Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the fourth indictment of former President Donald Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. While I have said that this indictment presents a serious threat to Trump, I am still troubled by the implications of the indictment for free speech and future election challenges.
Here is the column:
Welcome to the Jackson Pollock school of prosecution. The 98-page indictment from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is the legal version of Pollock’s style of throwing paint splatters on canvas as artistic expression. It basically makes every telephone call, tweet, and meeting a separate conspiratorial act.
There are 161 separate acts. Not surprisingly, everyone then becomes part of the conspiracy. The indictment covers 19 people, including Trevian Kutti (the former publicist for R. Kelly and Kanye West). Willis wants them all thrown into a single trial and let the jury figure it out.
But for all the disparate acts that Willis says constitute a criminal conspiracy, part of this emerging picture should worry Trump.
Pollock once advised confused observers that they needed to stop looking for objective meaning. The same may be true with the fourth Trump indictment. Willis simply treats every statement as a knowing falsehood and conspiratorial effort.
The indictment, to many, reads like the type of unabashedly biased spin that’s typically seen on cable television shows.
For example, the indictment relies on calls like the controversial one Trump had with Georgia officials—a call long cited as indisputable evidence of an effort at voting fraud. In the call, Trump pushed his demand for a statewide recount. Trump had lost the state by less than 12,000 votes. When officials insisted that there was little likelihood that such a recount would make a difference, he stated, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
The call is still cited as one of those 161 individual steps toward the criminal conspiracy. Even though the indictment effectively repackages the same claims as the federal prosecution, Willis insists that Trump should be effectively tried twice under these allegations.
It is easy to dismiss such a Pollock prosecution as political gamesmanship. The timing alone in bringing the case (which should have been brought two years ago) is enough for many to discount this prosecution. However, it does represent a serious threat to Trump. It has “legs” as an indictment that is not likely to be dismissed in its entirety before trial.
IT’S GOT LEGS
There are three reasons why this indictment could be the most perilous for Trump, as opposed to the Jan. 6 indictments, which present serious threshold constitutional questions.
First, the racketeering cases tend to be iron-plated before trial because challenges concern the interpretation of facts, which are traditionally questions left to the finder of fact (in this case a jury).
Willis is likely to argue successfully that she should be allowed to prove the case. In the course of that prosecution, Willis probably hopes that one or two of the 18 other defendants will flip and turn state’s evidence.
Second, in D.C., special counsel Smith is essentially trying to create new law, or at least stretch existing case law to the point of breaking down. Conversely, elections are left largely to the states, and state prosecutors routinely bring election-based prosecutions.
Willis may be stretching the evidence, but she is not stretching the law. Racketeering laws are routinely used far afield from their origins in combating criminal gangs.
Finally, as a state action, this is not a prosecution that can be ended prematurely with a presidential pardon. If Trump is elected, he could grant himself a self-pardon, even a preemptive pardon before trial. Various GOP presidential candidates have indicated that they will also consider a pardon. That could put an end to the Smith prosecutions before any trial if the special counsel cannot try the case before the election.
There is no federal pardon option for Georgia. Indeed, it is even hard to secure a state pardon, which is not issued by the governor but a pardon board.
None of this means that the indictment is justified. While the indictment contains a litany of calls and meetings, there is no clear evidence that Trump did not believe that the results of the election could be flipped through these challenges. The concern is that the indictment criminalizes challenges to elections.
In covering decades of presidential elections for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox, every election has produced challenges, including many with little support. This coverage included multiple challenges by Democratic lawmakers to the certification of Republican presidents in Congress.
It has also included challenges to voting machines.
For example, Marc Elias, who served as Hillary Clinton’s campaign general counsel and played a role in the funding of the infamous Steele dossier on Russian collusion, has challenged past elections on such grounds. After the 2020 election, he challenged one New York election by claiming that “there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected [the Democrat].”
That was no crime. Elias had every right to seek judicial review even though the claim was quickly rejected as unfounded.
Many of us disagreed with Trump after the election and publicly rejected the claims of systemic voting fraud. However, Trump had a right to not only challenge the election but to be wrong.
That is why the Willis indictment is a serious threat to Trump but also to our system of democratic process. Pollock once said that “when I am in my painting, I’m not aware of what I’m doing.” Unlike painters, prosecutors do not have the same luxury. What Willis is doing here is excessive and it is dangerous.
