I am tired of SOME prosecutors coming on the news saying the DOJ may have a hard time proving

[fightforfreedom]

this or that. Fuck that. They do this shit all the time and it bums people out and convinces them nothing is going to happen.

Indict the fucking traitors, put the overwhelming evidence in front of a jury and let them decide. I have faith in the people who serve on a jury. I have faith in the evidence.

For prosecutors to say the DOJ may have a hard time proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is them saying the DOJ will not indict. BULLSHIT!

The attempted coup has to be prosecuted, period. End of fucking story.

Excuse me for blowing my top but I just watched a prosecutor on MSNBC who was being stupid. I forget his name.

[Frasier Balzov]

1. They're trying to let you down easy.

Take some of the steam out of the pressure cooker.

[Irish_Dem]

2. I think so too. Looks like the only thing they can get him on are the documents.

They have him on that.

The other stuff, not so much.

[fightforfreedom]

3. I do not believe that for a minute, a second.

[Irish_Dem]

6. That is what some of the talking heads keep saying.

He can get out of Ga and the insurrection.
But not the document case.

But I hope they are wrong.

[fightforfreedom]

8. It's all opinions.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Yep. All of it is an opinion.

We shall see what happens.

[MiHale]

15. That's all a jury is...

12 Opinions coming to a consensus.

[Joinfortmill]

79. Me too

[Elessar Zappa]

4. Only some are saying that.

Other respected prosecutors and law professors think he can be indicted on charges related to Jan. 6th.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Could he be prosecuted is not the question. Is there the will to do so?

That is the question.

[Frasier Balzov]

71. Garland is hypersensitive to the accusation of a vengeful prosecution.

Garland's grievance is with McConnell, but if he greenlights a Trump prosecution he probably fears how personal it might look.

[mopinko]

5. they have a ton of evidence. 700+ pages.

that’s just bullshit.

[Irish_Dem]

10. We know by now that evidence of a crime means nothing when it comes to Trump.

Is there a will to prosecute Trump?
That is the question.

[gab13by13]

11. Yeah, fff didn't like when I posted the same thing.

I have been saying for months that DOJ should not go after Trump for seditious conspiracy, it is too high of a bar to prove,

Andrew Weissmann even said going after Trump for the 14th Amendment won't hold water. Weissmann thinks it's pretty hard to uphold banning someone for running for office. Weissmann even said that Trump would just ignore it.

I mean Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was the #1 bombshell from the J6 hearings and it is inadmissible in court because it was mostly hearsay.

I agree, go after Trump with only rock solid cases like the stolen documents.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. You don't know what you're talking about re: hearsay. Nt

[gab13by13]

21. Explain it to me.

So far I see people testifying what Trump did, that is hearsay, correct? Show me a document, a video, a text with Trump's own words.

We have direct evidence for the stolen documents cases in Trump's own words and texts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. You are confusing hearsay, first hand witness testimony and prima facie evidence.

If someone says, in court, under oath, “I saw Trump shoot someone on 5th Ave “, that’s not hearsay, that’s evidence from a direct witness, which can be cross examined in court.

If Cassidy Hutchinson says , under oath in front of a grand jury or in court “Meadows told me that he saw Trump do/say this”, that could be considered hearsay evidence against Trump, but would be first hand witness testimony against Meadows. (And would certainly be a lead in for Meadows to be called to testify, especially in grand jury hearings). If another witness corroborates Hutchinson’s testimony, either confirming what Meadows said, or confirming what Trump is alleged to have said/done, it may or may not be hearsay.

Remember, Hutchinson also testified about Trump’s behaviour, statements and state of mind on that she directly observed on January 6; the example of Trump want the SS to stop searching audience members and let them all in, even though he knew they were armed comes to mind. That’s not hearsay, thats first hand testimony from a direct witness.

