>

"Might" "Maybe" "Could" "Should"  -  FUCK THESE ARTICLES. How about we just do it and see what it looks like. Stupid fucking waste of space articles.
I'm curious to see how they'd actually manage to seat an impartial jury. >

I wonder, what happens if you tell the judge you honestly can't be impartial? >

You ready to be excused from the trial or jailed for contemporary of court. >

Let’s not speculate what the trial might look like, let’s actually see what it looks like >

I'm sure whoever would proacute the case are speculating on what he and the defence might do. >

I hope this isn't the closest we get to actually seeing him on trial >

This is a great article.
Fta (bold is mine) 

If Smith recommends that Trump be charged, Attorney General Merrick Garland would have to sign off, and a grand jury would have to approve an indictment.

Am I interpreting this correctly? If Smith recommends, then Garland is obligated to sign off? >

My understanding is that Garland is not obligated to follow Smith’s recommendations but if he doesn’t he’ll have to inform Congress why (he has to inform Congress regardless of what he decides). He’s already said he’d follow whatever the special counsel determines but if he wanted to not indict, he’d likely have never assigned a special counsel because the decision could be kept private. >

Agree that Garland retains discretion but must justify not following advice, according to Lawfare podcast. It may have been this one. >

A new reason to 'get out the vote' in 2024. >

Interesting article.    

Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."  It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court.


The committee’s nine members—including the Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—ran a tightly managed process. In televised hearings, they were able to play the snippets of videotaped testimony that they judged most effective. Prosecutors at trial, by contrast, have to deal with the live testimony of the witnesses before them. The rules of discovery mean that Trump’s lawyers would have access to full transcripts of depositions and to any exculpatory material the prosecutors possess. Evidentiary disputes, such as the one over whether Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that a Secret Service agent told her about an altercation in a Presidential vehicle counted as inadmissible hearsay, would be addressed not by tweets but by litigation. 

In other words, expect it to take years.

Trump has made many frivolous claims of executive privilege, including one, involving a document request from the January 6th committee, that the Supreme Court rejected. A trial would no doubt bring new objections and appeals, some of which might be more substantive. All of this would take time, and the first Republican primaries for 2024 are fast approaching. An indictment and a trial would not legally bar Trump from running for President again. (Indeed, any attempt to block him from office if he’s convicted would face what are almost certainly insurmountable constitutional challenges.) And whoever is sworn in as President in January, 2025, would have the option of pardoning Trump.

I'm not sure about that not legally bar Trump from running for President again, if he were convicted of Insurrection, wouldn't the 14th Amendement apply to him?
Would the next president pardon him, assuming the trial was over by 1/2025?  I guess the trial being over doesn't matter, you can be pardoned for crimes that you have yet to be charged for.  Still not sure about the next president pardoning Trump, even if it is a Republican.

But a Presidential pardon would be limited to federal crimes. The first indictment of Trump related to January 6th may come at the state level, in Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fani Willis appears to be in the late stages of her own investigation. Willis has a repertoire of Georgia laws to draw on, including a statute on criminal solicitation of election fraud, which would seem to describe the phone call in which Trump demanded that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” him more than eleven thousand votes. A special grand jury has been sitting for months, and has heard testimony from a range of witnesses, including Governor Brian Kemp. Georgia would likely be the focus of any federal trial as well, because the Trump team’s attempts to overturn the election there were especially blatant. In addition to the Raffensperger call, which was recorded, the effort to advance the fake-elector scheme in Georgia left a rich paper trail. Incidentally, Georgia trials, unlike federal ones, can be televised.

