280
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
280 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19087 readers
5209 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The sad side effect of this is that we don't get to see the RICO case go forward next week.
If you imagine a mafia RICO case, the mafia boss will order some of his co-defendants to separate their trials so that they can be tried first. This allows the mafia boss and his lawyers to watch the entire prosecution, so that they can prepare for it specifically. They do have all the evidence beforehand, but they don't know exactly how the case will be presented.
This is according to some lawyers I follow on YouTube. So, just like you don't get to see the case, Trump also doesn't get to see the case. So, I think this is a bigger victory for the prosecution than simply getting Chesebro to plead out.
By the way, there are still... what... 16 defendants left? The prosecution's goal in a RICO case is often to keep flipping the defendants until there are only a few high-profile ones left that can be tried all at once in a single courtroom.
If it's anything like lawyer shows I've watched, the evidence/disocvery can be substantial, and I imagine is 10s of thousands of documents or more.
So sure, they have it all, but like you said, they don't know how it's going to be presented.
Something innocent that gets overlooked by the defense could be the start of a trail that becomes the guaranteed win.
Seems like a big win for the prosecution not having to tip any of their hand.
If it's anything like Matlock, we won't know the smoking gun that ties the whole case up until just near the end, when Ben has his "ah-ha!" moment.
If it's anything like recent history, Trump will die peacefully just before he goes to jail.
Which honestly, I'll take it. Rest in pee
That's definitely true, but I was very much looking forward to the entire RICO case being litigated and televised sooner rather than later, no matter how many or which defendants were being prosecuted.
I'm good with it. The thing is that Powell and Chesebro applied for an early trial, which the other 17 are fine waiting and spending time sifting through the evidence, so the state was accommodating both sets of defendants.
But - all 19 defendants were indicted on the same body of evidence. If the trial next week had gone forward as scheduled, then the second group of defendants would have had a detailed look at the prosecution's strategy for the trial, and could have planned their defensive strategy to try to make the persecution less effective.
With the Chesebro and Powell trials cancelled, they don't get that opportunistic detailed look at the prosecution's strategy and will have to try to counter it in real time. I'm okay with this.
Which honestly is probably why they got an even sweeter deal. At least I really hope that they got a really sweet deal, in that everyone else is going to be hit very hard
Yeah, I also see that. But I think the public interest would have been better served by litigating this case in public next week, rather than waiting for some indeterminate period of time.
I also think that having evidence and arguments presented related to people higher on the chain of responsibility, without their attorneys being able to object to anything, could have served to solidify the case against them when they do go to trial.
Powell & Chesebro asserted speedy trial right, so were going first. The remaining defendants are going next year.
Note that flipping both gives a large side benefit to the prosecution, as Trump and the others won’t get an early look at the prosecution’s strategy and tactics.
I’m assuming this could lead to even more flipping later? Without a plan I’m not seeing a defense for the majority of them.
You gotta imagine a stampede on Monday morning.
I know I won’t get a video of their heartbreak but I’m thinking AI video creators aren’t too far off so I’m hopeful.
I would leaven expectations with the chances of a recalcitrant juror who nullifies.
As we get to the actual trial, we are going to see totalized efforts by right-wing media to inform every American about jury nullification and convey the notion that any juror who nullifies will be a hero of the right and never have to work another day in their life.
Worse, those efforts will be dramatically amplified by users on social media; I’d be shocked if any jurors are able to avoid being exposed to the messaging, as their friends, family, coworkers pick it up.
So is it at all possible the judge could nullify this possibility? Or because juror selection for Trump’s trial hasn’t commenced they’ll be trying to blanket the entirety of the nation in hopes they can get anyone I guess.
It is possible that the jury could be instructed to report on whether any jurors were not deliberating honestly, or refusing to participate.
I’m not a lawyer, but have read a bunch about nullification, and it’s an interestingly powerful and simple cheat code in the hands of a juror who otherwise behaves normally during voir dire, the trial, and deliberations.
Because it’s so powerful, the justice system pretty much hates citizens knowing about it. Aggressive steps are often taken to remove protesters who try to make jurors aware of nullification, to the point of violating free-speech rights imo.
If a juror goes full John-Grisham-novel-style, and hides their intent to nullify, and they don’t have a findable personal history that clearly conflicts with what they said during voir dire, there isn’t anything the justice system can do to stop that juror from completely ratfucking the government’s case.
And, there would be extraordinary benefits to doing so. A single juror who nullified the government’s case would become a multimillionaire in short order, and they would be a massive hero to 30% of America.
It’s disturbing to think about.
Only Powell and Chesebro were scheduled for next week. The remainder of defendants all waived their right to a speedy trial, as part of a deal which prevents them from demanding speedy trial at the last moment and forcing the courts to struggle to have multiple separate cases going on at the same time for the same charges.
Nobody else is scheduled for next week, so far as I am aware.
Edit: Nobody else is scheduled yet at all, so we now do not know when we're going to see this case go to trial.
Well, after Powell and Chesebro, they will pick the next potential plea candidate of the list. They are good at the "sing or Sing-Sing" game. When they have enough testimonies to get the rest of the gang behind bars, the deal offers will stop - except someone comes forward with something extra juicy.
I think because Powell and Chesebro were the only two that requested a speedy trial. The others cases will still happen, just not until later.
And neither do Trump's lawyers. This is the dream outcome.