GA - Ex-POTUS Donald Trump and others indicted, 13 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, Aug 2023 *4 guilty* #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Niner said:
and I have Fake GOP elector :rolleyes: wondering how I got everyone confused in my notes.... thank you for pointing out my mistakes! Appreciate the help keeping my notes straight! :)
Click to expand...
I have a handwritten cheat sheet on my desk. :) I'm starting to memorize some of the names, but I have to refer to my notes all the time.

jmo
 
Oof. "Before this trial I didn't know what the 12th amendment was. I didn't know about the ECA. Everybody votes and it just kind of works out." (Paraphrased)

Chesebro's attorney arguing passionately that going to trial with a co-defendant 'scares the hell out of them' - note that's NOT verbatim. (He was talking about charges against Powell being much more serious than, ahem, 'paperwork violations'.

I have a real love/hate relationship to lawyers. Sigh.
 
BritsKate said:
Oof. "Before this trial I didn't know what the 12th amendment was. I didn't know about the ECA. Everybody votes and it just kind of works out." (Paraphrased)

Chesebro's attorney arguing passionately that going to trial with a co-defendant 'scares the hell out of them' - note that's NOT verbatim. (He was talking about charges against Powell being much more serious than, ahem, 'paperwork violations'.

I have a real love/hate relationship to lawyers. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you can fill us in on what else is happening - and if any dates are mentioned. TIA! :)
 
Powell's attorney too is arguing that she should be tried alone because most of the conspiracy doesn't involve her. Her attorney is arguing there's exculpatory evidence. Her involvement in Coffee Couny as alleged by the prosecutor is wrong. But all that's going to be washed away by evidence about the Constitution and elections and it would prejudice his client.
 
Both lawyers concede there is no antagonistic defense which would prompt severance but there is spillover and could create jury confusion.

State predicts a 4 month trial not including jury selection. 150+ witnesses. Arguing they feel it's their job, in the interest of judicial economy, to present the whole conspiracy. Does the court want 19 separate trials or 2? They want October 23rd for everyone.
 
BritsKate said:
Oof. "Before this trial I didn't know what the 12th amendment was. I didn't know about the ECA. Everybody votes and it just kind of works out." (Paraphrased)

Chesebro's attorney arguing passionately that going to trial with a co-defendant 'scares the hell out of them' - note that's NOT verbatim. (He was talking about charges against Powell being much more serious than, ahem, 'paperwork violations'.

I have a real love/hate relationship to lawyers. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought that was a weird comment about the Constitution too. I would expect lawyers to know what the amendments are - or at least look them up! Then again, I would also expect the president to have read the Constitution and I seriously doubt the former president ever did read it. (And maybe that will be his excuse when he's denied a spot on the ballot because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then was involved in an insurrection - he'll claim "I didn't know what I took an oath to" as has come to be his habit.)

jmo
 
As anticipated, the state is eviscerating the reasons for requesting a severance. 'Not a defense. Not a ground for severance'. Now going over RICO - doesn't require conspirators meet, engage in the same activity, etc.

Case law is clear. That does not matter. Evidence against one is evidence against all. (I like whoever this is arguing for the state.)

Points out case law used by defense attorneys in their severance motions to support severance were not RICO cases.
 
Inthedetails said:
Yeah, I thought that was a weird comment about the Constitution too. I would expect lawyers to know what the amendments are - or at least look them up! Then again, I would also expect the president to have read the Constitution and I seriously doubt the former president ever did read it. (And maybe that will be his excuse when he's denied a spot on the ballot because he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then was involved in an insurrection - he'll claim "I didn't know what I took an oath to" as has come to be his habit.)

jmo
Click to expand...
RBBM

Or at least it's not something you admit on televised feed!
 
BritsKate said:
As anticipated, the state is eviscerating the reasons for requesting a severance. 'Not a defense. Not a ground for severance'. Now going over RICO - doesn't require conspirators meet, engage in the same activity, etc.

Case law is clear. That does not matter. Evidence against one is evidence against all. (I like whoever this is arguing for the state.)

Points out case law used by defense attorneys in their severance motions to support severance were not RICO cases.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed the first defense lawyer repeated, "I know what RICO involves" and then proceeded to make an argument as if this isn't a RICO case.
jmo
 
State argues it's all part of an overarching conspiracy.

By the way, for folks not watching, the State is literally presenting a powerpoint of relevant case law arguing point by point against severance and pointing out there are other remedies such as jury instructions. Case after case after case of RICO defendants not afforded severance.

(This cat's a total law nerd. 'And I love this...this appeal by the 8th circuit.' - I approve.)

Onto minimizing inconvenience - one 4 month trial is preferable to many 4 month trials - cites trauma to victims. Reminds court that people were actually harmed by participants in this conspiracy and would have to retraumatize them testifying repeatedly. (Okay, now I think I love this guy a little bit. Were I not married.) Same evidence and same witnesses would be used in all the trials. - Spending a lot of time on judicial economy. I think that's a good plan considering Fulton County public officials keep having to beg for funding.
 
Judge asking State questions about how removal and subsequent appeal may affect the trial timeline. Some tough considerations including double jeopardy. Judge thinks it's risky to move ahead without dealing with some of the tougher issues. Judge also is questioning the reality of 19 defense attorneys at voir dire. State's addressing how much more burdensome 19 trials would be.

My opinion, based on the judge's comments is that no way will there be a trial for 19 defendants October 23rd. It's just not going to happen. The State rebuts saying we're here to discuss these 2 defendants and only these 2 - have they done enough to satisfy the court that they should be severed from the other 17.

Defense attorney (don't know who) says the question is 1 trial against Powell and Chesebro or 1 trial against each. The State wants to make the case about Donald. Ken Chesebro is not a politician. To force him to sit here in a trial where there's evidence of all these things is not fair. (Grr.)

But it's not a murder conspiracy, your honor! - no, I'm not even kidding. He practically said just that.
 
OMG, is that defense lawyer saying this case is not as serious as a murder case?!?! It's about overthrowing democracy! That is just as serious! imo

jmo

eta: this is from the livestream of the court hearing
 
Inthedetails said:
OMG, is that defense lawyer saying this case is not as serious as a murder case?!?! It's about overthrowing democracy! That is just as serious! imo

jmo

eta: this is from the livestream of the court hearing
Click to expand...
He's my absolute least favorite type of lawyer too - arrogant and bloviating. All this talk, talk, talk but not really leading anywhere substantial.
 
RICO is in contravention of due process - this is a real argument FWIW. There are a lot of legal scholars who are against RICO in theory but the law is what the law is. Powell's attorney keeps using the word trump which is grating - not Trump but trump - and I want someone to buy the dude a thesaurus.

He argues her right to a speedy trial.

No severance is necessary. Motion denied!
 
Pretrial motions to exclude evidence are going to start coming in. Judge wants to meet weekly to discuss issues. Thursday morning is the next hearing but I didn't catch what time.

All the defendants and their attorneys irk me to no end and I think I may be a masochist following this one. No big surprises though - based on the motions filed, they really hadn't made a case for severance other than what came across to me as whining entitlement. JMO
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 184 more.
Total: 2,355 (members: 185, guests: 2,170)

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
2,170
Total visitors
2,355
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,366
Messages
18,107,594
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top