Trump indicted by Georgia grand jury in 2020 election interference case

[Social Media]

 

Former President Trump and a suite of 18 co-conspirators were indicted by a Georgia grand jury Monday on charges tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

The charges follow a more than two-year investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) into Trump’s efforts to pressure state officials to intervene to reverse his loss while also organizing a group of 16 Georgians to serve as fake electors and claim the former president had won the state. 

 

The indictment also targets several Trump allies accused of aiding in the scheme, naming Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell as co-conspirators. Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows also faces charges, as does Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer Trump mulled installing as attorney general.

In total, the indictment lists charges on 41 counts; it is the fourth criminal case brought against Trump this year.

“I make decisions in this office based on the facts in the law,” Willis said at a press conference late Monday night. “The law is completely nonpartisan. That’s how decisions are made in every case to date.”

Willis said Trump and the other defendants must voluntarily surrender by Aug. 25 at noon, and that she hopes to schedule a single trial for all the defendants within the next six months. 

The indictment brings sweeping Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges to weave together actions taken by numerous people involved in the plots, relying on a law crafted to address any criminal “enterprise.” It outlines 161 acts prosecutors allege furthered that conspiracy.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

 

[Tug]

Wouldent it be ironic if it’s a black woman who puts this serial fraudster behind bars at long last!get her done girl!

[bendejo]

I got a laugh out of this:

One letter off from the word he desperately wants to use

 

 

[placeholder]

It turns out that because the trial concerns actions taken during the Trump presidency, it's possible that the trial can be transferred to a federal court. If that turns out to be what happens, then contrary to what I've claimed elsewhere (I can't track it down) Trump or some other President, could pardon Trump were he to be convicted in that venue. There is still some legal question over whether a President can pardon themself, though.

 

"A federal law, known as a “removal statute,” generally allows an “officer of the United States” facing charges in state court to transfer the proceedings to federal court if the alleged behavior falls under their governmental duties.

Some legal experts have argued that transfer in these circumstances is not appropriate because interfering with the results of an election does not count as conduct falling within an officer’s official duties.

Meadows filed his motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where his request was assigned to Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/meadows-georgia-case-federal-court-00111382

 

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It turns out that because the trial concerns actions taken during the Trump presidency, it's possible that the trial can be transferred to a federal court. If that turns out to be what happens, then contrary to what I've claimed elsewhere (I can't track it down) Trump or some other President, could pardon Trump were he to be convicted in that venue. There is still some legal question over whether a President can pardon themself, though.

 

"A federal law, known as a “removal statute,” generally allows an “officer of the United States” facing charges in state court to transfer the proceedings to federal court if the alleged behavior falls under their governmental duties.

Some legal experts have argued that transfer in these circumstances is not appropriate because interfering with the results of an election does not count as conduct falling within an officer’s official duties.

Meadows filed his motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where his request was assigned to Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/meadows-georgia-case-federal-court-00111382

 

The counter argument is that Georgia's elections are held under state law and are outside the president's remit. The same argument that the offense was not committed in his line of duty was made in respect of Carroll's case and his appeal was rejected. 

 

Furthermore, if convicted even in a federal court, the offense was state law and so not eligible for a pardon.

Edited August 16, 2023 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The counter argument is that Georgia's elections are held under state law and are outside the president's remit. The same argument that the offense was not committed in his line of duty was made in respect of Carroll's case and his appeal was rejected. 

 

Furthermore, if convicted even in a federal court, the offense was state law and so not eligible for a pardon.

Thanks for the update on the pardon. As for the other part, I think it depends on whether or not Trump's efforts to undo the election are judged to be official acts. I would think not, but who knows? Aileen Carroll isn't the only incompetent Trump nominated.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The counter argument is that Georgia's elections are held under state law and are outside the president's remit. The same argument that the offense was not committed in his line of duty was made in respect of Carroll's case and his appeal was rejected. 

 

Furthermore, if convicted even in a federal court, the offense was state law and so not eligible for a pardon.

Also the trial will be televised.

 

And under Georgia State law prison time cannot be reduced or parol granted until statutory minimum tome behind bars has been served.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

This issue has been discussed before as Watergate contention in 1973 by Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr.:

 

“I think a President is entitled to have kept secret confidential communications had between him and an aide or had among his aides, which were had for the purpose of assisting the President to perform in lawful manner one of his constitutional or legal duties,” Senator Ervin told former Attorney General John N. Mitchell at the committee hearing Thursday.

 

“And I think also that is the full scope and effect of executive privilege. Since there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the President to run for re‐election, I don't think that executive privilege covers any political activities whatsoever. They are not official and have no relation to his office.

 

“I also take the position that executive privilege does not entitle a President to have kept secret information concerning criminal activities of his aides or anybody else, because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or makes it the official duty of a President to have anything to do with criminal activity.’

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/15/archives/nixon-and-ervin-will-quote-each-other-as-precedents-on.html

 

(from 1973 not archived)

 

 

[ozimoron]

The major crime here is the attempt to remain in power.