...
Even IF the Georgia indictment is a political hit job - IT DOES NOT MATTER - at least in terms of prosecuting the defendants. The evidence is either there to support a conviction or it is not. I'd remind folks though that republicans screaming that it's political are spouting rhetoric and not an actual legal defense. I believe that the only time you're going to hear Trump et al's attorneys mention even the possibility of being a politically motivated prosecution is the opening and closing arguments because there.is.no.evidence. that can be factually submitted to the court to suggest that this is political persecution - so the jurors may well not even hear evidence to support that theory. Trump's team has tried for months to get Willis disqualified, to end the investigation and, when those measures failed, to exclude the Special Grand Jury's report. I'd also argue that the Georgia state legislature decided to change the law to oust prosecutors because the judicial branch wasn't helping their cause so they instead wrote a law that - while reads reasonably - could easily be manipulated to achieve their own goals.
...
But at the end of Trump's trial it will simply come down to the evidence either being there or not. All JMO
Excellent post.
There is a lot of rhetoric happening to blame it all on politics and yet I am certain that there must have been some Republicans and Independents on the Georgia Special Grand Jury who suggested possible charges and within the Georgia Grand Jury who handed down the indictment too. It goes to show that "evidence" matters and that Jurors are capable of rendering decisions not based on their political beliefs.
The sad fact is that those nations who fail to hold their politicans to account for crimes/refuse to prosecute politicans for crimes are the very ones that are or that go on to become "Banana Republics" (witness the 'projecting' currently happening once again from the accused's camp). I think the Founders were wise to hold that no man is above the law; that seems to be important these days
especially due to the politiking attempts being undertaken to see accountbility avoided for those involved in this Indictment.
On your point as to the Georgia State Legisature and their recent change to the law, I'm just going to offer up that I believe this change came about, perhaps in part about Trump, but also due to the Florida incident whereby a DA flat out stated that she was not going to prosecute certain crimes within that state: ie: "failing to do her job". I point out too that the Georgia Law specificly notes that as a criteria for removal. I am a firm believer in Law & Justice. There are many Laws that I might not agree with, but I don't get to pick and choose which ones I comply with or disregard without consequences (I pay my speeding tickets etc when I break those Laws). Nor should a prosecutor be able to "just decide" which laws they will or wll not prosecute - they have to base those decisions on the evidence and facts at hand while considering what the Law says -
that is what keeps the Justice Branch seperate from the Politics.
Willis and the Florida individual are not comparable. One has shown probable cause, obtained a Special Grand Jury recommendation and had a Grand Jury hand down an indictment for acts in contrary to the Indictment's quoted Criminal laws. Those Defendants are now charged and will have their day in court. The one in Florida was willing to forego all evidence
despite the law (and even though I personally agree with her views on
that law).
Don't get me wrong as I don't like every Law on the books either but I don't pick and choose who should be held to them or which ones to enforce. Politicians decide what the Laws are and if Voters have an issue with the Laws, as written, then they need to vote the bums out or use the appeal system to their advantage if convicted.
www.independent.co.uk
gov.georgia.gov
www.wsbradio.com