I wish the children of the Left and the Right would get their own blog. A large majority of these folks are foolish people using another person’s blog to spew their own views. Sadly, it is the state of discourse in a failing nation. WF Buckley would roll in his grave. As would Pat Moynihan.
Sine Agendis – Without Action (Ironic),
These Children are the Descendants of ACT UP. The Political Activist group that came into its own in the George H.W. Bush Presidency.
They ‘interfere and disrupt’ with purpose. Supposedly for the benefit of their community. Why here in Jonathan’s Blog, suppose that it is an open space, thus exploited. Rarely have They advocate with any Legal Citation or Theory of Law that is applicable to the subject matter of the Journalism posted by the Host. They can not fully see that this is an opportunity to set forth a meaningful use of Their TIME, by appropriate contribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP
America 08/16/2023: A Government with an Executive Branch running amuck, a Legislature cemented in place, and a Judiciary acting as an audience to a tragic comedy foolishly clapping to a unknown tune. The American experiment has been infected with the absurd by wacky beliefs and nonsensical notions cast upon us by Morons running about without a care that their ideas and actions may bring the experiment to a calamitous end. The dismemberment of law and order, wily-nilly interpretation of statutes, the abandonment of basic principles of decency, and of Gods sovereignty are the current symptoms’ we see and encounter daily are being fostered by the tyrants of the socialist left.
We must push back against the numskulls who currently control many levers of power and adopt Naval Officer David Glasgow Farragut’s commanded during the Battle of Mobile Bay “Damn the torpedoes, Four bells, Captain Drayton, go ahead, Jouett, full speed.”
Dear Prof Turley,
Your colleague, the Whirling Dershowitz, says RICO is a town south of Naples and if ‘the glove don’t fit, you must acquit’ I put this 4th sweeping ‘shock and awe’ indictment up there with the ‘boxes of papers’ indictment.
It will take ten years just to unravel the bank transactions.
It’s all designed to blow your mind, but our minds have already been blown! Like Fani’s mind when she gets her picture on the cover of the Rolling Stones.
*When you look at Pollack, you’ve got to cross your eyes and squint.
>”There is no federal pardon option for Georgia. Indeed, it is even hard to secure a state pardon, which is not issued by the governor but a pardon board.”
I hear Georgia’s bail requirements are rather severe and the DA’s can write their own ticket.
*never thought I’d say this: if they put the Trump monkey Apostle in jail for ‘electioneering’ (i.e. politicing.), I might actually have to register my disapproval at the polls next November!
“”I am giving the defendants the opportunity to voluntarily surrender no later than noon on Friday, the 25th day of August, 2023,” Willis said in a press conference following the unsealing of the indictment, noting that arrest warrants were ready.”
*Fani don’t mess around.
I’m deeply saddened by the country I was born and have lived in for almost all of my life. As a war veteran, it has made me question why I served: to protect what? All of this – the machinations of the left – is incredibly quite Stalinist in nature. Stalin’s people were forced, and knew they’d be killed for the slightest transgression. They were helpless, having nothing to fight with. Americans are not helpless, but to this point are still quite apathetic less those being gleeful as they witness the continuing complete failure of the Republic.
Spencer Hohan,
Sir, you are not the first vet I have read/known to ask that same question.
I know more than a few who say this America is not worth fighting for. They are more inclined to take care of them, their own and like minded friends and family.
When one half of the nation hates the other and vice versa hard to fight to keep it all together.
Some have called for a national divorce. Might not be such a bad idea verses the alternative.
Jonathan often says he disapproves of something Trump has done but he is consistent in saying Trump should never suffer any consequences for anything he has done.
Such has been the case with Trump and his enablers throughout his entire life until recently. The problem we have seen with Trump is that if he does not suffer any consequences he just does it again even more so.
That is how we reached the point today when Trump thought he could get away with engaging in a vast conspiracy to try to steal back an election he clearly lost. He never thought he would suffer any consequences because he has done all kinds of brazenly illegal things his whole life and has never suffered any consequences before. he still thinks there are enough Turleys out there who will let him get away with this one without consequence and the next one too.
@Hugh
Trump is Trump.
But to make trumped up charges to go after Trump?
