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

[Dadoalex]

Correct.

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!"

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.

I don't respond to inline quotes.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Nope. That's not how it worked.

And it is a jury trial for all of his criminal trials, that's been determined.

 

[Dadoalex]

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)

It's like they've never read even an effin fortune cookie. This is from a DOZEN years ago

Using the Internet and social media in jury selection

plaintiffmagazine.com

Everything about a potential juror is fair game during the selection process.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/the_brief/2016_17/winter/voir_dire_becomes_voir_google_ethical_concerns_of_21st_century_jury_selection/

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE71G4VW/

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don't respond to inline quotes.

Bye, then!

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's like they've never read even an effin fortune cookie. This is from a DOZEN years ago

Using the Internet and social media in jury selection

plaintiffmagazine.com

Everything about a potential juror is fair game during the selection process.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/the_brief/2016_17/winter/voir_dire_becomes_voir_google_ethical_concerns_of_21st_century_jury_selection/

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE71G4VW/

But you specified that if I were in the jury pool, my internet history would disqualify me. How will they know that "Seymour Flops," is really George Smith, from Cornville, Alabama, or whoever I really am?

Regardless of whether it happens all the time, or not, how will it fit in with your goal of having Trump tried, convicted and locked up before the election.

Later, we can discuss whether it is impossible for a convicted inmate to be elected.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Remember what Comey did to Hillary!?

 

[kyzr]

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.

Hillary deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails and walked because she had no "intent" to break the law.

Trump was informed that he was covered by the PRA, the Bill Clinton sock drawer precedent, so he had no "intent" either.

You can't ignore the fact that Biden stole classified documents he had no right to and was not prosecuted.

 

[Marener]

Hillary deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails and walked because she had no "intent" to break the law.

Trump was informed that he was covered by the PRA, the Bill Clinton sock drawer precedent, so he had no "intent" either.

You can't ignore the fact that Biden stole classified documents he had no right to and was not prosecuted.

There was no evidence Hillary did any such thing. Lots of evidence Trump kept documents from the subpoena though.

He wasn’t “informed” of any such thing by anyone in the government. Bill Clinton wasn’t keeping highly classified DoD documents in his sock drawer so this is not any precedent.

You can’t ignore the chasm of differences between Biden’s case and Trump’s case. Nor can you ignore the fact that Biden literally can’t be prosecuted right now. Nor can you ignore the fact that you can’t break the law because someone else may have also broken the law and gotten away with it.

It’s telling that the defense of Trump is little more than whataboutism. You can’t defend his behavior so you just complain about others.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Remember what Comey did to Hillary!?

Sure do.

Comey was one of the most blatant and shameful self-promoting opportunists ever to head the DOJ. But, he certainly was not the only one.

I'll never get why Dems think that the DOJ is a trustworthy organization.

They are simply denying history to claim that the FBI is.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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.

Nikkie polls better than Vivek.

 

[MagicMike]

Yep, You got him now....
The Election interference conducted in this presidential year by Democrat Neo-Marcists is un paralleled n American history and will ultimately destroy the Democrat Neo-Marxist CPUSA cult.

Have you ever listened to your own hysterical rantings?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nikkie polls better than Vivek.

A key fact, yes.

 

[kyzr]

There was no evidence Hillary did any such thing. Lots of evidence Trump kept documents from the subpoena though.

He wasn’t “informed” of any such thing by anyone in the government. Bill Clinton wasn’t keeping highly classified DoD documents in his sock drawer so this is not any precedent.

You can’t ignore the chasm of differences between Biden’s case and Trump’s case. Nor can you ignore the fact that Biden literally can’t be prosecuted right now. Nor can you ignore the fact that you can’t break the law because someone else may have also broken the law and gotten away with it.

It’s telling that the defense of Trump is little more than whataboutism. You can’t defend his behavior so you just complain about others.

1. Yes she did delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails

Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server

Donald Trump demanded to know why Hillary Clinton's emails were deleted.

abcnews.go.com

2. Bill Clinton won a lawsuit over presidential records, it is precedent. Not all of the documents were classified, some were attorney-client privileged. A special master could have gone thru them and separated them out.

Bill Clinton Won A Presidential Records Lawsuit Over His ‘Sock Drawer’ Tapes. Here’s What That Could Mean For Trump.

Donald Trump cited a 2012 lawsuit against former President Bill Clinton involving his "sock drawer" tapes as a defense against his indictment on Tuesday.

dailycaller.com

3. True Biden can't be prosecuted now, but its obvious he stole classified documents, yet does not get indicted.

4. The PRA needs to be tested to see if Trump broke the law. AG Barr said Trump is toast. We'll see.

5. Damn right we'll complain about the double-standard, that is total bullshit.

 

[Lesh]

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.

The PRA damns him

 

[Marener]

Yes she did delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails

Theres nothing in your story about a subpoena. Thats because Clinton’s instruction to delete the emails came before the subpoena. Details matter.

Bill Clinton won a lawsuit over presidential records, it is precedent. Not all of the documents were classified, some were attorney-client privileged. A special master could have gone thru them and separated them out

Theres a lot of reasons it’s not precedent. For starters, it was in a district court in a totally different circuit, so it’s not a binding precedent for anyone and definitely not in another circuit. That’s just how precedents work.

Second, the circumstances of the Clinton case are dramatically different. Clinton made some tapes of him talking. He didn’t take DoD documents.

True Biden can't be prosecuted now, but it’s obvious he stole classified documents, yet does not get indicted.

He can’t be indicted now.

The PRA needs to be tested to see if Trump broke the law. AG Barr said Trump is toast. We'll see.

The defense here is that highly classified military documents are “personal”, which is the dumbest thing anyone has ever tried to claim. It’s laughably absurd.

Damn right we'll complain about the double-standard, that is total bullshit.

Complain all you want, but it makes no difference in a court of law

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Simply not true. It makes you Trump worshipers worship even more, but it does not bring people to the Trump fold.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Orange man numbers grow even higher and his lead expands as more indictments add up. Lol.

 

[Orangecat]

Looks like some NaziCons are triggered.

You're the one who started this whiny-bitch thread, kiddo.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

PRA damns Trump. The MAGAtry love for him means nothing.

 

[Seymour Flops]

1. Yes she did delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails

Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server

Donald Trump demanded to know why Hillary Clinton's emails were deleted.

abcnews.go.com

Which was very well-known, highly publicized, and even mentioned by Comey in his lengthy recitation of Hillary Clinton’s crimes right before he said “But, of course, we can’t prosecute her because nobody’s been prosecuted for that before.“

This is what I despise about arguing with Democrats. They are unaware of the most basic facts. When you tell them something that their immediate did not tell them or that they heard on the media, but immediately forgot about, they don’t just say “oh really let me look that up “they accuse you of lying and you have to Look it up for them.

But I guess if Democrats grew up, they wouldn’t be Democrats anymore so we have nobody to humiliate on this forum.