Gotta get some stock in a popcorn company, if I had money to buy stocks. >

"Witch hunt, witch hunt, I plead the fifth, and again, executive privilege, witch hunt." >

trial?  There should be more than one.  A lot more. >

having had kids i'd imagine it to be about the same as taking candy away from a toddler but less sphincter control. >

I’ll believe when I see it. Until then it’s just a fever dream. >

No jury could be kept anonymous and it would mean a death sentence for them. >

A fat, angry/sad man sitting in a shit filled diaper. >

"Might" "Maybe" "Could" "Should"  -  FUCK THESE ARTICLES. How about we just do it and see what it looks like. Stupid fucking waste of space articles. >

I'm curious to see how they'd actually manage to seat an impartial jury. >

I wonder, what happens if you tell the judge you honestly can't be impartial? >

You ready to be excused from the trial or jailed for contemporary of court. >

Let’s not speculate what the trial might look like, let’s actually see what it looks like >

I'm sure whoever would proacute the case are speculating on what he and the defence might do. >

I hope this isn't the closest we get to actually seeing him on trial >

This is a great article.
Fta (bold is mine) 

If Smith recommends that Trump be charged, Attorney General Merrick Garland would have to sign off, and a grand jury would have to approve an indictment.

Am I interpreting this correctly? If Smith recommends, then Garland is obligated to sign off? >

My understanding is that Garland is not obligated to follow Smith’s recommendations but if he doesn’t he’ll have to inform Congress why (he has to inform Congress regardless of what he decides). He’s already said he’d follow whatever the special counsel determines but if he wanted to not indict, he’d likely have never assigned a special counsel because the decision could be kept private. >

Agree that Garland retains discretion but must justify not following advice, according to Lawfare podcast. It may have been this one. >

A new reason to 'get out the vote' in 2024. >

Interesting article.    

Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."  It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court.


The committee’s nine members—including the Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—ran a tightly managed process. In televised hearings, they were able to play the snippets of videotaped testimony that they judged most effective. Prosecutors at trial, by contrast, have to deal with the live testimony of the witnesses before them. The rules of discovery mean that Trump’s lawyers would have access to full transcripts of depositions and to any exculpatory material the prosecutors possess. Evidentiary disputes, such as the one over whether Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that a Secret Service agent told her about an altercation in a Presidential vehicle counted as inadmissible hearsay, would be addressed not by tweets but by litigation. 

In other words, expect it to take years.

Trump has made many frivolous claims of executive privilege, including one, involving a document request from the January 6th committee, that the Supreme Court rejected. A trial would no doubt bring new objections and appeals, some of which might be more substantive. All of this would take time, and the first Republican primaries for 2024 are fast approaching. An indictment and a trial would not legally bar Trump from running for President again. (Indeed, any attempt to block him from office if he’s convicted would face what are almost certainly insurmountable constitutional challenges.) And whoever is sworn in as President in January, 2025, would have the option of pardoning Trump.

I'm not sure about that not legally bar Trump from running for President again, if he were convicted of Insurrection, wouldn't the 14th Amendement apply to him?
Would the next president pardon him, assuming the trial was over by 1/2025?  I guess the trial being over doesn't matter, you can be pardoned for crimes that you have yet to be charged for.  Still not sure about the next president pardoning Trump, even if it is a Republican.

But a Presidential pardon would be limited to federal crimes. The first indictment of Trump related to January 6th may come at the state level, in Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fani Willis appears to be in the late stages of her own investigation. Willis has a repertoire of Georgia laws to draw on, including a statute on criminal solicitation of election fraud, which would seem to describe the phone call in which Trump demanded that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” him more than eleven thousand votes. A special grand jury has been sitting for months, and has heard testimony from a range of witnesses, including Governor Brian Kemp. Georgia would likely be the focus of any federal trial as well, because the Trump team’s attempts to overturn the election there were especially blatant. In addition to the Raffensperger call, which was recorded, the effort to advance the fake-elector scheme in Georgia left a rich paper trail. Incidentally, Georgia trials, unlike federal ones, can be televised.

Gotta get some stock in a popcorn company, if I had money to buy stocks. >

"Witch hunt, witch hunt, I plead the fifth, and again, executive privilege, witch hunt." >

trial?  There should be more than one.  A lot more. >

having had kids i'd imagine it to be about the same as taking candy away from a toddler but less sphincter control. >

I’ll believe when I see it. Until then it’s just a fever dream. >

No jury could be kept anonymous and it would mean a death sentence for them. >

A fat, angry/sad man sitting in a shit filled diaper.