As if we had not been reminded before, the dismissal of six charges against defendants in the Georgia Rico case reminds us once again that the whole notion of taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution, including state constitutions, has apparently become a nullity in modern times. According to the judge in Georgia, if you’re required to take an oath, it’s just a ceremony, not an actual requirement to uphold the law – the law being the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Georgia.
The same people who are evaluating whether or not Fani Willis should be taken off the case, replaced, the case proceeds, simples!
This is a small pothole in the road but the Legal Machine heading at Trump is akin to a massive tank, Judge McAfee may have thought he had to complain and demand more details, just to show he is "doing his best to be fair to both sides," and there's also the perceived benefit that his Federalist credentials will be burnished a bit - even so, it still leaves Trump and the rest of his alleged co-conspirators in a horrific situation.
It drags out this process, yes, BUT TRUMP CAN'T END A STATE CASE even if he wins in November, same with the cases in NY, the financial frauds and the hush-money to Stormy case* charged as covert election law violations.
*EDIT: The emotional and financial toll exacted on Stephanie Clifford / "Stormy Daniels" is set to be explored in a streaming documentary, "Stormy," available this Monday, March 18 on Peacock:
`"But wishful audiences should prepare themselves for a darker reality, tied up with the exhaustion of living through years of Trump-world fury: The Daniels we have today—and the one we should expect to appear before the New York court during a Trump trial—is not just overwhelmed but hopeless.
“The way that this is different from 2018 is I have more knowledge. The shock of it is not the same,” she says toward the end of the documentary. “I’m desensitized to some of it. But they’ve also become more violent with me. I’m more prepared with my legal knowledge, but I’m also tired. Like, my soul is so tired. And I don’t know if I’m so much a warrior now as out of fucks, man. I’m out of fucks.”'
"Aeschines cannot be considered as a statesman, since he had no definite policy. He was, as he admitted himself, an opportunist. ‘Both individual and state,’ he says, ‘must shift their ground according to change of circumstances, and aim at what is best for the time’;10 and though he claims to be ‘the adviser of the greatest of all cities,’11 he never had in public matters any higher principle than this following of the line of least resistance."
AESCHINES
§ 1. Life
AESCHINES was for twenty years a bitter enemy of Demosthenes. This enmity was perhaps the chief interest in his life; at any rate it is the dominant motive of his extant speeches. Demosthenes on his side could not afford to despise an enemy whose biting wit and real gift of eloquence assured him an attentive hearing, whether in the courts or before the ecclesia, and thus gave him an influence which the vagueness of his political views and the instability of his personal character could never entirely dissipate. Aeschines had no constructive policy, but he had just the talents which are requisite for the leader of a captious and malicious opposition. To the fact of the long-maintained hostility between these two men we owe a good deal of first-hand information about each of them, both as regards public and private life. It is true that we cannot accept without reservation the statements and criticisms made by either speaker about his rival; but in many cases they agree about facts, though they put different interpretations on them, and so, with care, we may arrive at a substratum of truth.
164
Aeschines was born about 390 B.C.1 his father Atrometus, an Athenian citizen of pure descent,2 was exiled by the Thirty, and fled to Corinth, with his wife. He served for some time as a mercenary soldier in Asia, and finally returned to Athens, where he kept a school. His wife, Glaucothes, filled some minor religious office, initiating the neophytes in certain mysteries, apparently connected with Orphism. Aeschines seems to have helped both his parents in the work, if we may suppose that there is a grain of truth mixed with the malice of Demosthenes:
‘You used to fill the ink-pots, sponge the benches, and sweep the schoolroom, like a slave, not like a gentleman’s son. When you grew up you helped your mother in her initiations, reciting the formulas, and making yourself generally useful. All night long you were wrapping the celebrants in fawn-skins, preparing their drink-offering, smearing them with clay and bran,’ etc.3
The whole of the description from which the foregoing passage is taken is an obvious caricature, and its chief value is to show that Demosthenes, if circumstances had not made him a statesman, might have been a successful writer of mediocre comedy; but it seems to point to the fact that Aeschines’ parents were in humble circumstances, that he himself had a hard life as a boy, and did not enjoy the usual opportunities of obtaining the kind of education desirable for a 165 statesman.4 After this, at an age when other aspirants to public life would have been studying under teachers of rhetoric, he was forced to earn his living. He was first clerk to some minor officials, then an actor — according to Demosthenes he played small parts in an inferior company, and lived chiefly on the figs and olives with which the spectators pelted him.5 He also served as a hoplite, and, by his own account, distinguished himself at Mantinea and Tamynae. In 357 B.C. he obtained political employment, first under Aristophon of Azenia, then under Eubulus, and later we find him acting as clerk of the ecclesia.
