Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Strange indictment/election claims by lawyers and pundits and TV shows

27 views
Skip to first unread message

micky

unread,
Nov 4, 2022, 6:07:23 PM11/4/22
to
Miss Rubin, a lawyer on MSNBC, when asked if trump could be charged the
day after the election, said she didn't think so because there are still
a couple witnesses the DOJ wants to here from.

That seems so strange. The trial won't start the day after he's
charged. They have plenty of time to interview more witnesses.

Corporations always say, We can't discuss the case because it's a
personel or disciplinary matter. That's not true either, is it? But it
seems similar to this, that they can't interview witnesses once someone
is indicted. But that's not true, right?

(Heck, in Law & Order, in the middle of the trial, they frequently send
the police out to find NEW witnesses. That does't happen either, does
it? By the time the trial starts, they've researched as much as they
can, right? And if they learn some new lead, there isn't time enough
before the trial resumes the next day or very soon.)


Another thing several have said is that trump will announce his
candidacy for prez so that if he's indicted afterwards, he can claim
they are after him 1) because he's a candidate, or 2) that they may not
go after him because he's a candidate.

WRT 1, won't he say that anyway, they're after me because they think I
will be a candidate? Or just, they are persecuting me? Why does his
being an announced candidate make it any harder to investigate or
prosecute him?

WRT 2 Why would his being an announced candidate make it any harder to
prosecute him? If that were not psosible, everyone expecting an
investigation or indictment would announce his candidacy for something.
Running for governor is not that hard, and running for president is not
that hard if you don't actually work at it.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

Stuart O. Bronstein

unread,
Nov 4, 2022, 7:49:39 PM11/4/22
to
micky <mis...@fmguy.com> wrote:

> Miss Rubin, a lawyer on MSNBC, when asked if trump could be
> charged the day after the election, said she didn't think so
> because there are still a couple witnesses the DOJ wants to here
> from.
>
> That seems so strange. The trial won't start the day after he's
> charged. They have plenty of time to interview more witnesses.
>
> Corporations always say, We can't discuss the case because it's a
> personel or disciplinary matter. That's not true either, is it?
> But it seems similar to this, that they can't interview witnesses
> once someone is indicted. But that's not true, right?
>
> (Heck, in Law & Order, in the middle of the trial, they frequently
> send the police out to find NEW witnesses. That does't happen
> either, does it? By the time the trial starts, they've researched
> as much as they can, right? And if they learn some new lead,
> there isn't time enough before the trial resumes the next day or
> very soon.)

It's not that they couldn't indict. There's no rule saying they
can't. It's just that they want to nail down all the relevant
evidence before they indict. The indictment recites a lot of the
evidence against the person charged, so they want to make sure they
have all the evidence that they can include in the indictment.

Yes, an indictment can be amended. But it's better not to if they
can avoid it.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Elle N

unread,
Nov 5, 2022, 12:10:06 PM11/5/22
to
On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 5:07:23 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> Another thing several have said is that trump will announce his
> candidacy for prez so that if he's indicted afterwards, he can claim
> they are after him 1) because he's a candidate, or 2) that they may not
> go after him because he's a candidate.
>
> WRT 1, won't he say that anyway, they're after me because they think I
> will be a candidate? Or just, they are persecuting me? Why does his
> being an announced candidate make it any harder to investigate or
> prosecute him?
>
> WRT 2 Why would his being an announced candidate make it any harder to
> prosecute him? If that were not psosible, everyone expecting an
> investigation or indictment would announce his candidacy for something.
> Running for governor is not that hard, and running for president is not
> that hard if you don't actually work at it.

The way I see it:
Being a candidate for President means running against the U. S. Attorney General's
boss (President Biden). For the U. S. Attorney General to go after a political rival
of the AG's boss is a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest may demand
that the U. S. Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel. For one, see
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1

Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special Counsel stronger.
Also the Special Counsel would have to be a Republican. Which of course is
not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's poor track record before his very own
judicial appointees suggests that chaos may very well not be the final
outcome. "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.

Anyway, all these things make it harder for the Justice Department to
press forward.

If the GOP takes control of the House, I predict investigations of every little
thing that Biden has done will commence. Which maybe does not matter,
since with the House controlled by one party and the Presidency controlled
by another, in these days of particularly heated partisanship, any meaningful
legislation is unlikely to be passed anyway.

Then again, the effects of climate change could compel (to say the least)
bi-partisan efforts.

Bernie Cosell

unread,
Nov 6, 2022, 10:27:23 AM11/6/22
to
That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
ber...@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

Elle N

unread,
Nov 19, 2022, 1:02:29 AM11/19/22
to
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 9:27:23 AM UTC-6, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)


Within five minutes of the announcement of Jack Smith's
appointment as Special Counsel today, I am betting
Smith had Liz Cheney on speed dial.

Stuart O. Bronstein

unread,
Nov 20, 2022, 12:06:43 PM11/20/22
to
Bernie Cosell <ber...@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

> } Being a declared candidate makes the argument for a Special
> Counsel stronger. } Also the Special Counsel would have to be a
> Republican. Which of course is } not necessarily bad. Mr. Trump's
> poor track record before his very own } judicial appointees
> suggests that chaos may very well not be the final } outcome.
> "Chaos" being a euphemism for much worse things.
>
> That makes sense.. I nominate Liz Cheney :o)

I'd prefer her as Speaker of the House.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Rick

unread,
Nov 20, 2022, 2:09:55 PM11/20/22
to
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message
news:XnsAF555B4E26E35s...@130.133.4.11...
She'd be an interesting choice who might end up with strong support on both
sides of the aisle. One drawback is that she won't be a member of the House
starting in January. Even though the Constitution does not require the
Speaker to be a Member, all previous Speakers have been Members and
tradition does play a big part in Congress.

--

Roy

unread,
Nov 20, 2022, 2:12:00 PM11/20/22
to
This is getting a bit too political. Let us close this topic and get
back to legal stuff

0 new messages