There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule of exclusion:

There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following:
Present sense impressions and excited utterances
Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment
Recorded recollection
Records of regularly conducted activity, including absence of entry in records
Public records and reports, including absence of entry in records
Records or births, fetal deaths, deaths and marriages made pursuant to law
Records of religious organisations of facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record
Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates
Family records
Statements in documents affecting an interest in property
Statements in ancient documents
Market reports, commercial publications
Learned treatises
Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to character
Judgment of previous conviction
Judgment as to personal, family, or general history, or boundaries.
Rule 804 adds several additional exceptions where the declarant is unavailable:
Former testimony
Statement under belief of impending death in homicide or civil actions
Statement against interest
Statement of personal or family history
Forfeiture by wrongdoing

[Irish_Dem]

17. Trump may not cooperate with anything. Even the document case.

He may not show up for a trial. And will resist arrest, etc.

Garland doesn't want to be seen having Trump dragged away by the FBI.

And Trump knows it.

The only out is getting Trump to agree to a plea deal?

He may not do that.

I think Garland and Congress have been waging a public war on Trump in order to get Trump
to negotiate a plea deal.

[gab13by13]

25. I asked a similar question a year ago,

how is DOJ going to get Trump to appear before a grand jury? I guarantee he will defy everything. He will have to be cuffed and stuffed.

23 months and counting. The Iowa caucus is Jan. 22nd, 2024. Is it time to once again say, let the voters decide? I thought the voters did decide, maybe not?

[Irish_Dem]

28. And we know Garland will not cuff and stuff Trump.

It is unlikely Garland will have the FBI drag Trump out of MAL.

Yes all Trump has to do is refuse to cooperate on any level and get his name on the ballot.

The only thing Garland can do is find Trump's Achilles heel and press hard.

[Joinfortmill]

80. Maybe, or maybe Mr. Smith is going to haul his ass to court.

[Irish_Dem]

82. So LE has to fight with SS?

To drag Trump into court?

Blue on blue shoot out?

[jgo]

77. A key bombshell from Cassiday is NOT hearsay!

She heard TFG say forget about the magnetometers directly - before his speech. From what we have seen so far, this is very strong evidence. This shows he knew the crowd was armed before he urged them.

There is also direct evidence of secret service audio tapes showing the secret service knew the crowd was armed, so one or more parties in the secret service is culpable for not canceling the speech. Under oath, someone in secret service would testify that TFG knew also.

Seems like pretty strong evidence to me.

[Samrob]

43. They won't have a hard time proving anything if decent, honest, thinking citizens are the jury. nt

[Irish_Dem]

44. Therein lies the problem. :(

[Hortensis]

7. :) "To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, ...

It is a new Declaration of Independence: No longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.” Tom Nichols in the Death of Expertise"

I blame cable political infotainment.

We need to recognize that cable pundits are paid to talk all day every day and make it sound continually new -- even when they KNOW they have no new important knowledge and that real movements toward a conclusion may still be months and years away. They almost never can talk about big time frames or tell us that any big action won't come in this session or before next summer; people would stop watching.

Not in any way to denigrate their knowledge and expertise, either, but those whose opinions don't fit the needs of big networks like MSNBC and CNN can't be regulars. Want to learn what's in the bigger, more complete pictures the networks aren't drawing, especially in the daytime shows!, gotta read it.

Seriously, Fight, sounds like you might be ready to stop listening to "this shit" all the time. Most people come to it at some point.

[gab13by13]

16. I would never call a pundit an expert,

but pundits do have experts on their programs. I listen to Andrew Weissman, Harry Litman, Frank Figliusi and many other experts.

I only watch Nicolle Wallace because she brings these experts on her show and asks them tough questions. I do not bother watching the rest of cable news which is owned and managed by right wing domestic oligarchs who push the right wing narratives.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Who is saying that?

Which prosecutor is saying DOJ will have a hard time proving something, and what is it they claim will be difficult to prove?

I’m not a cable news junkie, but so far, I’m not seeing anyone claim this.

[gab13by13]

18. Give me one name of an expert

who is not saying that seditious conspiracy is hard to prove.

