A Fulton County, Ga. indictment of Donald Trump.

[gab13by13]

Let's cut to the chase, Fani Willis is way ahead of DOJ. A DOJ trial of Trump would never happen until mid 2024 into 2025. A Fani Willis trial could occur much sooner. To be fair, Fani is only going through a special grand jury where she is gathering evidence, but the next step would be an indictment of Trump for as many as 4 crimes.

I have a question for the legal beagles, why can't Fani Willis subpoena people like Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows? Would she have to go through the courts to get them to show up? If they did show up would they get immunity in just the state of Georgia but not immunity in a federal trial, were that to happen?

I wish that DOJ had run a parallel investigation along with Georgia, but it didn't.

Fani Willis may be the person to hold Trump accountable.

[Walleye]

1. The good thing about Georgia prosecuting is that

It wouldn’t present the same possible conflict of interest that Biden’s DOJ prosecuting his possible next opponent would. Fani Willis is never going to run against Trump.

[gab13by13]

2. Her special grand jury has been very quiet,

not sure what that means. I always worry about the goon squad making death threats against people who go after Trump.

Still shaking my head about Alvin Bragg, and I see that Letitia James is pissed off that Trump has asked for yet another extension to produce documents.

People would never believe this from my posts but in fact I am a very patient person. I do not blow my horn at the car in front of me when the light turns green and it just sits there. I actually do the practice of letting people ahead of me in line. I have been patient enough with DOJ. The Trump strategy is to delay and I'm being told not to worry, delay is OK. IMO DOJ should have Mark Meadows before a grand jury, right now. Give him immunity so he cannot plead the 5th. Meadows is the key to nailing Trump. I also don't want to hear the bs that DOJ can't do anything leading up to an election. Meadows isn't on the ballot. Unless someone is on the ballot he/she should be fair game right up to election day.

[Walleye]

3. I really think the TV news media has a lot to answer for

Some of them cannot hide their delight in amusement when they start talking about Trump. That has got to stop, the man is a vicious criminal. This shit isn’t gonna stop until somebody stops him and it’s time to do it

[MLAA]

4. I'd rather give Cipollone immunity for any lines he may has crossed and nail Trump and Meadows.

[gab13by13]

5. Yes, I was going to add Cipollone,

give him immunity also. Between Cipollone, who proves Trump's criminal intent, and Meadows, who proves Trump's involvement, Trump can be indicted on numerous charges.

My only worry is a poll I saw that 31% of the country believes that Trump never committed a crime, in regard to a jury.

[MLAA]

6. Agree it could be difficult to get a fair jury with out trump zealots.

I assume the trial would take place in Atlanta which is heavily Democratic but who knows.

[Ohio Joe]

7. Different cases have different approaches...

The case in Georgia is not a mob case, the 1/6 case is... That you refuse to understand this does not change the facts. Without having underlings testifying against tfg, the DOJ case would have zero chance.

"Let's cut to the chase, Fani Willis is way ahead of DOJ. A DOJ trial of Trump would never happen until mid 2024 into 2025. A Fani Willis trial could occur much sooner. To be fair, Fani is only going through a special grand jury where she is gathering evidence, but the next step would be an indictment of Trump for as many as 4 crimes."

The next step is not an indictment, it is another Grand Jury that may return an indictment.

"I have a question for the legal beagles, why can't Fani Willis subpoena people like Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows? Would she have to go through the courts to get them to show up? If they did show up would they get immunity in just the state of Georgia but not immunity in a federal trial, were that to happen?"

Meadows and Cipollone are not being subpoenaed in Georgia for the same reason the Meadows did not get prosecuted for refusing one from congress. It's called 'testimonial immunity'. This allows top advisors to the President to not have to testify about private conversations they have with the President. Congress gave it a gamble with Meadows and he partially complied but then stopped... Congress cannot prosecute so they made a referral to DOJ. DOJ would have had a year long legal process to try and convict that would have been eventually stopped by the Supreme Court... They would have 90% lost a contempt charge against Meadows because of testimonial immunity... Mix in partial compliance and it goes to 100%. Either the feds or Georgia giving Meadows immunity would not change testimonial immunity, he would still not have to talk about any private conversations and would only gain immunity from any crimes committed. Again... This could be fought but the Supreme Court would see to it. It would be a waste of a lot of time that you seem so concerned with.

"I wish that DOJ had run a parallel investigation along with Georgia, but it didn't."

DOJ was not asked to run a parallel investigation and without such a request, they don't just decide it will happen... They can't. They could have claimed jurisdiction and taken it themselves leaving Georgia out of the loop but did not do that... They rarely go first when a state wants to prosecute. They will still have the option of prosecuting for federal crimes when the state case is over, regardless of outcome as it is a separate crime.

[gab13by13]

9. Meadows did not get prosecuted for ignoring a subpoena

because Merrick Garland chose not to, and that pissed off the select committee which is packed with lawyers who feel Garland should have prosecuted Meadows.

As one judge has already stated, there is no "immunity" or privilege in the commission of a crime. If Trump has immunity, as you claim, from all of his advisors, including Meadows, then there is absolutely zero reason to prosecute Donald Trump because according to your opinion, Donald Trump is above the law, Donald Trump can commit numerous crimes and then claim immunity or privilege to prevent his advisors from testifying against him.

[Ohio Joe]

12. You are mixing and matching, the law does not work that way...

Meadows subpoena is a singular crime... One that he partially complied with and has testimonial immunity from. The crime he is being accused of is not testifying, it is not a crime because of testimonial immunity... Get it yet? While the committee would certainly prefer he could be prosecuted, they are no where near as upset about it as you want to make out. This desire to promote the idea of rift and conflict between the committee and DOJ only helps propaganda for the right.

"As one judge has already stated, there is no "immunity" or privilege in the commission of a crime."

Yes, that is correct. Immunity is what allows Meadows to get away with not fully complying with the congressional subpoena... And Why Georgia is not subpoenaing him. It is what it is. Once the DOJ mob case reaches Meadows and he can be indicted for a crime... A crime not shielded by immunity of any kind... He will either have to testify or take the fifth... Testimonial immunity no longer shields him. Make sense yet?

Refuse to come in and testify about tfg to congress? Not a crime because of testimonial immunity.

Be indicted for 1/6 crimes that are backed up by documentation and witness testimony... A crime he can be prosecuted for and strips him of testimonial immunity.

Make sense yet?

[brooklynite]

8. Answer: they're not in Georgia.

A State can't enforce a subpoena outside its boundaries.

[gab13by13]

10. So even if Mark Meadows

was involved in an attempt to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, Fani Willis cannot subpoena him and give him immunity for testifying against Trump? Our judicial system is really fucked up and only benefits and protects powerful people.

If, and I say if, Pat Cipollone advised Trump to not make the phone call to Raffensperger because it was illegal, Fani Willis cannot subpoena him to testify because he lives in another state?

[brooklynite]

11. They would have to get the jurisdiction in question to agree to enforce the subpoena.

[Ohio Joe]

13. I'm pretty sure they can...

Can a prosecutor in State A, who has brought charges against a defendant in a State A court, compel an important out-of-state witness, W, to leave State B to testify in the State A trial? If so, how?

The answer is yes, by using the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings (Uniform Act). This article provides a starting point for prosecutors seeking to secure out-of-state witnesses. Part I discusses the background and history of the Uniform Act. Part II explains the five-step process to secure an out-of-state witness’s testimony. Part III explores several legal and practical issues that may arise. Finally, a table with citations to each state’s Uniform Act statute, as well as applicable caselaw, is included in the appendix.

https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/subpoenaing-out-of-state-witnesses/