That’s the issue and where lawyers like Turley , Dershowitz and others draw the line.
This country survived Carter, Obama and now Biden. (The three worst POTUSs in modern history.)
But this country can’t survive the Banana Republic created by Obama and Biden.
-G
A rational but terminally ill person thinking in extremis may believe that the prognosis is final while still believing that a positive probability for recovery does exit. He may rationally recognize that his situation is hopeless yet still believe that a speculative and unproven therapy.may work. It seems to me that was Trump. When he conceded that he lost, that was most assuredly a probability statement, not a statement of absolute finality.
It is hard to believe that an objective pool of jurors would vote guilty without a reasonable doubt to convict Trump of those charges.
If they really want to know about the phone call why don’t they ask Harrison Deal. Oh wait they can’t. Because, like Bill Gates said about Jeffery Epstein, “He’s dead so
…” Wake up people the system has been weaponized against not only Trump, but all of us. Sit down and shut up now like good little sheep and let them do as thou wilst.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
How is it not unconstitutional to indict Trump in one place and try him in another? The Fifth amendment says nothing about a grand jury indicting in one place and trial in another? Is this not violation of due process?
“Now let us turn to the Fifth Amendment requiring a grand jury indictment. It does not state one district v another because the Constitution under Article III only created the Supreme Court – NOT the distinct Courts. They are all the creation of Congress by statute, and Congress has no power to shut down the Supreme Court or really to even regulate it. Therefore, the Grand Jury Clause did not consider multiple districts, for there were none at that time. The indictment was to be where the crime was to be charged. Any other interpretation would be a constructive amendment of the Constitution which cannot be done by any prosecutor and not even Congress without the complete Amendment Process of the states.”
This from Armstrong Economics. Where are the attorneys looking at this?
Trump either didn’t really believe he won Georgia in which case he was illegally performing the part of the aggrieved would-be-king or he really is dumb enough to think he won Georgia in which case he led a team down a very dangerous anti-democratic rabbit hole. He and his team deserver whatever they get. Sure, the DA is throwing everything at Trump. But he invited it. Possibly on purpose to stay relevant.
Did Al Gore Jr. really think he won Florida? In so, he was really dumb and led his team down a dangerous rabbit hole. Or, if he did not believe he won, was he “illegally performing the part of the aggrieved would-be king”
It is dangerous to criminalise election challenges based on the state of mind of the challenger. Moreover, even if a challenger does not believe his challenge is valid or can succeed, his challenge should not thereby become a crime. It is only if evidence or records are falsified or forged in violation of a criminal statute that a crime would be committed in an election challenge.
Mark Meadows has now made a filing to remove the case to Federal court and to claim immunity from state law charges based on the Supremacy Clause and the line of cases derived from McCullough v Maryland.
To remove the case all he has to have is a “plausible” defense under Federal law. Both removal and immunity will turn on whether he was acting under colour of his duties as a Federal official when he engaged in the specified conduct. Trump may make a similar filing.
The state will likely argue that Meadows was acting in these instances not as the chief of staff to President Trump but as an ally of candidate Trump. And similarly if the issue arises because Trump makes a filing, that Trump was acting not as President but as a candidate.
Given today’s politization of the DOJ, is transferring this case to the federal level going to benefit the defendants in any way, Daniel?
Yes, because I think it more likely that a Federal court would give effect to the Supremacy Clause in this case, and if the case goes forward I believe the jury pool is wider.
https://twitter.com/BreannaMorello/status/1691936089215291469
Well, 40,000 affidavits, thinking otherwise, would be wise.
OK, big mouth Dennis, we will start with this one…
“Democrats also support the use of force–but for quite different reasons–” —-Dennis
“The only guy who is inviting violence these days is DJT!” —-Dennis
Both of these statements were in a single post.
One of them is a lie.
This gets posted above and below every post you make until you answer to it, then I will move on to your next lie.
Tom the Troll … is trolling again.
“Tom the Troll … is trolling again.”
Pot, meet kettle.
But thanks for helping me push Dennis’ the lying troll’s vomit further down the board.
In fact, I will even pen it for them, so all they has to do is cut and paste.
