Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did not charge the lawmakers when she returned an indictment last month against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants in the sprawling racketeering case. It was up to the district attorney to decide how closely to stick to the special grand jury’s recommendations.
८ सप्टेंबर, २०२३
"The special grand jury in Fulton County investigating the 2020 presidential election in Georgia recommended charges against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former GOP Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler..."
"... according to the special counsel grand jury report released Friday," CNN reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
progressive processes
Kinda of smart that Willis avoided those charges, but then why did the Grand Jury even think such recommendations were warranted? Anyway, had Willis taken up those charges, then she would have been interfering with the duly elected officials of other states. That would be embarrassing right now as she fends off the US House from investigating the odd behavior of a state court determining federal activity to be against state RICO laws. Her argument is that it is a state matter. Well a state prosecuting another state's legislators would be a federal issue, right?
The internets definition of racketeering: Racketeering definition is the act or practice of making money through dishonest or illegal activities. It involves the use of force, fraud, or intimidation to run a corrupt enterprise that engages in illegal activities (a "racket"). Racketeering can include a variety of crimes, such as kidnapping, murder, bribery, arson, extortion, cyber extortion, identity theft, and credit card fraud. Racketeering is prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which applies to any ongoing criminal activity carried out as part of an enterprise.
There is nothing that could be construed as political in that definition. However, the story does say the case is a "sprawling" racketeering case. That must be where Fani comes in. She must've run for DA promising to reduce urban sprawl... or something.
Lindsey Graham is warmongering deep state. Can't touch him.
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
As reported Nov 16 2020, Graham called Raffensburger to (as he said) "fact find" about processes for absentee ballots with mismatched outer-envelope signatures. He posed a series of hypotheticals to determine what (if any) recourse was available where county signature checkers were prone to passing missing/mismatched signatures, and as reported felt that he came away with a solid understanding of the process and confidence in it.
Raffensburger says that he interpreted this as pressure to illegally throw out legitimate absentee ballots.
It’s nice to see they’ve recognized that electioneering = racketeering
I assume she wanted to streamline the case so that it could be wrapped up before the election. Smart move. No need to unnecessarily complicate things. Keep your eyes on the ball
Sometimes the DA doesn't want to indict the ham sandwich.
How fortunate for Senator Graham that he wasn't recorded. Seems Trump was unlucky. I hope that this somehow restores Senator Graham’s faith in the justice system.
How ironic. Loeffler and Perdue are in the Kemp camp and despised by the Trump camp. I’m no fan of Perdue but would crawl over broken glass to vote for him. Loeffler was persecuted by Steve Bannon and Jenny Beth Martin and their sleazy cabal, but she was the sole member of the Senate to endorse a free speech bill for conservatives. She was fabulous. But the idiot leftitarians who took over the GOP and despise Kemp refused to vote and we lost the Senate.
So what the hell was Willis going to prosecute them for? Trump hated them, and his minions, wrong-pilled Bannon and Jenny Beth Grifter convinced enough idiot Georgians to not vote in the Senate race because “their votes could be stolen.” We lost by a couple thousand idiot carat-home votes.
Bannon’s financial sponsor may not be a CCP dissident but a CCP operative. He is a toxic influence and will be the main reason Georgia turns Blue.
You can get a grand jury to indict anyone for anything. Grand juries are meant to be unfair because the whole purpose of them is to filter out anything that has no merit whatsoever. There is no responsibility for the prosecution to provide any evidence other than what makes their case look good. The system relies on the prosecution being restrained by a code of ethics to not abuse the system. If you play games sufficiently you can make any case look at least plausible.
Furthermore, lawyers will shop the grand juries to get indictments. The grand jury membership is random, but after a few weeks of activity the lawyers can tell which juries with agree to anything just so they can go home and which ones will require actual work. I've been on a grand jury. I have had cases brought before me where if everything they said was 100% true, it did not qualify for crime being charged. Often, the lawyers would be genuinely surprised when we no billed it. One was genuinely angry.
And if you manage to get a grand jury for a political case in a place that is heavily biased against the target with an unethical prosecution, then everything goes. I'm surprised Trump was not charged with prostitution, car theft, and operating a lemonade stand without a license.
Re "Racketeering"
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Can't blame the jurors. Most people look at Lindsay Graham and think, 'There's gotta be something we can do.'
Ah, the good old "racketeering" accusation. Shades of the Moscow Trials of 1936-38. Fani is playing the role of Andrei Vyshinsky ("show me the man and I'll show you the crime"). Human nature, immutable for the last ten thousand years (at least). Sigh...
What a surprise, the DA chose not to indict the neocon.
"Raffensburger says that he interpreted this as pressure to illegally throw out legitimate absentee ballots."
Because Raffensburger skipped the step of proving legitimacy either in understanding that was being asked or because he never thought of doing it.