Andrew Weissmann got convictions against the mob, he said yesterday that going after Trump re: the 14th Amendment which would ban him from office was very shaky and probably wouldn't hold up.

[Genki Hikari]

70. Weird

Weissman has never tried a seditious conspiracy case. How would he know if would be hard to prove, when he has no idea if that's true or not?

[MichMan]

72. Who has?

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2022, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

If the only people that are allowed to opine are those who have previously tried seditious conspiracy cases, that limits the pool rather substantially.

[Irish_Dem]

22. Even if they prove it, will Trump cooperate?

Will he willingly attend a trial?
Go to jail?

He will keep campaigning no matter what.

Garland does not want the FBI to be seen dragging Trump out of his mansion.

I watch a lot of videos posted here on DU.
Cannot name all of the talking heads, but that seems to be an opinion of experienced prosecutors.

[Justice matters.]

37. What makes you so certain 'no person, no matter the position, is above the law' Garland

"does not want the FBI to be seen dragging Trump out of his mansion."

Do you really think he wants to make HIMSELF seen as a corrupt LIAR in History books?

[Irish_Dem]

38. Garland does not want to do down in history as letting Trump make a fool of him.

Garland will be very foolish to ignore the psychological reality of this situation.

Garland needs to be very smart and stay one step ahead of Trump at all times.

He is in a battle of wits with Trump who is cunning and street smart.
And holding many cards.

[getagrip_already]

19. you always have to be prepared.....

For a judge who will throw out or suppress evidence, for a rogue juror who will lie to get on the jury only to try to throw the case, or any number of other issues (witness tampering).....

But you start with solid evidence, which they have, and try...

If they don't even try, what is the point?

[Irish_Dem]

24. And Trump can refuse to attend a trial, refuse to go to jail, etc.

We have to be prepared for Trump not cooperating.

[fightforfreedom]

29. No he can't. That's ridiculous.

[Irish_Dem]

32. To assume Trump will cooperate on any level is ridiculous.

Trump's psychological profile states he will be defiant and resist.

The only hope is if Garland can find a way to make Trump plea bargain.

[bpj62]

56. Criminal Charges not Civil

Trump has everyone bamboozled because of his delay/stall tactics in his multiple civil cases. If he is charged it will be on a Federal or state level and he has to appear for his arrangement and enter his plea. If he refuses to show up for his booking either the Sheriff's department or the Federal Marshall will come and get him. That is how bookings work. If he cooperates than they will bring him in underground and he will leave the same way and we will only see his booking photo.

As for appearing before a grand jury Trump has every right to take the 5th and if he the target of the investigation he may not even be asked to appear before a grand jury. We are in truly uncharted waters when it comes to the criminal indictment of a former President.

[Irish_Dem]

60. Trump can say he doesn't have to show up.

It is a "kangaroo court" and he is a sad victim, etc.

Will LE go up against SS?
Blue on blue?

Does the SS sit with Trump in jail?

FBI/DOJ didn't even want to retrieve stolen classified docs until they had no choice.
National security didn't seem to be an issue.

But all of a sudden contempt of court is going to be a big deal?

That is the point I am making.

People seem to be quite certain how this will unfold.

And we simply don't know.

Tump has cards to play and can remain defiant and uncooperative.

To date DOJ has not played hard ball at all. Quite the opposite.

[bpj62]

64. This is the real world

Trump can huff and puff all he wants but at the end of the day if he is criminally charged he will be forced to appear for booking and arraignment and if he does not plea bargain he will have to appear at trial. That is the process and there are not any exceptions. Let me ask you this, how successful was Trump in trying to blow up the Mar A Lago search? The answer is not successful at all. He judged shopped and got a favorable ruling from Judge Cannon and the Justice Department simply followed procedures and appealed the rulings based on existing case law and what happened, three months after the raid allnof Ttumps challenges were denied and the DOJ is working on the case. Trump isn't dealing with a contractor who he stiffed. He is dealing with the full force and weight of the Justice Department and he knows how powerful they are.