He married into a respectable family about 350 B.C., and in 348 B.C. he first appears in a position of public trust, being appointed a member of the embassy to Megalopolis in Arcadia. On this occasion he went out admittedly as an opponent of Philip, but came back a partisan of peace. The reasons for this change of view will be discussed later. His own explanation, that he realized war to be impracticable, is reasonable in itself."
So satisfying that Aeschines was compelled to flee into exile because he could not - or would not - pay the fine imposed for his bullshit. Déjà-vu all over again. Yes history repeats itself both the good (briefly) and the bad (mostly let’s face it).
Demosthenes mains his historical stature meanwhile, Aeschines - well thank you for the cute and I had to look him up - a rare thing
Yeah I rarely ever saw this characters name mentioned, one of the so-called "Ten Orators," it's an interesting bio and slice of ancient life - and "Sacred Wars," by the multifarious nourishing breasts of Diana of Ephesus, these sacrileges cannot stand! I can imagine the crowds getting all worked up, their most basic beliefs "about the Gods" and the entire sacred pantheon they believe connects the entire Cosmos, makes some sense out of it, attacked and a temple looted, no wonder they took it so seriously it led to outright warfare, however silly (and deadly) it might be from a different perspective.
I’ve no doubt. One of Greeks favorite things back in the day (and recently) is screaming “Polemo”! and mixing it up. A far cry from idyllic chitchat on marble pedestals.
Forgive this potential lapse into Godwin’s law, but I believe these Federalist Society judges, if asked to rule on whether Hitler ordered the Final Solution, would easily be won over by arguments such as Holocaust denier David Irving‘s, that there is “no evidence“ that Hitler did any such thing.
And therefore the dictator whose regime murdered 6 million Jews, countless Roma, homosexuals, and people who simply disagreed politically with the regime, who wrote his plans in his published autobiography, and who made numerous public statements indicating his desire to rid the German Reich of Jewry, who met with Himmler and Heydrich — the top officials who implemented the specific steps of the genocide from 1941 to 1944 — countless times, would be found entirely innocent of that crime — “for lack of evidence”.
As Ralph Nader wrote in a forward to the book “The High Citadel” about Harvard Law School, the American legal system and legal education suffer from a “brilliant myopia and a superfluous rigor.”
Federalist Society judges use these tricks of legal legerdemain every single day to impose utterly sophistic legal judgments upon our society.
Omg I forgot David Irving’s bullshit drive to treat the Holocaust as a non-event, never happened phenom. Not even to be looking him up to see if he’s kicked yet.
I'm hoping that this means the Judge is simply trying to give the Trumpists something before he denies the motion to disqualify Willis. The decision makes little sense, but now Fox can proclaim "Trump wins!" and MAGA world is happy. Overall this doesn't seem to effect the rest of the charges and may even be doing Willis a favor by narrowing what she will have to prove.
Notice even IF Fani Willis is removed, the players on the bench (no pun intended) will enter the game - a deadly serious and consequential game - and the legal juggernaut rolls on, irreversible even if Trump squeezes out a surprise win in November (he is in plenty of trouble as it is on that front, too) because it is a state case , just as those in New York will proceed.
I hope you're right, but I would guess that Drumpf would claim presidential immunity even to the state cases and claim they have to be stayed until he's out of office. Then endless appeals until he runs out the clock and finally leaves, if he ever does. Our legal system just isn't equipped to deal with someone with an endless supply of money and a shameless strategy of ignoring all laws. E.Jean has had the best success so far, and I hope she files another suit raising the stakes even higher.
I am as pissed off by the defendants' shenanigans as anyone, but in this case I think we're subject to "good for the goose, good for the gander." Judge McAfee has, in all other matters, held to a fairly strict letter of the law. If, in this example, doing so runs counter to the opinion of those of us who see the machinations of DT and his cohorts as reprehensible, then imo we have to live with it. The bottom line is that McAfee has not given DT & Friends a pass. Okay, so be it. Let's get to the heart of the indictments.