Perhaps the neo- Maoist left can arrest all who do not obey the corrupt left?
Now you know it's entirely polically motivated.
Democrats are very stupid and vindictive people.
Good Now maybe Miss lindsey and his fellow GOP Senate clowns will do something.
Loeffler was apppointed Senator by Kemp who hates Trump. So maybe she will put pressure on Kemp, given she basically bought the seat by giving Kemp $$$$
Graham almost garnered charges.
Imagine feeling like you have to apologize for this clown show.
"Swear to God! The Emperor is wearing the latest new fashions, and they are glorious! If you can't see that, you must be a traitor!"
Amazing to me that Dems don't understand how trying to criminalize politics is a tactic that can be used against them. Georgia has lots of counties and most of them (unlike Fulton) have Rep DAs. Same is true in all of the states that are usually close in presidential elections -- big cities have Dem DAs and the rest of the states typically have the opposite. So, now when a loser tries to press a state official to take post-election action that might help in a recount battle, it's a crime if the official feels "pressured"? Gov't officials, and especially elected gov't officials, are always under "pressure" to toe the home-team's partisan line, the most obvious being an implied threat of being denied the party's nomination next time if the official isn't sufficiently 'loyal' to the party. It comes with the territory and is just politics of the most ordinary sort in a two-party system. So are phony claims of "voter suppression" now going to be criminal if some Dem seeks to overturn an election without any evidence to show it happened and pressures an elected official to support the claim?
The inclusion of these others in the grand jury recommendations is itself proof of the absurdity of such charges. The definition of conspiracy to commit a crime has now been broadened to include almost anything. You could fill all the jails with conspirators now. Oh, accept they won't. It's discretionary and you know the rest.
They gonna do what Southern Dems been doin all along.
Did it to MLK.
Swear by God, I'm gonna cut him down!
I heard screaming and bullwhips cracking
Keep watching...
They own the courts and now the gun safes.
What are the possibilities of these names appearing as defendants in other indictments?
"Ham Sandwich Nation" personified. Maybe it should be "Ham Sandwich Georgia."
Actually, it is probably based on Zimbabwe justice.
If believing that an election you ran in was stolen and saying so publicly and asking questions can constitute racketeering, couldn’t making up a case based on your own interpretation of laws and asking others to help you prosecute a bunch of people based on a novel interpretation of law also be racketeering?
You are a racketeer.
I know you are, but what am I?
Blogger tim in vermont said...
Re "Racketeering"
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
I was thinking that the Red Queen was an even more appropriate reference. Off with their heads!
The job of a legal racket is to ensure no other rackets pop up and take over… or something.
Why stop there, there are 80 million Americans left.
Here's an interesting story somebody could interpret as racketeering, if so inclined by political leanings of one kind or another.
A lawyer contracted by DA Fani to work on the sprawling case against Trump, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, is alleged to have solicited several indicted Trump codefendants.
Talk about a racket, I can make $$$ attempting to put you away, and while at it, let me make $$$ defending you too.
Don't worry. They will come for YOU someday too.
Next they’ll indict Adam and Eve for having started the whole mess.
@Althouse, do you still plan to explain the glories of prosecutorial discretion to us ignorant non-lawyers? Because this looks kind of abusive?
Kiss a toad’s ass, Fani
Kiss that ass for free
Kiss a toad’s ass, Fani
And (and, and)
You simple, fucking, clueless turkey (You simple, fucking, clueless turkey)
Haha. I can only imagine the collective IQ of the panel. If it was representative of our population it would have been chillingly low. Would wager largely that not one could pass the test required to become citizens. Not. One.
This is actually a good thing-
given the left's new standard here, any conservative DA can now prosecute the government unions under RICO statues (duh, but better late than never).
The more I learn a lot Raffensberger the more I think he deserves a a slow, physically painful ending. I basically lived in Georgia all my life and it’s scumbags like him that makes me glad I’m gone. I don’t like Kemp one little bit either, but Raffensberger…what a piece of shit.
The phrase "constitutional crisis" is strangely absent.
Pour encourager les autres...
Th grand jury "recommended" indictments against 39 people. I didn't think they made recommendations...
Leland: Loeffler and Perdue were sitting Georgia Senators. Had Willis wanted to try to prosecute them, she wasn't out of jurisdiction.
rcocean. Kelley Loeffler didn't buy her Senate appointment. She was, in fact, hesitant to enter politics, knowing she would have to give up her beloved basketball team and would be widely persecuted by mean-girl GOPe dumbbell lipstick operatives and not warmly received by social conservatives who didn;t know her long involvement in conservative Catholicism.
And she's savvy enough to know the real power in poitics lies behind the politicians, and she had plenty of money to operate that way.
