Fani Willis misconduct hearing

Since when in serious criminal cases like this one are conflict of interest issues presumptively construed in favor of the prosecution…

And burden of persuasion issues are construed where a coin flip goes against the defense?

Because that to me is the only way you end with a simultaneous conclusion of:
1) there was no conflict of interest
2) Trump’s statements to the SOS implied that he was trying to conjure votes out of thin air rather than legitimately count more legal votes in Trump’s favor.

 

So is your position that presidential candidates should be immune from prosecution?

As to being “politically motivated” sure, there is probably some of that going on. But really only what is relevant is there a reasonable case against Trump and is prosecution for such charges a reasonable course of action?

If Trump wins and charges are dismissed, or dropped, etc, would not that be politically motivated?

Are the charges against Hunter Biden politically motivated? To some extent they are but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are illegitimate.

 

Election interference is a nice sound bite for Trump but what would you have prosecutors do? These investigations pre-dated Trump announcing his candidacy, and he did so 6 months earlier than he did in 2016. Why? Because he knew charges were coming and he wanted to be able to scream "Election interference!" when charges were brought.

Honestly though, how should this be handled when prosecutors are convince that a former President has committed a crime? Should they halt all investigations simply because he announces he's running? Should they wait until after the election even if that's two years away? What if he wins - do they wait 4 more years to continue the investigation? What if he loses and immediately announces he's running in 2028 - wait until after that election? What about House Representatives in Congress? They're all on two year terms so if they continuously run for re-election and win should they be immune from prosecution until they retire in order to avoid election interference?

The answer can't be to "let the people decide" because they don't have all the facts that prosecutors have and prosecutors can't make those facts public without bringing charges since it would prejudice the case against the defendant. It's not necessary for these trials to drag out through the election, but it's Trump's legal team that's causing them to do so. The prosecutors, especially Jack Smith, have been trying to expedite these cases as much as possible to that voters know the outcome prior to the election.

 

I get the complaint that the cases should have been brought sooner (putting aside that once indicted, it's clearly been Trump who has sought delays and continuances). In any event, I don't see how we can adopt a rule that neither candidates for office nor current office holders can be charged with crimes because it will negatively impact their campaigns. That would be even more tricky with respect to presidential campaigns if they can't be indicted while in office and can (at least arguably) pardon themselves for alleged Federal crimes.

 

Not “immune,” but it needs to at least meet the Nixon standard. You basically need to simultaneously charge a serious crime with a ton of evidence and a high likelihood of conviction.

There’s a reasonable criminal case against Biden for his handling of classified documents, as there was with Hillary.

I don’t think that should be the standard. I don’t want to get into this game where all you have to prove is evidence of a crime, and you can pursue anyone for committing it, regardless of why you’re doing it. That’s how you get the likes of Stalin, Castro, and Putin locking up their political opponents.

And if you don’t find that take appealing, go with the racial narrative take. You go on fishing expeditions in Black communities and you find crimes, that doesn’t justify the fishing expedition, unless of course you don’t subscribe to that viewpoint.

Even if it was, it’s always better for the justice system to err on the side of the defense. As a country, we should always prefer a politically motivated acquittal over politically motivated charges. We should prefer a guilty man gaming the system and getting away every now and again to locking up an innocent man because an angry mob hates him.

I agree. A lot of the Hunter Biden talk is reactive to Trump’s indictments. If Trump is being indicted for mishandling classified documents (when it’s likely every President since at least Clinton has done that) surely Hunter Biden should be indicted for something considering pictures of his “endeavors” available to everyone who simply wants to seek them. Dude has taken pictures of himself committing crimes for goodness sakes.

Obviously any Congressional hearings on Hunter Biden will be and/or are political because Congressional hearings tend to be political.

 

Its hard to craft an actual rule of that sort.

Our entire Western system, however, relies on some degree of integrity to the system itself.

Every system starts to break down when you start applying the full force of the law to your enemies, and grace/forgiveness for your friends.

 

I would find this argument more compelling if the FBI didn’t pressure the media to remove the Hunter Biden laptop story leading into the 2020 election.

Looks to me like a justice system that wants to suppress inconvenient information to the public to ensure it doesn’t affect the outcome of an election, while simultaneously wanting to broadcast convenient information as loudly as possible because “we can’t trust the people, because they don’t have all the facts. Neither did we on the Hunter Biden laptop story, but whatevs, we’re the FBI.”

 

Four of his co-defendants have already admitted their guilt and pled guilty. They knew what was going on and that it was illegal. Your interpretation of the damning tape is strained beyond reason. “You could just say you recalculated”. Also threatened Ga officials legally telling them they could be in trouble.

 

With respect to everything else.

Simple. Don’t indict a Presidential candidate unless the charges of the indictment are really serious and you have a high degree of confidence you can get a conviction.

The classified documents case is the case with the most damning evidence, but it doesn’t look as much like a serious crime when you have Joe Biden immediately coordinating with his attorneys to return classified documents that he had through the entirety of Trump’s presidency. And you had the FBI just decide not to pursue Hillary storing classified documents on an unsecure private server.

The RICO charges are the most severe charges against Trump but it doesn’t look like Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s at best a coin flip that Trump knew he lost and tried to get the Georgia SOS to conjure votes out of thin air.

