For those who don't live in the Atlanta area, you probably aren't familiar with an ongoing RICO trial being prosecuted in Fulton County Superior Court. It involves a gang leader and what started out with about a dozen other defendants. The trial began last January and still no jury has been selected. Several of the defendants have also since been severed along the way. I suspect that the gang case could be a harbinger for how the Trump, et al defendants' case will proceed----and that's after all 18 defendants have had their motions litigated. This will be a long, drawn-out process, one considerably longer than the federal cases.
Excellent distillation! One question, while Trump if elected cannot have the state prosecutions disappear, unlike the federal charges which of course he can direct whomever he makes acting AG to drop, he will still argue that the rationale underlying the OLC guidance against indictment or prosecution of a sitting President remains. That guidance is based upon two premises, one under Article 2 and another under separation of powers. The Article 2 justifications (importance of the job and a series of cited burdens on the Presidency which arguably would harm the country) would be argued by Trump lawyers to preclude prosecution until he finishes his term. The issue of whether state or local entities can prosecute a sitting President has never been litigated and is not addressed in the OLC guidance because the OLC only advises DOJ on federal matters. How do you see that playing out--I didn’t say it was an easy question! Thank you!
I do think there would be a compelling policy/constitutional argument that we can't have state or local prosecutors prosecuting a sitting president. Congress could probably even pass a law to this effect, I would think. The possibility for chaos and mischief is just too great. Understanding, of course, that the prosecution is merely deferred and could be taken up again once the president it out of office.
What are your thoughts about the Sep 17 2021 charges? Where is the line between an angry letter to a government official and a crime? The entire rest of the indictment looks very solid to me, but I wonder about this one letter.
Like you, I think it is less strong than the others and not sure I would have included it, but as part of the overall scheme and pattern I can see the argument for it. It is beyond just angry complaining and makes false claims to try to get Raffensperger to violate the law - and it's not coming from just an ordinary citizen, of course.
For those who don't live in the Atlanta area, you probably aren't familiar with an ongoing RICO trial being prosecuted in Fulton County Superior Court. It involves a gang leader and what started out with about a dozen other defendants. The trial began last January and still no jury has been selected. Several of the defendants have also since been severed along the way. I suspect that the gang case could be a harbinger for how the Trump, et al defendants' case will proceed----and that's after all 18 defendants have had their motions litigated. This will be a long, drawn-out process, one considerably longer than the federal cases.
Very interesting context, thanks!
Excellent distillation! One question, while Trump if elected cannot have the state prosecutions disappear, unlike the federal charges which of course he can direct whomever he makes acting AG to drop, he will still argue that the rationale underlying the OLC guidance against indictment or prosecution of a sitting President remains. That guidance is based upon two premises, one under Article 2 and another under separation of powers. The Article 2 justifications (importance of the job and a series of cited burdens on the Presidency which arguably would harm the country) would be argued by Trump lawyers to preclude prosecution until he finishes his term. The issue of whether state or local entities can prosecute a sitting President has never been litigated and is not addressed in the OLC guidance because the OLC only advises DOJ on federal matters. How do you see that playing out--I didn’t say it was an easy question! Thank you!
Super interesting and difficult questions, and I have no clue how it would be resolved! Let's hope we don't have to find out.
I do think there would be a compelling policy/constitutional argument that we can't have state or local prosecutors prosecuting a sitting president. Congress could probably even pass a law to this effect, I would think. The possibility for chaos and mischief is just too great. Understanding, of course, that the prosecution is merely deferred and could be taken up again once the president it out of office.
What are your thoughts about the Sep 17 2021 charges? Where is the line between an angry letter to a government official and a crime? The entire rest of the indictment looks very solid to me, but I wonder about this one letter.
Like you, I think it is less strong than the others and not sure I would have included it, but as part of the overall scheme and pattern I can see the argument for it. It is beyond just angry complaining and makes false claims to try to get Raffensperger to violate the law - and it's not coming from just an ordinary citizen, of course.
That makes sense. But I think I'd be willing to drop this charge if he cops to everything else. :)
It's always good to give the jury something to compromise over . . . .