She made a sacrifice, and the sleazy anarchists of the leftititarian stripe convinced a lot of naive people to stay home from the Senate race, thus flipping the Senate Blue. Steve Bannon is foremost among them, but also the far-left leftitarians of the Georgia Republican Assembly, a fringe group dedicated to destroying the Tea Party, the GOP, social conservatives, for their personal desire for power.
While in the Senate, she demonstrated conservative leadership and stuck to conservative ideals more than pretty much any other Senator. Look up her record. And don't believe professional liars.
Surely the local DA will eventually get to the real cause of the election kerfuffle in Georgia - all those people who voted for Trump, encouraging and enabling him to argue he really won. Those people, who each and all should be considered members of an organized group of criminals for thus enabling the criminal Trump, through their votes, need to be dealt with just as harshly as the candidate, err, criminal Trump himself.
Excuse me while I go change my voter registration to Democrat, backdated to when I was 18, to avoid my own future RICO prosecution. I suggest you do the same, if you have not already.
And remember, this can only be done TO Republicans, and would be completely insane if done BY them.
Richard Dolan wrote:
"Amazing to me that Dems don't understand how trying to criminalize politics is a tactic that can be used against them. Georgia has lots of counties and most of them (unlike Fulton) have Rep DAs."
That is naivete, Richard. Any Republican DA that tries that will immediately find himself under investigation by the federal government and indicted for civil rights violations.
Let me guess. They also recommended charges against Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger.
I am now confused about the meaning of the tag, "criminalization of politics."
Heretofore, I had thought that it may have simply been an issue-spotting device by Althouse. That she applied the tag to stories and blog posts wherein it was debatable as to whether there had actually been any "criminalization of politics."
I see that Althouse's origination of the tag goes back to 2014, when in a handful of blog posts in August of 2014, she was questioning (along with other elites like columnist Jonathan Chait) certain Texas criminal charges leveled against then-Governor Rick Perrry.
The tag then went unused until the Trump Era. When, in 2017, Althouse used the tag in connection with a Trump story (Trump's weirdly reckless Tweet that Obama placed a "Tapp" on Trump's phones in Trump Tower.) It's been deployed by Althouse 31 more times since then. All but three of them have been directly related to Trump. Two of those three were tangentially related to Trump (a blog post from 2022 about Wisconsin activists trying to disqualify Sen. Ron Johnson and Rep. Tom Tiffany from places on the fall ballot*, and blog post about a speech by then-AG Bill Barr about his use of the actual phrase "criminalization of politics.") The only one not Trump-related was a blog post about Hunter Biden. Wherein Althouse seemed suspicious about whether the story involved any criminalization of politics at all.
What I have seen in just about all of these posts tagged with "criminalization of politics" is some level of editorializing by Althouse that legal actions (civil or criminal) were offensive to her political sensibilities.
I no longer see the tag as a neutral issue-spotting device. I see Althouse's use of the tag as a sign of her personal disapproval. Legal actions that she doesn't like. An offshoot of the "lawsuits I hope will win" and "lawsuits I hope will fail" tags. But without her open ownership attached.
*How interesting, to go back and see Althouse jumping so aggressively on the 14th Amendment "disqualification" case in Wisconsin last year! Now that we are once again looking closely at such cases directed at Trump! The Wisconsin case was dismissed on the basis of a lack of standing, but also significantly included a determination by the U.S. District Court in Milwaukee that the proper venue for the complaint was with the state Board of Elections. The case was not dismissed on the merits of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And of course, it wasn't a criminal case. It was a civil action. Althouse was objecting to the "criminalization of politics" where there wasn't any criminalization at all.
Special K wrote: ‘Ham Sandwich Nation" personified’
The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals. I understand why that’s confusing for you as the distinction is blurry. But it’s nonetheless true.
"Rich" says
The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals. I understand why that’s confusing for you as the distinction is blurry. But it’s nonetheless true.
And you know this how ? Oh, it's just what you would do if you could. You lefties are so predictable. You harass Trump and anyone who supports him, trying to bankrupt them and get someone to perjure themselves to save what they have left. The Nazis could not have been more evil. Lawfare could have been invented by them but they used more direct methods. You and your pals, including "Chuck" would be good Gestapo recruits.
Blogger Richard Dolan said...
Amazing to me that Dems don't understand how trying to criminalize politics is a tactic that can be used against them.
They are confident that they will always be in control. They did a test run in 2020 and know what will be necessary. Of course, their policies are insane and once the economy crashes or we lose a war, we will see what results. Probably a Pinochet or a Buck Turgidson.
At some point we're going to discover the grand jury was hand-picked from Democratic Underground.
Rich said..
that HE thinks of ALL republicans, as "criminals", and should ALL get what's coming to them!
The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals.
What makes them criminals, Rich? I'm not even talking about an evidentiary standard - what did Lindsay Graham do that was - even if he did "it" - criminal?