Exactly, and the prosecutors have more options than that:
"So, what’s the issue that led McAfee to dismiss these counts? Basically, the judge found the indictment wasn’t specific enough when it came to the alleged oath violations at issue. “As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited,” the judge wrote. Crucially, he pointed out that his ruling doesn’t apply to the corresponding conduct alleged in the racketeering charge. That’s one of the reasons that his ruling doesn’t doom the case.
The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. "
*******
"The prosecution could also seek a new indictment," i.e., empanel a new grand jury and focus ONLY on the requisite level of detail to indict on the same charges, "or appeal. "
Judges are concerned about setting a precedent where sloppy indictments pass through and the entire trial process, leading to convictions, is thrown out on appeal, so this isn't as good for Trump and his cohorts as may first appear.
So apparently taking an oath means nothing. That's disturbing to say the least. If it's not important and doesn't really mean anything, then why do we keep doing it? Is taking an oath to tell the truth then arbitrary as well?
No, it doesn't mean that the oaths "mean nothing," it means the sloppy indictment can be refiled after empaneling another grand jury that focuses ENTIRELY on providing the requisite level of detail on this part of the overall prosecution case, or appeal.
"The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal."
So, we could look at the judge tossing these charges as helping the prosecution to tighten their case by critiquing the counts that need to be more specific and adhere exactly to the laws.
Sure, it really might turn out to be more help than hindrance, getting them to fix the problems and re-indict - but really the judge is {{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee }}
as solidly "Federalist Society" as it gets, so he wants to have it both ways - rule in ways that he THINKS will be upheld on appeal, which is dicey, as the appeals court might decide there is already enough detail, but even if he's reversed, the Federalist tribe will think he did his best, but there was no way to stop the main part of the prosecution case. He didn't even complain at all about any problems elsewhere, he realizes that's for the jury to decide.
I don't think he's broken it exactly but he's revealed with glaring clarity all its pre-existing fissures. Many of us have long known that the law is flawed and unequally applied, but seeing how incapable it seems to be when faced with someone like Trump -- it's sobering, to say the least.
The "loopholes" are waiting to be filled with the requisite detail this sloppy part of the massive indictments omitted, by empaneling a new grand jury and focusing ONLY on that (it could all be done by the end of the month) and filing the same indictments, or if they think it's a better course of action, appeal on that set of issues and proceed to prosecute on what remains.
"The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal."
The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal.
Yet another example of the inequality of our legal system and how Inmate No. PO1135809 can use his money (actually the money of his lemming followers) to manipulate the legal system.
A very good friend and a very good attorney, once commented that the law was an imperfect instrument. Apparently he missed the mark, it’s no instrument at all.
Other sources say the prosecutors can still revise and make the indictments in this case stronger. Looks like there is a need to dot i's and cross t's, as unbearable as that seems.
Who judges the judges.
The same people who are evaluating whether or not Fani Willis should be taken off the case, replaced, the case proceeds, simples!
This is a small pothole in the road but the Legal Machine heading at Trump is akin to a massive tank, Judge McAfee may have thought he had to complain and demand more details, just to show he is "doing his best to be fair to both sides," and there's also the perceived benefit that his Federalist credentials will be burnished a bit - even so, it still leaves Trump and the rest of his alleged co-conspirators in a horrific situation.
It drags out this process, yes, BUT TRUMP CAN'T END A STATE CASE even if he wins in November, same with the cases in NY, the financial frauds and the hush-money to Stormy case* charged as covert election law violations.
*EDIT: The emotional and financial toll exacted on Stephanie Clifford / "Stormy Daniels" is set to be explored in a streaming documentary, "Stormy," available this Monday, March 18 on Peacock:
slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/stormy-daniels-documentary-trump-case-hush-money-peacock.html - The lengthy Slate article concludes:
`"But wishful audiences should prepare themselves for a darker reality, tied up with the exhaustion of living through years of Trump-world fury: The Daniels we have today—and the one we should expect to appear before the New York court during a Trump trial—is not just overwhelmed but hopeless.
