I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law for 40 years. The Georgia case could have been brought by the DOJ in March 2021. But Garland simply would not bring it and apparently would not even investigate it (not that much was required given the recording), and he wouldn’t appoint a special prosecutor until Trump announced he was running for President again. This case has the proverbial smoking gun. It should be a very simple case to present to a jury.
With respect to the New York case, I believe the current US Supreme Court would hold that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not a campaign contribution under Federal law and thus Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn’t even a crime. The case is beyond weak and should never have been brought. The DOJ needs to bring the Georgia, January 6, and documents obstruction cases ASAP because those are very substantive and strong cases.
The in-progress Georgia case is under state law, yes? So DOJ could never have brought *that* one, precisely. Some acts may have violated both state and federal law, but the sovereign authorities - and therefore their decisions to prosecute or not - are separate. (Gamble v. United States)
If all you want is a conviction for a "perfect" phone call, then it is simple in its presentation, which may not be the same as a conviction.
If, on the other hand, you want to show the "big" picture as it unfolded in all its non-glory in Georgia, then DA Willis' looking into a RICO-type allegation will "show it all". Just like Bragg has had experience in successfully prosecuting white collar financial crime cases, so has Willis has the same type of experience and results using Georgia's RICO law. I do not know how that provision tracks with the Federal RICO law, but, assuming it is not a one-to-one copy, that could explain AG Garland's reluctance to bring Federal charges against a former president his first day on the job as the top prosecutor, despite or because of his experience as an appellate judge.
I was not happy with it either, but FBI is DOJ, whose policy it was and is i also think it may have been all if our bad luck that Mueller took a turn toward dementia somewhere along the line. I still want to read the book by his chief deputy.
I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law for 40 years. The Georgia case could have been brought by the DOJ in March 2021. But Garland simply would not bring it and apparently would not even investigate it (not that much was required given the recording), and he wouldn’t appoint a special prosecutor until Trump announced he was running for President again. This case has the proverbial smoking gun. It should be a very simple case to present to a jury.
With respect to the New York case, I believe the current US Supreme Court would hold that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not a campaign contribution under Federal law and thus Cohen pleaded guilty to something that wasn’t even a crime. The case is beyond weak and should never have been brought. The DOJ needs to bring the Georgia, January 6, and documents obstruction cases ASAP because those are very substantive and strong cases.
The in-progress Georgia case is under state law, yes? So DOJ could never have brought *that* one, precisely. Some acts may have violated both state and federal law, but the sovereign authorities - and therefore their decisions to prosecute or not - are separate. (Gamble v. United States)
If the various cases had been strategically ordered for political palatability, THAT would have added justifiable fuel to the “witch hunt” fire.
Well, the only reason to hold a witch hunt is because there's a witch out there.
If all you want is a conviction for a "perfect" phone call, then it is simple in its presentation, which may not be the same as a conviction.
If, on the other hand, you want to show the "big" picture as it unfolded in all its non-glory in Georgia, then DA Willis' looking into a RICO-type allegation will "show it all". Just like Bragg has had experience in successfully prosecuting white collar financial crime cases, so has Willis has the same type of experience and results using Georgia's RICO law. I do not know how that provision tracks with the Federal RICO law, but, assuming it is not a one-to-one copy, that could explain AG Garland's reluctance to bring Federal charges against a former president his first day on the job as the top prosecutor, despite or because of his experience as an appellate judge.
Mueller has the sitting president problem to contend with. He opened the door for the Congress to act, but they didn't.
I was not happy with it either, but FBI is DOJ, whose policy it was and is i also think it may have been all if our bad luck that Mueller took a turn toward dementia somewhere along the line. I still want to read the book by his chief deputy.