[Irish_Dem]

66. Good points.

But Trump has power as well.
And is playing his cards as time goes on.

I am just saying nothing is certain at this point.

Trump is a ruthless psychopath who will take every measure to protect himself.

The DOJ has handled him with kid gloves. Avoided pushing Trump too far.
Hired a special prosecutor. Got cover from the J6 committee, etc.

Trump has not been asked what he did with the stolen documents.
Where the other missing ones are located.

So plenty of data showing the DOJ is afraid of Trump and what he might do.

It is going to be an interesting battle of wits.

I am not talking legal here, but psychology.

[bpj62]

73. Kid Gloves

I agree with you on that. However I believe that is because we are in uncharted territory with the potential criminal indictment of a former President. I do not believe that Nixons crimes ever got this far with the DOJ. Trump is an abhorretion to the Office of the President but he was still the President and thus is treated differently than you or I would be. I just hope that January brings good news to us all. BTW I like your user name as I am first generation Irish American.

[Irish_Dem]

74. Yes it is uncharted territory, that is part of what provides the POTUS shield for Trump.

Nixon was a different situation. His crimes were much more narrow in scope and far less egregious
than Trump's. Once Nixon resigned and kept silent, DC gave him a pass.

DC has a long time honored tradition of protecting POTUS and VPOTUS. No matter what their crimes are.
Trump would have received the same if he had not damaged the GOP brand and pissed off powerful GOP
leadership.

Any other GOP president who stole classified docs would probably have been protected.
The whole thing covered up in the name of national security.

We simply do not know how this will play out. It is a battle of wits right now between Trump and the DOJ.

Oh that is neat. First generation, so you have automatic dual citizenship?
I am second generation, so sibs and cousins had to make applications to get their Irish passports.
My grandparents were born and raised on the west coast of Ireland.

[bpj62]

75. Sadly you are correct

I believe it is the reluctance to admit that our elected leader is potentially not a moral or ethical person. It is a reflection on some of us who chose to overlook these clearly visible failings in Trump and put party and power over country. I also believe that there is a genuine fear of inciting a riot if Trump is charged. I live in the DC area so the politics and optics are different than they are in other areas of the country.
To answer your other question my father was born in Cork and I am currently in the process of getting my Irish Passport as I have no security clearances to worry about.

[Irish_Dem]

76. It is worse than reluctance to admit we had a criminal POTUS.

It is the fact that so many Americans love and support the criminality.
The more crimes Trump commits, the more some people love him.

So what does that say about our country?

Yes of course there are many considerations to think about.

Does the DOJ want to indict a former POTUS and half the sitting US congress?
And deal with possible riots?

What are the thoughts inside the beltway? What are the insiders saying?

In terms of an Irish passport, traveling is easier with it.

[fightforfreedom]

26. Exactly, that's my point.

Any prosecutor at this point talking about the DOJ having a hard time proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is bullshit.

It is now game time. Indict, put the overwhelming evidence in front of a jury and let them decide. It's like people are not believing what they are seeing with their own eyes when it come to the evidence.

[gab13by13]

33. The evidence that the J6 committee revealed was hearsay,

was circumstantial. Show me direct evidence where Trump said something or did something.

Even Michael Cohen said that Trump will lie about the Raffensperger phone call. Trump will say he was only asking for votes that were stolen from him. We shall see how strong the Raffensperger case is, I hope Fani can bring him down, but it won't be easy.

Getting Trump before a grand jury or into a courtroom will not be easy.

[getagrip_already]

39. there is a lot of direct evidence there as well, but....

People get convicted based on circumstantial evidence every day. It's harder, but it isn't impossible.

The doj will have direct witness testimony as well as documentary evidence to rely on. But circumstantial evidence is still admissible.