It's well and good to say "So and so was indicted, after all!" and point to that as proof of crime, but when the indictment is for a "crime" unrecognized by prior jurisprudence and unclear and/or utterly absent in this case, how is your reasoning sound?
Something for "Rich" to read.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/is-lindsey-graham-a-ham-sandwich.php
I know, I hate punching bags, too, but it is such fun.
The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals.
Rich still trying, and failing, to grasp innocent until proven guilty.
absolute clown show. The republic is dead.
The past few years have give us all an opportunity to see who actually believes that wonderful Law Day rhetoric they spout.
DonLd: you're playing right into the Democrats' hands.
Trump's blunders should not rise to criminal conviction, but he let others speaking for him go too far. He could have avoided thus outcome, wrong as it us, by behaving differently.
I don't expect Democrats to do the right thing. I do expect Republicans to understand what is really at stake here and practice some rational behavior.
Kemp is a competent governor. Trump, the buildder, moved the Overton window and built a coalition but then frittered his time away pandering to criminals and Kardashians. I do give him credit for sound foreign and economic policy.
We should celebrate Trump but remain disciplined and cohesive. That means a hard, reality-based look at his failures too, and a unified winning strategy for 2024.
If you keep being emotional and falling for the grifters surrounding Trump, we will lose Georgia. Think for yourself, calm down and stop being divisive. It's time for disciplined choices. Kemp has done nothing to earn your ire. WE should be ashamed that so many of our political peers were snowed into not voting to save the Senate. We need to behave like adults, not children bringing their toys home by refusing to think strategically.
So, by all means, rally for Trump. Support him throughout the witchunt. But don't freeze there, whining about a nobody like Raffensberger. We have an existential election to win, and based on current demographics, we will lose Georgia to Democrats if we don't come together for a viable cabdidate.
Those are just facts.
Special K coming in hot with the ad hominem... Sad really.....
"The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals."
iowan2: "Rich still trying, and failing, to grasp innocent until proven guilty."
What iowan2 is failing to grasp is that Rich is NOT failing to grasp "innocent until proven guilty" because the New Soviet Democraticals have successfully created a system where they can deny due process and railroad any political enemy for any reason into a conviction and prison.
Thus, the entire concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has been effectively replaced with the Stalinesque and Maoist concept of "automatically guilty of being an enemy of The New Soviet Democratical Party" with the only task remaining figuring out out which "law" can be twisted enough to satisfy the corrupted 100% democratical controlled judicial district proceedings before launching the political enemy into a Gulag Garland-ipelago.
That's precisely what The New Soviet Democraticals clearly like MOST about their "legal" creation.
It's strange that there are conservatives/republicans out there that STILL fail to grasp this basic fact and STILL believe its all just a function of the New Soviet Democraticals missing some basic concept or point.
Spoiler: they aren't missing anything. This is ALWAYS where the leftists take societies when they gain power.
But only every single time, always and everywhere throughout history.
Let's not forget that all of the Georgian elected officials that Trump talked to were Republicans. They all stood up to him and protected the Constitution.
--- I assume she wanted to streamline the case so that it could be wrapped up before the election. Smart move. No need to unnecessarily complicate things. Keep your eyes on the ball [jim5301]
Thread winner! Priceless.
Lots of 19 to 1’s but 13 to 7 isn’t going to get you a sitting Senator. I think it shows the Grand Jury wasn’t on a witch hunt as a four time indicted—two times impeached disgraced rapist wants you to believe.
Rich is a neo-Stalinist... happy with the removal of due process.
Judge Denies Meadows’s Request to Move Georgia Case to Federal Court ~ NYT
Judge made the right call. Committing crimes isn't an executive function.
Here's a thought:
Trump, like Meadows, has the burden to remove to federal court. And like Meadows, he would have to go through an evidentiary hearing. Trump would have to testify. I suspect that’s the last thing Trump would do — he runs the risk of exposing himself to cross-examination by the State.
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
Rich is a neo-Stalinist... happy with the removal of due process.
9/9/23, 9:10 AM
Rich is Chuck. Don't engage him. You might catch his stupid.
iowan2 said...
"The FBI & DOJ and Georgia aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals.
Rich still trying, and failing, to grasp innocent until proven guilty."
He doesn't care.
Even Rusty — who I suspect is a states rights — small government type (that wants to control your uterus) is furious that Georgia has a right to enforce its own laws.
Rich/Chuck. No body cares about your stupid ill considered opinion.
@ Rusty: Someone smarter than me once observed that you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
The prosecutor thinks otherwise. It’s up to the jury to pass a verdict. What are you afraid of? Why do you not at least respect the courts? Remember -- it’s the burden of the prosecutor to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. A jury can do what ever they feel with that information.....
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा