DOJ: "60-Day Rule" does not apply since Trump already indicted

[kyzr]

Question regarding the pending cases against Trump.

Are any of them jury trials? If they are, must the verdict be unanimous like a criminal trial, or a majority like a civil case?

1. Alvin Bragg's "hush money" case?

2. Fani Willis' "election interference" case?

3. Jack Smith's "J6" case?

4. Jack Smith's "classified documents" case?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If the DOJ or any of the numerous prosecutors pushing cases against Trump, manages to have a trial sixty days or less before the election, their goal must be to have Trump surpass Ronald Reagan's 1980 forty-nine state electoral landslide.

Lakhota and the others, y'all still don't know that every time Democrats go after Trump in the courts, it only makes him more popular?

Yeah, $450 plus million more popular.

Fact check: Trump falsely claims Justice Department rules say candidates can’t be prosecuted in the middle of a campaign​

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Question regarding the pending cases against Trump.

Are any of them jury trials? If they are, must the verdict be unanimous like a criminal trial, or a majority like a civil case?

1. Alvin Bragg's "hush money" case?

2. Fani Willis' "election interference" case?

3. Jack Smith's "J6" case?

4. Jack Smith's "classified documents" case?

Depends on whether federal or state court laws apply"

Look em up and tell us.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It only makes him more popular among NaziCons and miscellaneous deranged retards. Keep sending the money! He can use it in the prison canteen.

If he reallly just appealed to NaziCons and miscellaneous deranged retards, the Democrats would be happy to have him on the GOP ticket, because the Dems would win in a landslide.

They fear and hate him precisely because he is in touch with the mainstream. That's why he is polling so well against your candidate.

 

[Dadoalex]

View attachment 911447

It’s Perfectly OK if Trump Is in Court During the Election, DOJ Warns​

The Justice Department is making it clear that the “60-day rule” doesn’t apply to Donald Trump’s trials.​

Amid an ongoing spar over when Donald Trump’s classified documents case will begin, the Justice Department has clarified once and for all that he cannot continue to delay his legal trials by claiming that he has to focus on the election.

On Friday, Judge Eileen Cannon asked about the DOJ’s “60-day rule” against taking actions that might affect an upcoming election.

But the DOJ said that the “60-day rule” does not apply to Trump’s actual trials, on the basis that he was indicted before he started campaigning, and that his trials are already being litigated.

“We are in full compliance with the justice manual,” announced Jay Bratt, a senior counterintelligence supervisor at the Justice Department, during the hearing—which Trump attended in person.

To that end, Trump could be smack dab in the middle of a criminal trial during the election itself.

More at the link below...

It’s Perfectly OK if Trump Is in Court During the Election, DOJ Warns

The Justice Department is making it clear that the “60-day rule” doesn’t apply to Donald Trump’s trials.

newrepublic.com

Well, that's good to know. What do you think?

Ruh Roh Ronnie

 

[Dadoalex]

If the DOJ or any of the numerous prosecutors pushing cases against Trump, manages to have a trial sixty days or less before the election, their goal must be to have Trump surpass Ronald Reagan's 1980 forty-nine state electoral landslide.

Lakhota and the others, y'all still don't know that every time Democrats go after Trump in the courts, it only makes him more popular?

Then why do you people bitch every time Trump gets caught committing another crime?
One would think you'd turn him in and support indictment so Trump's "popularity" would soar.
a conundrum wrapped inside a riddle and sitting in a giant turd.

 

[Dadoalex]

If he reallly just appealed to NaziCons and miscellaneous deranged retards, the Democrats would be happy to have him on the GOP ticket, because the Dems would win in a landslide.

They fear and hate him precisely because he is in touch with the mainstream. That's why he is polling so well against your candidate.

You mean like an 8M vote landslide?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Question regarding the pending cases against Trump.

Are any of them jury trials? If they are, must the verdict be unanimous like a criminal trial, or a majority like a civil case?

1. Alvin Bragg's "hush money" case?

2. Fani Willis' "election interference" case?

3. Jack Smith's "J6" case?

4. Jack Smith's "classified documents" case?

Jury trials are nearly guaranteed wins for Trump in the criminal cases, because one juror can hang the jury, and Trumpers are known for their tenacity.

The New York trial was a good lesson that avoiding a jury doesn't necessarily mean that the case will be decided on a reasonable basis. Trump's lawyer avoided a jury and wound up with a judge who turned out to be a deranged anti-Trumper who is a creeper just like Biden.

I don't believe any of those criminal cases are at the point at which the defense would declare whether it wants a jury trial or for the judge to decide the verdict (bench trial). So there are no trials at this time, just a lot of pre-trial bum-fuckery that wastes a lot of time, but keeps the Dems from staging a show trial during an election year.

If any of them make it to trial, it will be up to Team Trump to determine whether jury or bench. Best case will be a hung jury, but if things get any worse for the prosecutors, they may end up with quicker innocent verdicts than O.J.'s.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then why do you people bitch every time Trump gets caught committing another crime?
One would think you'd turn him in and support indictment so Trump's "popularity" would soar.
a conundrum wrapped inside a riddle and sitting in a giant turd.

That's dumb even for a Democrat.

We don't have to encourage those hyper-partisan Democrat activists masquerading as public servants. They're doing fine on their own. Of course we are mad when any innocent person is attacked using the justice system, becuase we know we could be next.

That does energize us as voters, but we'd all prefer that the DOJ stay out of elections, except to prosecute all the fraud they never seem to be able to find, and let the people decide.

 

[j-mac]

You should throw some more memes at them.

And tell him to make sure and continue to use lazy, radical marxist tripe like “occupy”… that always makes conservatives say, “oh, you must be right”…

 

[Dadoalex]

Jury trials are nearly guaranteed wins for Trump in the criminal cases, because one juror can hang the jury, and Trumpers are known for their tenacity.

The New York trial was a good lesson that avoiding a jury doesn't necessarily mean that the case will be decided on a reasonable basis. Trump's lawyer avoided a jury and wound up with a judge who turned out to be a deranged anti-Trumper who is a creeper just like Biden.

I don't believe any of those criminal cases are at the point at which the defense would declare whether it wants a jury trial or for the judge to decide the verdict (bench trial). So there are no trials at this time, just a lot of pre-trial bum-fuckery that wastes a lot of time, but keeps the Dems from staging a show trial during an election year.

If any of them make it to trial, it will be up to Team Trump to determine whether jury or bench. Best case will be a hung jury, but if things get any worse for the prosecutors, they may end up with quicker innocent verdicts than O.J.'s.

One jurist can hang a trial.
That's not "not guilty" as acquittal requires the same vote as conviction.
That's a mistrial and Trump stays in court till he dies.

BUUUUUUUT

If you think a single MAGAT will make it to the jury you are sorely mistaken.
Your internet history, for example, would DQ you before the questionnaire.

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 911447

It’s Perfectly OK if Trump Is in Court During the Election, DOJ Warns​

The Justice Department is making it clear that the “60-day rule” doesn’t apply to Donald Trump’s trials.​

Amid an ongoing spar over when Donald Trump’s classified documents case will begin, the Justice Department has clarified once and for all that he cannot continue to delay his legal trials by claiming that he has to focus on the election.

On Friday, Judge Eileen Cannon asked about the DOJ’s “60-day rule” against taking actions that might affect an upcoming election.

But the DOJ said that the “60-day rule” does not apply to Trump’s actual trials, on the basis that he was indicted before he started campaigning, and that his trials are already being litigated.

“We are in full compliance with the justice manual,” announced Jay Bratt, a senior counterintelligence supervisor at the Justice Department, during the hearing—which Trump attended in person.

To that end, Trump could be smack dab in the middle of a criminal trial during the election itself.

