Of course he did.
The interesting one is Meadows. He’s avoided being tagged by any of the prior indictments, but not here. That could be a good or bad thing, especially if Willis has evidence of stuff he did that he hadn’t fessed up to with the Feds. It could blow up any cooperation agreement he has.
Putting Trump on TV doesn’t seem like exactly a cause to celebrate, to me.
Don’t forget, this will be a Trump who is unable to say (or tweet) anything, and who has to sit there while all his hand-picked “best people” talk about all the criminal shit he’s pulled.
He will continue to say and tweet anything he wants, not matter how inflammatory. Hell, he’ll likely be tweeting from the courtroom. What are they going to do?
The judge can have him surrender his phone during the proceedings, and can throw his ass in jail if he won’t STFU during the trial.
After hours, he can do what he wants, but in court - which was the thrust of Knox’ point - he has to still still, put down his phone and keep quiet.
He can appeal the decision and it could eventually end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Since there is no crime, it would likely be thrown out. This is a highly Democrat populated area that is trying to convict Trump. It’s all politically motivated and while he could be convicted by a court full of Democrats, a fair court would eventually have to see the case.
In the courtroom, yes, he won’t be allowed outbursts. If he even shows up for court. But he’ll tweeting up a storm outside of it.
The Supreme Court can rule on procedural grounds and order a re-trial, but they don’t act as a new jury. The defendant must show that some legal error has occurred that led to the conviction, not simply claim “I’m really innocent”.
I agree with you that I don’t think Trump will be convicted, and even if he is, I don’t believe they’ll actually punish him. He’ll simply refuse it, and no one in the government has the balls to enforce it. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime.
Oh, for sure. Until the judge locks him up. But Knox’ point was about the proceedings inside the courtroom being televised.
Fun Fact: Trump is now facing up to 721 years in jail from his 4 indictments.
Obviously he won’t get anywhere close to that much, but the numbers that will be scaring the ever-lovin’ shit out of him today are 161 and 2; these being respectively the number of acts in furtherance of the conspiracy cited in the indictment and the number of acts needed to be proven in order to receive a guilty verdict under the GA RICO statute.
As a reminder, that statute has a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. They can get to two acts with just the “perfect” phone call and Trump’s September 2021 letter (yes, 2021) to Raffensberger asking him to set aside the result in GA.
Democrat game plan: Throw as many indictments at Trump as possible in hopes one sticks since we can’t beat him in an election.
Fun fact: Trump will not go to prison.
As long as he’s a candidate, I agree with this: no one has the will to seriously punish him. But if he is convicted AND loses, all bets are off regarding jail time. People will rightly say that the public knew what was at stake and has spoken.
Of course, if he is convicted and loses, I sort of expect him to disappear in the middle of the night and end up in Russia.
In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court, including the Supreme Court Is not limited to procedural issues. An appellate court can, and often does review evidentiary issues. In doing so, it does in fact act as a jury. An appellate court can find that there was no evidence to support a conviction or that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction or that exculpatory evidence was withheld or that evidence that may have supported the conviction was perjured or manufactured. An appellate court can review these evidentiary and other issues on their own even without the issues being raised by the parties. In any of these and other circumstances the appellate court can reverse and render; that is it can acquit the convicted defendant which prevents a retrial.
It shows haw far standards have fallen that it requires someone to be convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before people will even just consider rethinking their choice of candidate.
Good news folks. Trump has found all the proof to election fraud. Apparently it was hidden underneath his healthcare plan this whole time.
Do they even watch Alina Habba’s TV appearances? They keep putting her out there, and she keeps face-planting.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1691467385201713152
If Steve Douchey is wiping the floor with you when he’s not even trying to, it might be time to let someone else speak.
I like how “report” was in all caps, but not “irrefutable.”
