Your link is actually right on the mark. The Constitutionally specified rights to “a jury trial” and the proviso that indictments must first go before a Grand Jury … have been ruled to not apply automatically to every individual state and municipality. There are both positive and negative aspects to Grand Juries, which the link you provide addresses. Much more can be said on this subject.
The actual trials Trump is likely to face include several that will almost certainly raise issues far more important than this one.
The state and Federal prosecutors involved will have to produce evidence and arguments and prove to juries Trump’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” … or Trump will likely emerge innocent and even politically strengthened. Whatever charges he is found guilty of committing — if there are any — will almost certainly be appealed.
I recall Trump used to brag he could murder somebody out on 5th Ave. and his supporters would continue to defend him.
Well, I’m happy to report he didn’t go that far!
But most of Trump’s hardcore supporters defend him even after he tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected President, even after he suggested Americans should consider “terminating” our laws and Constitution so he could remain in power. Trump’s actions were treasonable and could have led to civil war and the death of our remaining, very weakened democracy.
Trump was impeached — but NOT convicted — for political crimes. He escaped conviction after his 2nd Impeachment mainly because most Republican leaders were gutless and terrified of losing support from Trump’s large voting base.
Trump may well escape conviction again, or be “convicted” of crimes yet still win re-election. The final rendering of the decision will be … in hands of the nation and its voters in 2024.
The point is it's not a constitutional requirement to use a grand jury. A prosecutor uses grand juries when they know they'll likely not get anything from a fair judge. Get people ignorant enough of the laws and circumstance to make that decision instead.
Neither impeachments had any impeachable offenses. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors or treason. Asking a leader of another country for a "favor" fits none of those categories and neither does holding a rally which actually is supported by the US Constitution. That's why the Senate voted against charges. It's your lying MSM that tried to say Trump was responsible for the riot that took place. A complete and utter lie. Only the Republicans in the Senate voted properly.
If all these phony charges are related to the Stormy case, of course it will be thrown out unless it goes in front of another commie judge. Why?
Federal election violations are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not a local city government.
Even if charges are warranted, the statute of limitations expired years ago.
Fat asses star witness isn't credible. He has lied on a number of occasions including a Congressional hearing. He's been found guilty of perjury.
His own former lawyer testified that Cohen told him Trump had no idea he paid Stormy anything, and he would do anything possible to stay out of jail; even considered suicide.
Even if Trump reimbursed him, there is no law against paying hush money.
Stormy admitted she didn't actually have any physical relationship with President Trump.
Cohen stated he was never reimbursed by Trump for the Stormy payment.
There is just way too much here for any fair judge to allow this to go to trial. Unless Fat Alvin has some other charge we are not aware of, this case should be thrown out the minute it goes into session.
www.nolo.com