More at the link below...

It’s Perfectly OK if Trump Is in Court During the Election, DOJ Warns

The Justice Department is making it clear that the “60-day rule” doesn’t apply to Donald Trump’s trials.

newrepublic.com

Well, that's good to know. What do you think?

We never expected the DOJ to follow its own rules if it benefitted Trump. When since 2016 have they?

Those internal rules do not bind them, so long as they are the deciders of whether to follow them. Only the willfully ignorant truly think that they do. In the words of Nancy Reagan, they make their little rules, and they break their little rules.

For example, they have firm rules against discussing ongoing investigations, so they "cannot" give any information to Congress, who is suppposed to provide oversight on behalf of the voters. But they can leak as much information as they please. Asked about the leaks by Congress, and they "cannot" answer, because - of course - they are investigating the leaks also.

I don't blame people for being partisan, it's part of our system. But don't act the naive child about that kind of thing, and then get mad when others don't play along.

 

[kyzr]

Jury trials are nearly guaranteed wins for Trump in the criminal cases, because one juror can hang the jury, and Trumpers are known for their tenacity.

The New York trial was a good lesson that avoiding a jury doesn't necessarily mean that the case will be decided on a reasonable basis. Trump's lawyer avoided a jury and wound up with a judge who turned out to be a deranged anti-Trumper who is a creeper just like Biden.

I don't believe any of those criminal cases are at the point at which the defense would declare whether it wants a jury trial or for the judge to decide the verdict (bench trial). So there are no trials at this time, just a lot of pre-trial bum-fuckery that wastes a lot of time, but keeps the Dems from staging a show trial during an election year.

If any of them make it to trial, it will be up to Team Trump to determine whether jury or bench. Best case will be a hung jury, but if things get any worse for the prosecutors, they may end up with quicker innocent verdicts than O.J.'s.

Thanks for the explanation.

I think that a hung jury means that there are a few holdouts, and they can't get to a unanimous verdict.

That could mean a retrial or dismissal, depending on the judge, right?

Handicapping the trials,

FL is where Smith's classified docs case is, so that should go away, or be postponed due to the USSC taking the immunity case.

Smith's J6 case is in DC, so who knows how that goes, I'd recommend a change of venue to VA

The Fani and Alvin cases are State rules, no clue, Turley thinks these are the weakest cases.,

 

[Dadoalex]

That's dumb even for a Democrat.

We don't have to encourage those hyper-partisan Democrat activists masquerading as public servants. They're doing fine on their own. Of course we are mad when any innocent person is attacked using the justice system, becuase we know we could be next.

That does energize us as voters, but we'd all prefer that the DOJ stay out of elections, except to prosecute all the fraud they never seem to be able to find, and let the people decide.

You said indictments make Trump more popular.
I didn't say that, YOU did.
Now I can understand that reason and logic are way outside your skillset
But, reasonably, logically...
If criminal indictments make Trump more popular then
More criminal indictments would make Trump even more popular
THEREFORE
In MAGADUMIA more indictments is better.

That's your logic little one.
If you've a problem with your logic, check the mirror.

 

[Seymour Flops]

One jurist can hang a trial.
That's not "not guilty" as acquittal requires the same vote as conviction.

Correct.

That's a mistrial and Trump stays in court till he dies.

Incorrect, unless Trump dies unexpectedly. Nice fantasy for you, though.

Two scenarios in which all charges against Trump are either dropped, or simply allowed to languish:

Most likely is that Trump wins and fully reorganizes the DOJ back into a crime fighting outfit (if it ever was). The DOJ drops all charges and starts investigating the prosecutorial misconduct of people like Jack Smith and Bowlegged Fani.

Less likely, but definitely possible, is that Trump loses. In that case, the Dems will assume that he is too old to run again, and will turn the DOJ's attention on more likely GOP future presidents, like Abbott and De Santis.

