• Strange indictment/election claims by lawyers and pundits and TV shows

    From micky@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 4 15:07:20 2022
    Miss Rubin, a lawyer on MSNBC, when asked if trump could be charged the
    day after the election, said she didn't think so because there are still
    a couple witnesses the DOJ wants to here from.

    That seems so strange. The trial won't start the day after he's
    charged. They have plenty of time to interview more witnesses.

    Corporations always say, We can't discuss the case because it's a
    personel or disciplinary matter. That's not true either, is it? But it
    seems similar to this, that they can't interview witnesses once someone
    is indicted. But that's not true, right?

    (Heck, in Law & Order, in the middle of the trial, they frequently send
    the police out to find NEW witnesses. That does't happen either, does
    it? By the time the trial starts, they've researched as much as they
    can, right? And if they learn some new lead, there isn't time enough
    before the trial resumes the next day or very soon.)


    Another thing several have said is that trump will announce his
    candidacy for prez so that if he's indicted afterwards, he can claim
    they are after him 1) because he's a candidate, or 2) that they may not
    go after him because he's a candidate.

    WRT 1, won't he say that anyway, they're after me because they think I
    will be a candidate? Or just, they are persecuting me? Why does his
    being an announced candidate make it any harder to investigate or
    prosecute him?

    WRT 2 Why would his being an announced candidate make it any harder to prosecute him? If that were not psosible, everyone expecting an
    investigation or indictment would announce his candidacy for something.
    Running for governor is not that hard, and running for president is not
    that hard if you don't actually work at it.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to micky on Fri Nov 4 16:49:36 2022
    micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

    Miss Rubin, a lawyer on MSNBC, when asked if trump could be
    charged the day after the election, said she didn't think so
    because there are still a couple witnesses the DOJ wants to here
    from.

    That seems so strange. The trial won't start the day after he's
    charged. They have plenty of time to interview more witnesses.

    Corporations always say, We can't discuss the case because it's a
    personel or disciplinary matter. That's not true either, is it?
    But it seems similar to this, that they can't interview witnesses
    once someone is indicted. But that's not true, right?

    (Heck, in Law & Order, in the middle of the trial, they frequently
    send the police out to find NEW witnesses. That does't happen
    either, does it? By the time the trial starts, they've researched
    as much as they can, right? And if they learn some new lead,
    there isn't time enough before the trial resumes the next day or
    very soon.)

    It's not that they couldn't indict. There's no rule saying they
    can't. It's just that they want to nail down all the relevant
    evidence before they indict. The indictment recites a lot of the
    evidence against the person charged, so they want to make sure they
    have all the evidence that they can include in the indictment.

    Yes, an indictment can be amended. But it's better not to if they
    can avoid it.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to micky on Sat Nov 5 09:10:03 2022
    On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
    Another thing several have said is that trump will announce his
    candidacy for prez so that if he's indicted afterwards, he can claim
    they are after him 1) because he's a candidate, or 2) that they may not
    go after him because he's a candidate.

    WRT 1, won't he say that anyway, they're after me because they think I
    will be a candidate? Or just, they are persecuting me? Why does his
    being an announced candidate make it any harder to investigate or
    prosecute him?

    WRT 2 Why would his being an announced candidate make it any harder to prosecute him? If that were not psosible, everyone expecting an
    investigation or indictment would announce his candidacy for something. Running for governor is not that hard, and running for president is not
    that hard if you don't actually work at it.

    The way I see it:
    Being a candidate for President means running against the U. S. Attorney General's
    boss (President Biden). For the U. S. Attorney General to go after a political rival
    of the AG's boss is a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may demand that the U. S. Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel. For one, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

    Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special Counsel stronger. Also the Special Counsel would have to be a Republican. Which of course is
    not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's poor track record before his very own
    judicial appointees suggests that chaos may very well not be the final
    outcome. "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.

    Anyway, all these things make it harder for the Justice Department to
    press forward.

    If the GOP takes control of the House, I predict investigations of every little thing that Biden has done will commence. Which maybe does not matter,
    since with the House controlled by one party and the Presidency controlled
    by another, in these days of particularly heated partisanship, any meaningful legislation is unlikely to be passed anyway.

    Then again, the effects of climate change could compel (to say the least) bi-partisan efforts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 6 07:27:20 2022
    Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

    } On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
    } > Another thing several have said is that trump will announce his
    } > candidacy for prez so that if he's indicted afterwards, he can claim
    } > they are after him 1) because he's a candidate, or 2) that they may not
    } > go after him because he's a candidate.
    } >
    } > WRT 1, won't he say that anyway, they're after me because they think I
    } > will be a candidate? Or just, they are persecuting me? Why does his
    } > being an announced candidate make it any harder to investigate or
    } > prosecute him?
    } >
    } > WRT 2 Why would his being an announced candidate make it any harder to
    } > prosecute him? If that were not psosible, everyone expecting an
    } > investigation or indictment would announce his candidacy for something.
    } > Running for governor is not that hard, and running for president is not
    } > that hard if you don't actually work at it.
    }
    } The way I see it:
    } Being a candidate for President means running against the U. S. Attorney General's
    } boss (President Biden). For the U. S. Attorney General to go after a political rival
    } of the AG's boss is a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may demand } that the U. S. Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel. For one, see
    } https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
    }
    } Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special Counsel stronger. } Also the Special Counsel would have to be a Republican. Which of course is
    } not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's poor track record before his very own
    } judicial appointees suggests that chaos may very well not be the final
    } outcome. "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.

    That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Fri Nov 18 22:02:25 2022
    On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 9:27:23 AM UTC-6, Bernie Cosell wrote:
    That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)


    Within five minutes of the announcement of Jack Smith's
    appointment as Special Counsel today, I am betting
    Smith had Liz Cheney on speed dial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Sun Nov 20 09:06:39 2022
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

    } Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special
    Counsel stronger. } Also the Special Counsel would have to be a
    Republican. Which of course is } not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's
    poor track record before his very own } judicial appointees
    suggests that chaos may very well not be the final } outcome.
    "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.

    That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)

    I'd prefer her as Speaker of the House.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 20 11:11:57 2022
    This is getting a bit too political. Let us close this topic and get
    back to legal stuff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 20 11:09:52 2022
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsAF555B4E26E35spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

    } Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special
    Counsel stronger. } Also the Special Counsel would have to be a
    Republican. Which of course is } not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's
    poor track record before his very own } judicial appointees
    suggests that chaos may very well not be the final } outcome.
    "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.

    That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)

    I'd prefer her as Speaker of the House.


    She'd be an interesting choice who might end up with strong support on both sides of the aisle. One drawback is that she won't be a member of the House starting in January. Even though the Constitution does not require the
    Speaker to be a Member, all previous Speakers have been Members and
    tradition does play a big part in Congress.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)