“Tom, you are correct in this instance. I did, in fact lie in the referenced post. I did it because I fell into the trap of the weak minded, and chose hyperbole to try to make the point that I couldn’t make with logic and reason. I have been guilty of the same thing in previous posts, so I would appreciate it if you didn’t yuk up the message board by posting them ad neauseum going forward.”
And here is the one for Gigi.
“Tom, you are correct. In the referenced post I made a statement that was provably false. I didn’t take the time to learn a damn thing about the subject, but instead just parroted a narrative that I heard because it fit nicely with what I choose to believe. I have done this many times in the past, and I don’t really care to have you point out each one of them individually because it’s embarassing, even for me.”
The whole sorry saga arose from paranoia in Trump’s mind that he had been cheated by nefarious conspirators.
His mindset clings tightly to “they’re out to get me”, what we normally see as infantile emotional reaction to being denied what a child demands. A 77-year-old can regress into these childish coping strategies — it’s the most primal, unsophisticated form of defense.
I’m glad to see “the plot” to remain in office being treated as a corrupt enterprise. That’s a concise, objective summary of what occurred. Pat Cippolini and Hershmann (WH lawyers) warned Rudy and Meadows that they were veering into criminal territory, yet they went ahead with the plan.
There have to be serious consequences. In no way does this case impede post-election challenges by the losing candidate — so long as they are pursued within the legal processes. Generally, this means using courts, where factual evidence prevails over lies and misconceptions, there is a neutral referee, and evidence may be subpoena’d and challenged.
Trump pursued his grievance OUTSIDE these constraints, knowing he didn’t have the factual evidence required to succeed within it. That’s the basis for the RICO charge.
Keep smoking whatever you are. In that way you don’t have to face the problems your attitude sets on the nation, poverty, war, loss of freedom.
Such bliss can only be seen by those lost in the world of drugs, alcohol, or delusions.
Jonathan: You claim DA Fani Willis’ indictment is “excessive and it is dangerous” and “Willis simply treats every statement as a knowing falsehood and conspiratorial effort”. On Fox yesterday, in an attempt to mislead viewers, you said “Every tweet, every speech seems to be a separate act”.
You are misstating the law of conspiracy under Georgia’s RICO statute. To prove a criminal conspiracy you need at least two “overt acts”. Willis’ indictment includes 161 such acts. The reason criminal conspiracy requires “overt acts” is to prevent criminalizing speech. For example, Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jena Ellis are sitting in a hotel room in Fulton County and Powell says: “Why don’t we see if we can get access to an election office and change the vote count”. Powell and Ellis respond: “Great idea!” Those statements are not crimes. What happened next were “over acts” in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. Powell hired a forensic firm, Sullivan & Strickler. Then on Jan. 7 two election officials, who supporter DJT, allowed Powell’s agents to illegally get access to the Coffee County elections office and break into the stored computer election data. As Willis’ indictment says: “This was a overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy” (See “Act 33” and Acts 142-155). Aspirational statements alone are not crimes. “Over acts” cross the legal barrier.
Then, you use an analogy to try to claim what DJT and his 18 co-conspirators were just engaged in legal challenges to the 2020 election. The case of Marc Elias you cite is quite different. He filed a lawsuit claiming the NY voting machines were flawed. DJT did the same thing after the 2020 election. He filed over 60 legal challenges to the election results and lost all of them. The legal challenges by Elias and DJT were not crimes. But when DJT and his co-conspirators then engaged in an illegal scheme to change the vote count by putting together fake DJT electors that is when it turned into a criminal conspiracy. See the difference?
I have other things to say about your false and misleading claims about the Wills indictment but we’ll save that for another comment.
OK, big mouth Dennis, we will start with this one…
“Democrats also support the use of force–but for quite different reasons–” —-Dennis
“The only guy who is inviting violence these days is DJT!” —-Dennis
Both of these statements were in a single post.
One of them is a lie.
This gets posted above and below every post you make until you answer to it, then I will move on to your next lie.
And as long as there is a DOJ that will act upon “credible evidence.”