“The way that this is different from 2018 is I have more knowledge. The shock of it is not the same,” she says toward the end of the documentary. “I’m desensitized to some of it. But they’ve also become more violent with me. I’m more prepared with my legal knowledge, but I’m also tired. Like, my soul is so tired. And I don’t know if I’m so much a warrior now as out of fucks, man. I’m out of fucks.”'
May it be so, Richard.
But I do appreciate your seeking to console us though. p.
Evohe!
I am taking my mind off this ongoing Trump nightmare with this, seriously! -
For one thing, the SAME NONSENSE has been going on for over 2300 years, and for the
SAME REASONS, motives, skullduggery, chicanery for high stakes, huge mobs and an army
"looting the Temple of Delphi for its treasure" to fund some war or other, it's wild, and this guy..
Self-described "opportunist," he would fit right in with Trump's retinue, be facing indictments too!
https://elfinspell.com/ClassicalTexts/Dobson-TheGreekOrators/Chapter8-Aeschines.html#chap8
"Aeschines cannot be considered as a statesman, since he had no definite policy. He was, as he admitted himself, an opportunist. ‘Both individual and state,’ he says, ‘must shift their ground according to change of circumstances, and aim at what is best for the time’;10 and though he claims to be ‘the adviser of the greatest of all cities,’11 he never had in public matters any higher principle than this following of the line of least resistance."
AESCHINES
§ 1. Life
AESCHINES was for twenty years a bitter enemy of Demosthenes. This enmity was perhaps the chief interest in his life; at any rate it is the dominant motive of his extant speeches. Demosthenes on his side could not afford to despise an enemy whose biting wit and real gift of eloquence assured him an attentive hearing, whether in the courts or before the ecclesia, and thus gave him an influence which the vagueness of his political views and the instability of his personal character could never entirely dissipate. Aeschines had no constructive policy, but he had just the talents which are requisite for the leader of a captious and malicious opposition. To the fact of the long-maintained hostility between these two men we owe a good deal of first-hand information about each of them, both as regards public and private life. It is true that we cannot accept without reservation the statements and criticisms made by either speaker about his rival; but in many cases they agree about facts, though they put different interpretations on them, and so, with care, we may arrive at a substratum of truth.
164
Aeschines was born about 390 B.C.1 his father Atrometus, an Athenian citizen of pure descent,2 was exiled by the Thirty, and fled to Corinth, with his wife. He served for some time as a mercenary soldier in Asia, and finally returned to Athens, where he kept a school. His wife, Glaucothes, filled some minor religious office, initiating the neophytes in certain mysteries, apparently connected with Orphism. Aeschines seems to have helped both his parents in the work, if we may suppose that there is a grain of truth mixed with the malice of Demosthenes:
‘You used to fill the ink-pots, sponge the benches, and sweep the schoolroom, like a slave, not like a gentleman’s son. When you grew up you helped your mother in her initiations, reciting the formulas, and making yourself generally useful. All night long you were wrapping the celebrants in fawn-skins, preparing their drink-offering, smearing them with clay and bran,’ etc.3
The whole of the description from which the foregoing passage is taken is an obvious caricature, and its chief value is to show that Demosthenes, if circumstances had not made him a statesman, might have been a successful writer of mediocre comedy; but it seems to point to the fact that Aeschines’ parents were in humble circumstances, that he himself had a hard life as a boy, and did not enjoy the usual opportunities of obtaining the kind of education desirable for a 165 statesman.4 After this, at an age when other aspirants to public life would have been studying under teachers of rhetoric, he was forced to earn his living. He was first clerk to some minor officials, then an actor — according to Demosthenes he played small parts in an inferior company, and lived chiefly on the figs and olives with which the spectators pelted him.5 He also served as a hoplite, and, by his own account, distinguished himself at Mantinea and Tamynae. In 357 B.C. he obtained political employment, first under Aristophon of Azenia, then under Eubulus, and later we find him acting as clerk of the ecclesia.
He married into a respectable family about 350 B.C., and in 348 B.C. he first appears in a position of public trust, being appointed a member of the embassy to Megalopolis in Arcadia. On this occasion he went out admittedly as an opponent of Philip, but came back a partisan of peace. The reasons for this change of view will be discussed later. His own explanation, that he realized war to be impracticable, is reasonable in itself."
https://elfinspell.com/ClassicalTexts/Dobson-TheGreekOrators/Chapter8-Aeschines.html#chap8
So satisfying that Aeschines was compelled to flee into exile because he could not - or would not - pay the fine imposed for his bullshit. Déjà-vu all over again. Yes history repeats itself both the good (briefly) and the bad (mostly let’s face it).
