivalents point up the seriousness of the accompanying words.
He wrote on his Truth Social site:
More here.
He just hates losers.
tl;dr - There is no First Amendment right to publicize discovery materials provided to a defendant to help him prepare his defense.
We'll see which way Judge Chutkan rules, but the special counsel's position seems like the right one to me.
I wonder what sort of venn overlap there is between "Americans who are influenced by what Trump says" and "Americans who care about international soccer tournaments".
Serious question. My guess is most people in the overlap would be soccer-apathetic, and only drawn to the issue because their established hero has started spouting off about it. Rather than pre-existing fans dismayed by the women's performance and now finding a champion in Trump.
There is a history between Trump and the US Women's Soccer team. When Trump was in office and the women's soccer team won the World Cup, a number of them said they would not go to the White House if they were invited. Megan was very outspoken then.
The comment shows just how vindictive the old man is. He does not let go of old grudges.
When just over half of American voters are women, why push their buttons at a
He should have said something along the lines of "Better luck next time," or nothing at all.
When I said Trump hates losers, I am thinking this is the motivation for his continued denial of having lost the last election. He challenged the vote in several state courts and lost all of them. Yet, he refuses to accept what the courts have said, and what many of his advisors have said.
This old man will march to his grave claiming he won the 2018 election just as he won the landslide 2014 election (he did not, Clinton actually won the popular vote) and had the biggest inauguration crowd in history in 2015 (far from it). He is the richest man ever. (No)
All those are two years out, BTW.
This reporting is based on anonymous "sources", but given that Willis is expected to produce multiple indictments of multiple people in the coming week this seems plausible.
Trump can be as snippy as he wants. He is going down as the most sued, fined, impeached, indicted president in history. Now, to get a felony conviction if not at the federal level, a state level. I would prefer a state indictment myself, because he cannot pardon himself at the state level.
I used to think no member of the executive branch would ever beat Vice President Aaron Burr in this department (indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey and put on trial for treason over a separate matter), but here we are.
IANAL, but this seems like something that was lifted directly out of a legal textbook as an example of witness tampering, especially that bit I've bolded.
I've seen it argued that instead of jailing the monster, she might simply move the trial up--which is the one thing he wants least. That might be a pretty effective discourager, though it would have to happen in at least one case before we saw its effects on his behavior in others.
“‘I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,’ Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. ‘I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.’ . . .
“‘Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,’ Chutkan added later. ‘The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool . . . the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.’”
House of Cards, here. It only takes one conviction.
The interesting thing is Georgia law allows for televised hearings. I hope they can get close to the front of the line. Would love to see that before August of next year.
In addition to Trump and eighteen other named defendants the indictment mentions another thirty "unindicted co-conspirators". That's a lot of people who might be in legal jeopardy later.
Mark Meadows is included among those indicted, but only on two counts: the racketeering charge that everyone has been charged with and "solicitation of violation of oath by public officer" (charge 28). Charge 28 (p. 87) is the infamous call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, demanding that Raffensperger "find" enough votes to flip Georgia. I suppose it would have been impractical to charge Trump for this and not Meadows, who was also on the call. It's long been speculated the Meadows has avoided indictment up until now by cooperating with prosecutors. His indictment here points to a few possibilities.
I am personally disappointed that Lindsay Graham is not among the indicted. He rather publicly lobbied the government of Georgia to overturn their election and submit a Trumpist slate of presidential electors. Maybe he did this on his own initiative, meaning Georgia's RICO statute wouldn't apply to him.
Fani Willis, in her public statement, said she would argue for a trial date in the next six months but that the ultimate decision was in the hands of the judge assigned to the case.
And now I know it's possible to have 4 pairs of crossed fingers and 2 of toes all at once.
I don't know the exact history of criminal pardons in Georgia, but I do know that it is a felony disenfranchisement state. No one convicted of a felony can vote until they've completed their sentence, including probation, parole, and paying off any fines owed. As you might suspect, in the context of the American criminal justice system this affects black Georgians a lot more frequently than white Georgians, which was kind of the point when it was enacted. Anyone who receives a full pardon has, by definition, completed the terms of their sentence so you can see why the Georgia state governments of times past would want to make it as difficult as possible to have the franchise restored in this way.
Donald Trump probably doesn't care about his ability to vote in Georgia elections (though some of his fellow indictees might), but he's doubtless finding the knock-on effects of this policy regarding pardons to be inconvenient.
He has until 25 August to voluntarily turn himself in. The Fulton County sheriff has said he will have to have a mug shot taken.
Too bad.
Besides, there’re also the workings of the Electoral College to take into account. At the general election, when voters in Georgia cast a vote for “Trump,” the officers they’re actually electing are the electors nominated by the Georgia Republican Party. I assume those nominated to serve as Georgia’s electors do have be registered Georgia voters.
Trump is about the only person I can think of whose appearance might be improved by a mugshot.
I'm not sure about that. The U.S. Constitution stipulates only that:
I don't know if Georgia has any additional requirements, but under the U.S. Constitution you don't even have to be an American citizen to be a presidential elector.
They all probably care very much about their ability to vote in Georgia.
Georgia prosecutor seeks March trial date for Trump and 18 others in election case. I wonder if it will end up being that soon. I am sure Trump's legal team will try and push it forward.
No, they want it after the election.
It may be a long trial under the Georgia RICO law. I think I have heard the Fulton Prosecutor is still trying a RICO case that has gone on two years.
Not that I think trial will happen in March 24.
I am reminded of a student friend of mine who asked for an extension on an English essay because it was due the same day as a Music essay. He then went to the Music department and got an extension there as well.
On one hand, if Trump was willing to take the advice of competent lawyers he wouldn't be in as much trouble as he is right now. On the other hand it provides a convenient excuse to back out of what seems likely to be an embarrassing debacle.
Yes, that is what I meant his lawyers would push the date forward until after the election.
I know we are talking about semantics here, but in my limited thesaurus, forward means to bring it ahead of the proposed date. Afterward means to put it behind the proposed date.
I would broadly concur, though I would say that if you are moving something further into the future you are pushing it back/backward.
If he wins next year, I'll believe in God again. Because the Devil is looking after his own.
I've always been confused by that particular terminological kit. If I think of the calendar days as a line of stationery things in front of me, and I change the day of the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'd say I'm pushing it forward.
But I guess if I think of the days as coming AT me, and I change the meeting from Tuesday to Friday, I'm pushing it back.
Must be a result of living down under.
Do you mean me? I've never been to Australia, or even the southern hemisphere in general.
A non-directional verb I think can be confusing if you simply ‘move’ something forward does it go further on in the direction of travel, or does it come nearer to you? Are you travelling through time or is time flowing towards you?