I hold no brief for the foolish and reckless Donald Trump, but DA thugs like Willis and Bragg if given the opportunity would turn America ‘s justice system into one on the par that is overseen by the ANC in SA. And thugs like Smith and Garland would govern a justice system like East Germany. These so called prosecutors are nothing but authoritarian thugs who with the collusion of the DoJ, leftist media, and academic Marxists are destroying every vestige of a constitutional republic. The commentary of Turley, Dershowitz and other defenders of freedom sadly are of little potency against a growing authoritarian if not totalitarian regime. Once Trump is eliminated, they will get to work on DeSantis, Scott, Christie or whoever fulfills his place. I can only hope that someone prevails and if they obtain power of the the Presidency carry our severe retribution against these thugs, And I mean a massive purge including raids on everyone involved from the traitor Myorkas to the criminal consigliere Garland
Rules for Radicals: First we criminalize contesting elections, and then we commence to surreptitiously rig them. Not even Saul Alinsky thought of that one.
It is not criminal to put together a slate of alternative electors whose votes could only count if Congress determined they were valid. It
Happened at least twice before, in 1960 and 1876.
Whether it is or isn’t criminal will depend on the specifics, not simply the existence of alternate slates of electors. Here’s one discussion of the difference in specifics with 1876: https://www.justsecurity.org/82233/a-historical-perspective-on-alternate-electors-lessons-from-hayes-tiden/
Excellent observation, Ron.
Ron A. Hoffman,
A brilliant observation.
You’ve got that backwards. They lost, in shock, in 2016, they swore it would never happen again, so they went on their criminal election rigging spree and stole it in 2020. After thieving it with every lie and crime known and unknown, they outlawed questioning the result. They hired their disinformation elite to spew such insanity like: ” It was the most secure election in the history of the USA .”
51 top 3 letter masters including 5 former heads of CIA certainly agree.
It was Russia, after all.
The dossier is real, the hunter laptop is a russian spook adventure, and jabs are safe and effective and you can’t get covid if you get jabbed.
No one can possibly believe the election was stolen, not even Time magazine.
If you dare believe the hot ballooners for even one second you can’t be shot down, it’s too dangerous to people on the ground.
“there is now clear evidence that Trump did not believe that the results of the election could be flipped through these challenges”
Flipping is not the standard. Whether or not Trump had an opinion about how many votes were invalid and whom they were for is irrelevant. He swore an oath to ensure legitimate elections for Federal offices.
Cleta Mitchell has the receipts.
https://www.tiktok.com/@red_pilled_rising/video/7267625631448419615?_r=1&_t=8escHm0x5JO
I understand Turley’s advocacy of free speech, and I largely sympathize. On the other hand, this comment section is becoming a troll-infested joke, much like what happened to the Fox comment section, which reached the saturation point some time ago, causing thoughtful commenters to either flee to better sites or just stop visiting Fox.
It’s not my place to suggest what should be done here, but I strongly recommend that SOMETHING be done or the only commenters coming here will be those such as “Bob” and his idiotic ilk.
I’m doing my best to run them off. If it means being banned myself, so be it.
Ahhhhhh—-wrong. I vcame here to engage in honest discussions. Now I am helping run off the trolls..
If obvious trolling were the threshold, Dennis, ATS, Gigi, Fishwings and Sammy would have been gone long ago.
Stop whining, ya big baby.
Take your own advice and stop whining, ya big baby.
Always counted on for the wittiest replies. Thanks again ATS.
You can’t help but insult yourself. YW.
????
Yikes. Is that Gollum, or Smeagol talking???
When are you gonna run yourself off?
Look, these people are arguing that Trump, confronted with the truth, and knowing it was the truth, peddled a lie anyway and therefore anything he did after that (including wiping his a$$) is a crime. Yet they insist on like behavior. All they gotta do is admit it, and you can go back to having them troll the board as before.
You are taking a dump on the comment section every bit as much as they are. Just STOP already.
Yep. I am going to dump right on top of their piles of poop until they stop. Good analogy. Be patient.
Nope.
Tom,
Good on ya!
What I do find interesting is the level of self-delusion they have.
They declare there is no evidence in the mounting body of evidence of the corrupt Biden Crime Family ignoring the DOJ, FBI, IRS will not conduct a proper, independent investigation. Or declare “nothing found” after 4 or 5 years of a non-investigation by those same agencies despite emails, texts, SARs, shell companies, and the on the record testimony of two whistleblowers.
Self-delusion they are.
Exactly Upstate. Then they resort to “thats not evidence” or “thats not proof of anything”. No difference between those types of utterly useless posts and the ones I have been posting.