Trump won't be "in court" until he dies, even if the DOJ manages to keep their losing cases open. The anti-Trumpers hate going to court, becuase they get their asses kicked too often. They assumed that the indictments would break Trump, that he would drop out or that his supporters would say, "Well, if Jack Smith says he's guilty that's good enoug for me! I'm voting for Mitch!"

BUUUUUUUT

If you think a single MAGAT will make it to the jury you are sorely mistaken.
Your internet history, for example, would DQ you before the questionnaire.

Now, that is an interesting idea.

You believe that the prosecutors will be allowed not only to search potential jurors' internet posting history, gaining access to their communications on anonymous forums like this, but will also openly admit to doing so, in order to get rid of jurors who support the current Republican frontrunner?

Will the defense be allowed to do the same to Biden supporters (if there are any left by that time)?

I'm not at all saying you're wrong. That's just the kind of thing the Democrats would want to do. I would guess that they would not be as open about it as you seem to expect. They will dig for as much dirt as they can but they will phony up reasons to DQ them, not admit that they are not politically correct.

No, I don't see them excluding Trump supporters. They will tell the non-Trumper jurors who will be expecting to see neo-Nazis giving the "Heil Trump" salute, Bible verse spouting anti-abortion fanatics, and trailer park dwelling, confederate flag flying, Walmart shoppers.

Imagine their surprise when the find out the Trump supporters are just regular Americans of all colors who are concerned among other things about illegal aliens flooding the country and robbing citizens of resources, something that black and brown New Yorkers, Atlantans, and DC Residents are growing more and more concerned about.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your internet history, for example, would DQ you before the questionnaire.

Uh-huh.

Since that kind of political vetting is not a normal part of the trial process, but you think it will happen for Trump: How long will jury selection then delay your coveted pre-election trial?

(Heh, heh)

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thanks for the explanation.

I think that a hung jury means that there are a few holdouts, and they can't get to a unanimous verdict.

That could mean a retrial or dismissal, depending on the judge, right?

That I'm not sure about. I dont' know if the prosecution has the discretion for a retrial, or if a judge has to approve it. I'm pretty sure that the prosecutor could decide on their own not to go to retrial, though. The judge isn't going to force them if they don't think they can win.

Not that they really thought they could win any of these criminal cases.

Handicapping the trials,

FL is where Smith's classified docs case is, so that should go away, or be postponed due to the USSC taking the immunity case.

Agreed. Dog of a case, just because the judge isn't anti-Trump enough.

Smith's J6 case is in DC, so who knows how that goes, I'd recommend a change of venue to VA

That's the least weak of the very weak cases.

The Fani and Alvin cases are State rules, no clue, Turley thinks these are the weakest cases.,

Yes, those have become a joke.

 

[Marener]

FL is where Smith's classified docs case is, so that should go away, or be postponed due to the USSC taking the immunity case.

Nope. The classified documents case is all about behavior Trump took after leaving office. The immunity case before Supreme Court has no relevance.

 

[kyzr]

Nope. The classified documents case is all about behavior Trump took after leaving office. The immunity case before Supreme Court has no relevance.

Ok, assuming you are correct.

Trump still has the Presidential Records Act to fall back on.

Plus the fact that the Secret Service is at MAL, and Joe Biden stole classified documents and wasn't even prosecuted. Equal justice means that the political charges against Trump need to be dismissed.

If it goes to trial in FL I think Trump walks.

 

[Marener]

Ok, assuming you are correct.

Trump still has the Presidential Records Act to fall back on.

Plus the fact that the Secret Service is at MAL, and Joe Biden stole classified documents and wasn't even prosecuted. Equal justice means that the political charges against Trump need to be dismissed.

If it goes to trial in FL I think Trump walks.

He can try to make an argument about the PRA but it’s an absurd argument to make.

The Secret Servicr at Mar a Lago is irrelevant. So is the case with Joe Biden.

Trump was given a grand jury subpoena and willfully defied it. That’s going to be a big deal.