[Solomon]

69. Why do you keep on with this hearsay vs. Circumstantial vs. direct evidence bullshit?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as direct evidence. People are convicted on circumstantial evidence and, yes, even hearsay, every damned day of the year. Not all hearsay is inadmissible in court. I was a criminal defense attorney for more than 25 years.

And another thing. You don't have to have a grand jury to indict. And if Trump is criminally charged, he will indeed appear in a courtroom or be subject to a bench warrant, which means he will be locked the fuck up. The only way he won't appear in a courtroom if criminally charged is if he runs and hides.

I believe this was explained to you before but yet you keep persisting in telling people your wrong headed interpretation of something you know nothing about.

[Joinfortmill]

81. Amen

[agingdem]

20. a prosecutor's "source close to the DOJ" could be anybody in the building..

this DOJ does not leak...we do know Garland seated two federal grand juries..and know some of who have been subpoenaed and appeared before a grand jury once a judge determined executive privilege does not apply..but DOJ investigations are cloaked in a shroud of secrecy as they should be..

Like you I am so tired of former prosecutors insisting the documents case is slam dunk while the coup and insurrection are iffy...Garland, Smith, and the DOJ are"swimming in uncharted waters"..the attempt by a sitting president to defile the Constitution and overthrow the government of the United Sates is unprecedented...the law, not perception, has to fit the crime and that is labor intensive and takes time...the bloviating MSM legal consultants are loathe to admit they too are dealing with the unknown but they are paid to opine...just once I want to hear one of those guys admit they know nothing..would be refreshing

[fightforfreedom]

27. Good Post.

[Irish_Dem]

30. Even if there is evidence, how do you get Trump to a grand jury?

To a trial? If convicted, how do you get him to jail?

We are assuming Trump will act in a normal way and we have no data to support that premise.

[agingdem]

34. I could be wrong but a federal grand jury

doesn't need Trump's testimony..they've heard testimony from Cipollone, Phibin, Short, Jacob ..and I'm pretty sure they have a whole cache of interrogatory responses...

[Irish_Dem]

35. How do you get him to trial?

To jail?

My point is that Trump could just refuse to cooperate on any level and force Garland to get heavy handed.
Which then Trump uses to play martyr and fund raise.
And still remains on the ballot.

I think the only hope Garland has is a plea deal arrangement.

PS I hope I am wrong. But Trump is crazy like a fox.

[getagrip_already]

40. you indict him...

it's very simple. He has zero choice whether to appear in court. ZERO.

He can object all he likes. He can try to refuse to cooperate all he wants. They will just put him in irons and lead him into the courtroom. If he is disruptive, he will be removed and the trial will go on without him being there.

He won't be called before a grand jury since targets aren't usually called. But someone receiving a subpoea to appear will have a bad day if they blow it off.

[Irish_Dem]

42. Will Garland put Trump in leg irons and drag him into court?

Serious question.

[getagrip_already]

45. It wouldn't be garland.....

It would be the judge who orders federal marshall's, and/or court bailiffs, to arrest him and bring him in.

If a person ignores a court appearance and fails to appear, the judge can issue a bench warrant and it will be up to law enforcement to bring them in.

The secret service could complicate matters, but I doubt they would stand in the way of a lawful arrest.

He would appear. Or he will be made to appear and be held in confinement if the judge determines he won't cooperate.

But it wouldn't be garlands decision. Doj could make a reomendation, but it is ultimately up to the judge.

Of course, there are judges and there are judges. But for the most part, they don't like to be disrespected by indicted criminals.

[Irish_Dem]

47. Will law enforcement go up against the Secret Service?

A blue on blue situation?

The SS are loyal to Trump, not the law, we have already seen that.

If Trump physically fights the arrest, will the SS stand by and do nothing?

Will a judge send Trump to jail for mere contempt?

Will the SS have to go sit in the jail cell with Trump?

Will a judge defy Garland and go off script?

The DOJ/FBI were very worried and alarmed about going to MAL to retrieve top secret documents.
They tip-toed around Trump.
Documents which endangered lives and national security.
They just let them sit out in the open for months.