LOL — You’re as bad as “Tom” — treating the comment section like it’s your own personal playground, and virtually LIVING here.
Poor Ralph, angry that anyone’s post count is higher than his.
I know, actually wanting evidence to prove fraud is such an ugly thing to ask for.
Sea Lion
Bob, I think ole Ralphy was talking about me.
No, I was specifically talking about “Bob.” If I’d meant “Independent Bob” I’d have written “Independent Bob.” But since you jumped in to try to change what I actually wrote, you can consider yourself included.
Thanks for including me. Now how about a group hug.
The fact that Turley allows your idiocy is his problem, not mine. Go ahead and turn this into just another garbage site.
Thanks for including me. Now how about a group hug.
😀
That’s ok Estovir, he doesn’t have to be part of our hug session.
Estovir and Independent Bob,
While I am a secure heterosexual male, not sure if I want to par-take in said group hug session or back out of the comment quietly . . .
Hey! I have had Cold Weather training and that was not as weird!
But see, I had just a simple question. Where is the evidence? What is the response, attacks that make no sense. Please people, look in the mirror, ask yourself, where is the evidence? I have said nothing about my support, or lack thereof for Biden, I a simply asking, where is the evidence of fraud that everyone keeps talking about.
It is long past time to put up or shut up.
Evidence, signed boxed and delivered.
https://twitter.com/BreannaMorello/status/1691936089215291469
Well well well, 40,000 affidavits … that’s at the very least 40,000 votes stolen from Trump
“Biden narrowly won Georgia by a margin of 0.23% and 11,779 votes. ”
Hmmm… let’s see …. drop the tens , add in carry over….. and the equation says:
BIDEN LOST.
That’s what free speech is. When suddenly those staunch advocates of free speech are faced with the reality of their cause they start making exceptions and putting limitations because it gets messy. Which is exactly why Twitter and Facebook “censor” a lot of content. Turley complains about that corporate censorship and yet he does the exact sane thing on this blog. Hypocrisy is Turley’s biggest flaw.
Ralph,
Well said.
Generally I just make it a point to scroll past as they are not worth engaging.
However there are a few times I make an exception like when ATS is crying about the good professor censorship on the good professor’s blog. ATS did it to himself by violating the civility rules time and time again.
Others will try to also declare the good professor a hypocrite but then ignore the fact it is only ATS comments that get deleted. Others like Dennis, Gigi, Bob, etc. I have never seen their comments get deleted.
I have great respect for Darren’s role. I was a moderator for my own list, run on Majordomo, back in the 90s, when moderating was done in primitive Perl language. I also ran my own personal blogs as a writer. I nixed them all. Never again. Pure grief. Moderators see a side of commenters that readers can not imagine exists. Plus, today things are far more abusive and reflect an evil that permeates our culture deeply. Also, IP addresses can be acquired in ways that were not possible 20 years ago, allowing abuse to go unimpeded like the trolls on here. Then there are the really bitter, miserable, acid type commenters. If anything, we should pitch in some money and send Darren a case of his favorite adult beverage for putting up with us.
Here Here!
Turley’s article is the Jackson Pollack response in hopes of convincing most here that Trump was wronged. This indictment is dangerous because it only needs two underlying crimes to prove a conspiracy. Racketeering charges used to be Rudy Guiliani’s wheelhouse, now he’s ensnared. Two crimes, like when Trump lawyers illegally copied Coffee County election records and software. Maybe they were invited, but it the bank manager invites thieves in to steal, it’s still a crime. Tampering with witnesses. What provoked an Illinois pastor to come to Atlanta and bang on a poll worker’s door. Didn’t Guiliani and Trump threaten the same worker publicly. Guiliani admitted he was lying. I pray this trial is televised. Good news for Turley, he can go on tv every night on Fox and tell us we didn’t see what we saw.
“None of this means that the indictment is justified.” Professor, the next step is to dismiss all charges and at the minimum, sanction the prosecution and have their taxpayer-paid pensions forfeited and split among all who’ve been maliciously accused. Maybe, just maybe, with the threat of losing one’s retirement pension for similar prosecutorial misconduct, this nonsense of ‘show me the man, I’ll find a crime’-cases will cease.
Such a mistake Trump narrowly failed to pardon Assange and Snowden, out of fear of impeachment. It would have changed everything.