 

You mean they didn't want information that was (1) potentially related to an ongoing investigation and most importantly (2) unverified, possibly planted information to be made public immediately before an election? Seems that would fit with the approach of completing the investigation and bringing charges if warranted at which time the facts will be made public.

That's not what's happening with Trump. The DOJ and Atlanta DA aren't simply announcing investigations for purposes of impacting the election, they've completed their investigation and have brought charges with plenty of time for them to be tried before the election (if the defense allows).

Now if they waited and simply made public that there was an ongoing investigation the week before the election, or if they strategically waited until shortly before the election to bring charges, then I would agree with you. That's just not the case here.

 

As far as I know there is a lot of evidence against Trump in these cases. My guess is the chances of conviction are high (caveat on the NY hush money case)

I disagree. The reason those cases didn’t move forward was they were not deemed likely of conviction. That was explicitly stated by Bidens special prosecutor, who certainly wasn’t in the tank for Biden given the damning comments about Bidens age and memory (which for the record are fair game IMO). They also chose not to pursue Pence. As the Biden prosecutor has argued, and Bill Barr, and Chris Christie, and just about anybody who isn’t deep into the MAGA world, that the Trump actions in documents were exponentially worse than Biden or Pence.

The logical extension of what you are saying is political figures should not be charged with crimes. From my knowledge with the 2 federal cases and the GA case there is overwhelming evidence and a high likelihood of conviction. The NY hush money case, OTOH, does not meet the bar IMO. While there is evidence he did do the things he said, the way they have combined 2 different things to make it a felony and keep within the statute of limitations is a huge stretch and thus should not have been pursued.

Not totally sure what you are getting at here plus it appears you haven’t really paid attention to much of my other postings. I don’t think black people should get special treatment because they are black, and I think one of the biggest things holding blacks back is failure to address crime in certain neighborhoods.

 

No, it’s not beyond reason.

You can genuinely read that as: “A lot more people voted for me, please count them. If you’re worried about the inevitable angry mob that will hound you after the fact, tell them that you recalculated.”

Pleading guilty does not necessarily mean you committed the crime. It simply means you don’t want to go through a drawn out litigation process or risk the possibility of a more serious sentence. It’s a risk averse position, not necessarily a factual showing that the crime was actually committed.

 

You’re arguing that federal law enforcement should have the power to both suppress stories (which are already reported) that may affect an election, and broadcast stories despite the fact that it may affect an election because “the people can’t be trusted, they don’t know what the FBI knows.”

That is an extraordinarily dangerous view of the power and role of law enforcement, and it’s undemocratic. There’s a reason we have a 1st Amendment, and there’s a reason we don’t simply have law enforcement decide elections.

 

He quoted a specific number. And the Ga votes had already been recounted. The Republican governor had certified the vote.

 

That's an interesting example since Trump (not Biden) was the sitting President with the power of the government behind him. Trump had a huge magaphone and bully pulpit. It was Trump who had appointed the FBI director. We also know Trump was willing and able to fire the FBI director since he had already fired Comey. Moreover, it was Trump's lawyer (Giuliani) who had the laptop and shared the information not only with the FBI but various people associated with the administration. I assume the New York Post got the information from Trump's lawyer or campaign rather than from the FBI directly.

 

1. the only case that looks like Trump would probably get convicted without accounting for things like venue and jury pool, is the classified documents case, which as I said is probably not a “serious crime” considering every President since at least Clinton has mishandled classified documents and Biden and Hillary also mishandled classified documents.
2. That is not the logical conclusion to my standard. I’m drawing a line. You need overwhelming evidence of a serious crime committed with a high likelihood of conviction.
3. If that is the logical conclusion of my standard, then under yours, no disparities in enforcement matter. All law enforcement needs to do is follow any politician around and find “something.” Even if it’s some BS like sodomy in a private setting (before SCOTUS invalidated it).

 

I'm not arguing that the FBI should have the power to suppress or broadcast stories. I'm arguing that the FBI and DOJ should let their investigations run their course and bring charges if warranted at the time it's warranted.

 

Well since we can't have you personally weigh in and decide on all these cases, I suppose we'll have to settle for our established process of law and allow grand juries to make those decisions. Despite the lack of respect you have for them, that's our process.

 

And Hillary (Obama’s Secretary of State at one point) leaked the Steele Dossier to Obama’s FBI.

I think Trump’s team’s actions were fair game under that standard. And unlike the Steele Dossier, the Biden laptop story was actually true.

Also, in light of the FBI’s consistent adversarial position towards Trump, even since Wray was appointed, I think it’s fair to say Trump does not control the FBI. There has not been a public figure treated worse by the FBI since 2016 or the appointment of Wray than Donald Trump.

And even if Trump’s team shared it with the FBI, they chose to suppress the story leading up to the election. I just don’t see how anyone can construe their actions as intending to benefit Team Trump.

 

I don’t lack respect for them, I’m just pointing out how easy it is to get an indictment if you really want one.

If that’s how you feel, cool. I don’t expect to change your mind. But don’t come crying to me when Democrats start getting indicted because I won’t want to hear it.