Demosthenes mains his historical stature meanwhile, Aeschines - well thank you for the cute and I had to look him up - a rare thing
Yeah I rarely ever saw this characters name mentioned, one of the so-called "Ten Orators," it's an interesting bio and slice of ancient life - and "Sacred Wars," by the multifarious nourishing breasts of Diana of Ephesus, these sacrileges cannot stand! I can imagine the crowds getting all worked up, their most basic beliefs "about the Gods" and the entire sacred pantheon they believe connects the entire Cosmos, makes some sense out of it, attacked and a temple looted, no wonder they took it so seriously it led to outright warfare, however silly (and deadly) it might be from a different perspective.
I’ve no doubt. One of Greeks favorite things back in the day (and recently) is screaming “Polemo”! and mixing it up. A far cry from idyllic chitchat on marble pedestals.
Autocorrect changed “cite” to “cute” and I didn’t catch it.
Thank You, Richard. Between your good counsel and Joyce Vance's I can sleep at night.
I want to throw up
Forgive this potential lapse into Godwin’s law, but I believe these Federalist Society judges, if asked to rule on whether Hitler ordered the Final Solution, would easily be won over by arguments such as Holocaust denier David Irving‘s, that there is “no evidence“ that Hitler did any such thing.
And therefore the dictator whose regime murdered 6 million Jews, countless Roma, homosexuals, and people who simply disagreed politically with the regime, who wrote his plans in his published autobiography, and who made numerous public statements indicating his desire to rid the German Reich of Jewry, who met with Himmler and Heydrich — the top officials who implemented the specific steps of the genocide from 1941 to 1944 — countless times, would be found entirely innocent of that crime — “for lack of evidence”.
As Ralph Nader wrote in a forward to the book “The High Citadel” about Harvard Law School, the American legal system and legal education suffer from a “brilliant myopia and a superfluous rigor.”
Federalist Society judges use these tricks of legal legerdemain every single day to impose utterly sophistic legal judgments upon our society.
This is one such case and ruling.
“brilliant myopia and a superfluous rigor.” Nader is an awful human being, but he's not wrong there.
These words should be reproduced on a plaque set at the base of the Supreme Courthouse steps.
Omg I forgot David Irving’s bullshit drive to treat the Holocaust as a non-event, never happened phenom. Not even to be looking him up to see if he’s kicked yet.
Might it have helped to submit the case in graphic novel form? Would pictures have helped? Animations? I'm feelin' somewhat Beyond Thunderdome here.
I'm hoping that this means the Judge is simply trying to give the Trumpists something before he denies the motion to disqualify Willis. The decision makes little sense, but now Fox can proclaim "Trump wins!" and MAGA world is happy. Overall this doesn't seem to effect the rest of the charges and may even be doing Willis a favor by narrowing what she will have to prove.
Notice even IF Fani Willis is removed, the players on the bench (no pun intended) will enter the game - a deadly serious and consequential game - and the legal juggernaut rolls on, irreversible even if Trump squeezes out a surprise win in November (he is in plenty of trouble as it is on that front, too) because it is a state case , just as those in New York will proceed.
I hope you're right, but I would guess that Drumpf would claim presidential immunity even to the state cases and claim they have to be stayed until he's out of office. Then endless appeals until he runs out the clock and finally leaves, if he ever does. Our legal system just isn't equipped to deal with someone with an endless supply of money and a shameless strategy of ignoring all laws. E.Jean has had the best success so far, and I hope she files another suit raising the stakes even higher.
I am as pissed off by the defendants' shenanigans as anyone, but in this case I think we're subject to "good for the goose, good for the gander." Judge McAfee has, in all other matters, held to a fairly strict letter of the law. If, in this example, doing so runs counter to the opinion of those of us who see the machinations of DT and his cohorts as reprehensible, then imo we have to live with it. The bottom line is that McAfee has not given DT & Friends a pass. Okay, so be it. Let's get to the heart of the indictments.