But all of sudden police are willing to arrest Trump for no showing at court?

Believe me. Trump knows all of this down to the smallest detail.

[getagrip_already]

52. the ss aren't loyal to trump, they report to the executive branch.....

Their job is to protect the protectee from physical harm, not legal jeopardy.

If they tried to interfere with a lawful arrest, they would be replaced very quickly.

I doubt it's a serious issue.

[Irish_Dem]

54. Some of the SS has been shown to be liars, traitors and loyal to only Trump.

And the SS leadership covered for them.

There is Trump corruption throughout the US government.

SS, LE, Judiciary.

It is a serious issue.

Trump has been a one man audit of the entire US government and we failed the audit.

[republianmushroom]

23. 23 months

[Just A Box Of Rain]

36. Any legal analyst who says it will be "easy" to get convictions with a jury-system in place

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2022, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

would be prevaricating.

Successful prosecutions will not be easy. They are also not impossible.

To win convictions the DOJ/Jack Smith will need to develop exceedingly strong evidence-based cases. That is what they are doing by all accounts.

Garland and Smith are consummate professionals. They understand the realities and are well prepared for the job.

[Irish_Dem]

41. "Well prepared" to deal with a vicious, ruthless psychopath ex-president, running for office again?

A person who could be defiant, oppositional to the end and willing to burn down the country?

I am talking psychology, not the legal logistics and strategy.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

46. They will be well-prepared to deal with both.

We know who and what Trump is. There is no doubt about that. He is someone who is willing to burn down the country. Trump is dangerous.

His lawyers will mount a defense and we "the people" will have to deal with a jury pool that could include people who are sympathetic to him.

Indictments are easy. Convictions in these circumstances are hard. Not "impossible," but cases need to be made overwhelmingly.

Trust me, no one here wants convictions more than me (and probably also no less than me).

My feeling is that the prosecution is in very good hands.

For the good of the republic, we need to see Trump convicted of multiple charges. That is critical.

[Irish_Dem]

48. I hope you are right.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

49. They seem like very astute and well-experienced people to me.

I think they know what they are dealing with, and know they need to prepare pristine cases with overwhelming evidence.

The upside, is that evidence abounds.

[Irish_Dem]

50. It is going to be a psychological battle of wits.

A nerve wracking one.

The only thing the evidence does is give the DOJ a card to play in the game Trump is playing.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

51. You likely know as much about Jack Smith as I do

but when I look at that guy I don't think of him as someone who is going to be vulnerable to Trump's "mind games."

If Smith were prosecuting me (god forbid), I'd don't think I'd sleep at night. LOL

[Irish_Dem]

53. I don't know Jack Smith.

But I understand Trump very well.

And I know how major legal battles are often psychological ones in many ways.

Part of the psychology was for Garland to find someone who would intimidate and scare Trump.
Jack Smith fits that bill so far. That is a part of the game that is being played right now.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

55. I'm confident that Garland made a wise move.

Trump does poorly when he has to deal with people who are invulnerable to his attempted bullying.

People like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

Jack Smith strikes me as a person who will scare Donald J Trump. And with good reason.

[Irish_Dem]

58. Yes, people who say no and stand firm are alarming to Trump.

People he cannot buy off, threaten or intimidate.

But they also infuriate Trump to the point of murder.

Trump egged on people to kill Pelosi on at least two occasions.
Who also tried to kill Pence because he stood up to Trump.

So we know that Jack Smith is in danger as well.

We know both Trump and Jack Smith have cards to play.
We shall see how it unfolds.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

59. I'm sure that Trump will experience mind-rage and will internally wish Smith harm.

Rage-filled people do stupid things.

I'm betting on a stone-cold Jack Smith to win any "mind games" here.

[Irish_Dem]

62. Both sides are playing a careful game with traps being set.

Both sides have cards to play.

It is high stakes poker.

