You are correct. But it is unclear if that would toll the statute of limitations. We are a bit in unprecedented legal territory, which is why as an attorney I would prefer the Georgia, January 6 and obstruction cases be brought by the DOJ as opposed to the New York case
I see no reason for them to charged in a "most likely to get a conviction" sequence. That, to me, truly smacks of political timing of the charges, which is what TFG and his lemmings are fond of alleging. Why give them the satisfaction? Bragg was able to build his case on previous investigations by Vance, so that he could be first to the "finish" line. Neither Willis nor Garland had that head start immediately after the election or inauguration.
The other night I heard an interesting episode of Hidden Brain on NPR (on psychology). It was on persuasion. If you have two strong arguments for a proposition and three valid, though weaker arguments, the latter three do not add on. They subtract, because the human tendency is to average the arguments' strength. I think that can be applied to the Trump cases, although, as has been pointed out, it would be a negative if the various DA's and AG's were perceived as crafting an attack.
Did the episode discuss who is/are the one(s) being persuaded? TFG's lemmings do not need any sort of persuasion; they KNOW their hero is being railroaded. And, in any event, the only ones who are really at issue are the various jurors ultimatel seated, who are to evaluate only the case before them, as a judge will instruct them, perhaps several times.
Has it occurred to anyone (and I am playing Devil's advocate here) that his being acquitted in New York might actually weaken him later? If he gets off he can no longer claim he is being railroaded. And his protestations about the other cases will be less significant. Maybe.
Perhaps, but I fear your Devil may have bought into the "These cases are all connected somehow" trap. And, getting a free pass might only embolden him while letting his lemmings abuse Reagan's line, Here They Go Again.
For the first indictment in the history of the US of a former President, prudence and common sense would indicate that the case should be both strong and substantive. But he NYC case basically involves covering up sex. Not exactly an earth shaking event. ItтАЩs more like Clinton or Edwards, one with no criminal charges brought for lying under oath about sex and the other resulting in a jury acquittal for paying money to cover up an affair. Just my opinion, but this is not the case I would have brought for this monumental an event. It sets a very poor precedent. On the other hand, the other cases relate to the important issues of having a fair US election with a peaceful transfer of power and deliberately refusing to return federal records and lying about it.
I concur in your historical analysis, but, again, I feel that had Bragg, Smith and Willis coordinated the timing of the indictments (the three likely indictments are still to come), it would have fed the politicalization hysteria of the RWN (Right-Wing-Nuts) who support TFG. As it is, I have also read that, given the motion friendly nature of New York courts (both trial and appellate), it is likely that, should Willis or Smith get into the fray in the near future (early May is being bandied about for Georgia), she could well get into court sooner than Bragg. Of course, Smith could try to muscle in with the Federal case(s) and politely as her to let him go first, but that is pure speculation.
You are correct. But it is unclear if that would toll the statute of limitations. We are a bit in unprecedented legal territory, which is why as an attorney I would prefer the Georgia, January 6 and obstruction cases be brought by the DOJ as opposed to the New York case
I see no reason for them to charged in a "most likely to get a conviction" sequence. That, to me, truly smacks of political timing of the charges, which is what TFG and his lemmings are fond of alleging. Why give them the satisfaction? Bragg was able to build his case on previous investigations by Vance, so that he could be first to the "finish" line. Neither Willis nor Garland had that head start immediately after the election or inauguration.
The other night I heard an interesting episode of Hidden Brain on NPR (on psychology). It was on persuasion. If you have two strong arguments for a proposition and three valid, though weaker arguments, the latter three do not add on. They subtract, because the human tendency is to average the arguments' strength. I think that can be applied to the Trump cases, although, as has been pointed out, it would be a negative if the various DA's and AG's were perceived as crafting an attack.
Did the episode discuss who is/are the one(s) being persuaded? TFG's lemmings do not need any sort of persuasion; they KNOW their hero is being railroaded. And, in any event, the only ones who are really at issue are the various jurors ultimatel seated, who are to evaluate only the case before them, as a judge will instruct them, perhaps several times.
Has it occurred to anyone (and I am playing Devil's advocate here) that his being acquitted in New York might actually weaken him later? If he gets off he can no longer claim he is being railroaded. And his protestations about the other cases will be less significant. Maybe.
Perhaps, but I fear your Devil may have bought into the "These cases are all connected somehow" trap. And, getting a free pass might only embolden him while letting his lemmings abuse Reagan's line, Here They Go Again.
For the first indictment in the history of the US of a former President, prudence and common sense would indicate that the case should be both strong and substantive. But he NYC case basically involves covering up sex. Not exactly an earth shaking event. ItтАЩs more like Clinton or Edwards, one with no criminal charges brought for lying under oath about sex and the other resulting in a jury acquittal for paying money to cover up an affair. Just my opinion, but this is not the case I would have brought for this monumental an event. It sets a very poor precedent. On the other hand, the other cases relate to the important issues of having a fair US election with a peaceful transfer of power and deliberately refusing to return federal records and lying about it.
I concur in your historical analysis, but, again, I feel that had Bragg, Smith and Willis coordinated the timing of the indictments (the three likely indictments are still to come), it would have fed the politicalization hysteria of the RWN (Right-Wing-Nuts) who support TFG. As it is, I have also read that, given the motion friendly nature of New York courts (both trial and appellate), it is likely that, should Willis or Smith get into the fray in the near future (early May is being bandied about for Georgia), she could well get into court sooner than Bragg. Of course, Smith could try to muscle in with the Federal case(s) and politely as her to let him go first, but that is pure speculation.