Exactly, and the prosecutors have more options than that:
"So, what’s the issue that led McAfee to dismiss these counts? Basically, the judge found the indictment wasn’t specific enough when it came to the alleged oath violations at issue. “As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited,” the judge wrote. Crucially, he pointed out that his ruling doesn’t apply to the corresponding conduct alleged in the racketeering charge. That’s one of the reasons that his ruling doesn’t doom the case.
The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. "
*******
"The prosecution could also seek a new indictment," i.e., empanel a new grand jury and focus ONLY on the requisite level of detail to indict on the same charges, "or appeal. "
Judges are concerned about setting a precedent where sloppy indictments pass through and the entire trial process, leading to convictions, is thrown out on appeal, so this isn't as good for Trump and his cohorts as may first appear.
*****
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/mcafee-ruling-georgia-trump-indictment-rcna143194
So apparently taking an oath means nothing. That's disturbing to say the least. If it's not important and doesn't really mean anything, then why do we keep doing it? Is taking an oath to tell the truth then arbitrary as well?
No, it doesn't mean that the oaths "mean nothing," it means the sloppy indictment can be refiled after empaneling another grand jury that focuses ENTIRELY on providing the requisite level of detail on this part of the overall prosecution case, or appeal.
"The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal."
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/mcafee-ruling-georgia-trump-indictment-rcna143194
So, we could look at the judge tossing these charges as helping the prosecution to tighten their case by critiquing the counts that need to be more specific and adhere exactly to the laws.
Sure, it really might turn out to be more help than hindrance, getting them to fix the problems and re-indict - but really the judge is {{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee }}
as solidly "Federalist Society" as it gets, so he wants to have it both ways - rule in ways that he THINKS will be upheld on appeal, which is dicey, as the appeals court might decide there is already enough detail, but even if he's reversed, the Federalist tribe will think he did his best, but there was no way to stop the main part of the prosecution case. He didn't even complain at all about any problems elsewhere, he realizes that's for the jury to decide.
So he’s looking for ‘Atta Boys’ from the Federalist Society?
At the ripe old age of 83, I have given up on our judicial system.
The Orange Julius Caesar has broken IT and everything else in the world!
I now refer to him as the Bloated Yam.
Good one! Very imaginative!
I don't think he's broken it exactly but he's revealed with glaring clarity all its pre-existing fissures. Many of us have long known that the law is flawed and unequally applied, but seeing how incapable it seems to be when faced with someone like Trump -- it's sobering, to say the least.
More likely to make one drunk than sober!
I do suspect my beer consumption has increased since the advent of Trump . . .
The law is an ass. And the loopholes turn the litigators into assholes.
The "loopholes" are waiting to be filled with the requisite detail this sloppy part of the massive indictments omitted, by empaneling a new grand jury and focusing ONLY on that (it could all be done by the end of the month) and filing the same indictments, or if they think it's a better course of action, appeal on that set of issues and proceed to prosecute on what remains.
"The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal."
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/mcafee-ruling-georgia-trump-indictment-rcna143194
The state has some options for how to react. A question that prosecutors are asking themselves as they review the ruling might go something like: Can we live without these counts? And if we can’t, what do we want to do about it? Living with it would mean going forward with a slightly slimmed-down indictment that still contains many charges, including the potent RICO charge. The prosecution could also seek a new indictment or appeal.
Thank you.
100%
the courts will not save us...
Ok, I guess the citizenry will have to wake the fork up as fascism comes to Gotham City, ay?
more like cult members must be deprogrammed and half the country needs to learn to recognize fact from lies
I think you've summed up the issue of our times perfectly. No ethics. No honor. No integrity. Oaths of Office? Covfeve!
So, if I go to court, raise my hand and take an oath to tell the truth, I can lie because it is just a ceremony? Good to know.
I wondered about that. Would that mean perjury is no longer an issue?
Yet another example of the inequality of our legal system and how Inmate No. PO1135809 can use his money (actually the money of his lemming followers) to manipulate the legal system.
Unbelievable .... nearly.
A very good friend and a very good attorney, once commented that the law was an imperfect instrument. Apparently he missed the mark, it’s no instrument at all.
Other sources say the prosecutors can still revise and make the indictments in this case stronger. Looks like there is a need to dot i's and cross t's, as unbearable as that seems.