Trump is a ruthless, cunning street smart psychopath.
An ex president, now running for office again, it is a card he played to get cover and protection.

Trump knows there is no legal precedent for the DOJ to fall back on.

Smith appears to have nerves of steel, evidence and rule of law on his side.
But Trump would harm him if he could.

And Trump could simply refuse any cooperation.

And force an ugly public confrontation.
And burn down as much as possible.

Nothing is certain. We will know more as time passes.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

63. I think I see Trump's position as being much weaker than you seem to reason.

The DOJ and Jack Smith are not going to be intimidated, as I see it. And they will bring carefully crafted cases based on strong evidence.

Trump's lines for a defense are thin. He doesn't need to "cooperate" if he's indicted and prosecuted.

We need solid cases. I'm confident in the team.

[Irish_Dem]

65. Trump acts like a witless buffoon.

If you listen to his niece Mary Trump and his long time consigliere Michael Cohen,
they will disavow that notion quickly.

Trump is a micromanager who is in charge of everything.
He is the mastermind of all of his crimes. His buffoon act is just an act.

He acts the fool so people underestimate him.

Look at the other facts.

If Trump is in a weak position why is DOJ being so slow and so careful?
Why was the J6 committee needed to provide cover for the DOJ?
Why did McConnell let the Dems take the lead in throwing Trump under the bus?
Why was the FBI so hesitant to recover stolen classified documents, thereby putting national security
and lives at risk?
Why has no one questioned Trump about what he did with the documents and where are the others still missing?
Why did DOJ have to bring in Jack Smith?
Why do all the investigations against Trump seem to mysteriously fizzle?

I could go on and on but you can see that Trump is not in a weak position by anyone's standards.
He is being handled with kid gloves, and given every consideration.
People are clearly afraid of him and what he might do.

I am not saying the DOJ is in a weak position. I am just saying nothing is a slam dunk.
Nothing is certain.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

68. The DOJ is careful because Trump still has a base of political support.

A jury could end up with 2, 3, 4 or more people who are politically sympathetic to him.

It takes a unanimous jury to get convictions and only takes one person to hang a jury.

So any "reasonable doubt" must be extinguished with hard evidence.

That is the only thing Trump has going for him. And it ain't nothing.

I agree with your statement that "nothing is a slam dunk." Not with a trial by jury. But that's the system we are dealing with.

DOJ brought in Jack Smith both to focus on the case (in a way an AG, who has other duties, can not) and to meet DOJ standards of political objectivity as indictments seem likely by providing a layer between the AG and the prosecution.

I don't think anything is going to fizzle. I expect multiple indictments in February.

[Joinfortmill]

83. It appears your opinion is impervious to change.

[stopdiggin]

57. we've never gotten beyond the (well traveled) debate

of whether it's wise (or you can insert beneficial, or pragmatic, or healthy for the country/system - or whatever coinage you choose to apply) to bring a case that the prosecution has serious doubts about winning.

Meanwhile - I appreciate the fact that people (with some expertise) continue to remind us that some of these 'charges' are not the slam dunk that some of us have convinced ourselves. You may well feel that 'winning' is secondary to the importance of dragging the malefactor before a judge and jury. That's fine. But it's also important that we be aware of an appreciable chance that any jury seated .... And, no .. not a done deal.

[lees1975]

61. I'm having the same hard time.

What lawyer wouldn't want a case with such overwhelming, obvious evidence and self-admitted guilt?

Please do better than this and stop insulting our intelligence. We see this for exactly what it is. The media needs to stop thinking abut its ratings and stop speculating and stick to reporting facts.

Indict the bastard and everyone else who deserves it. Put it out there for everyone to see so that only the really stupid and ignorant people will still be confused about how to cast their ballot in 2024.

[FakeNoose]

67. I agree they shouldn't be doing this

They're poisoning the well, presenting opinions (not evidence) before jury members are even selected.

[Joinfortmill]

78. Jack Smith is going to nail hides to the wall.