top of page
Search

US|us on trial



is it possible not to go to jail for attempting to subvert the democratic process/sovereignty of the people ?


the facts (as stated in the latest indictment) seem so compelling that the verdict will be more of a judgement on the US than the donald.


but that's assuming the grand jury wouldn't permit such statements without supporting evidence from Jack Smith.


please don't make the same assumption. read the indictment.

will be fascinating to hear your thoughts before and after reading...


I haven't read the indictment

  • I believe the evidence WILL support the charges

  • I believe the evidence WON'T support the charges

  • Don't know

I've read the indictment

  • 0%I assume the evidence will support the charges

  • 0%I assume the evidence won't support the charges

  • 0%Don't know






That sentence will either re-affirm or re-define American values. It will determine whether America continues on it's exceptional but bumpy path as the most successful societal experiment in human history.




laws (and constitutions) are made by legislators, interpreted by judge & jury.


the law is refined/defined and evolves with each decision setting legal precedent.


then there's the evidence....



this leaves


Classified docs indictment : https://ia902709.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0_OCR/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0_OCR.pdf



aren't decisions in court a reflection on the law, judge, jury as well as the defendant ?


doesn't the outcome of trials determine two things ?

1. whether laws (or constitutions), as drafted and amended (or not) by elected representatives become legal precedent

2. how we feel about the law


the principal of legal precedent




Evidence based decision making.


In many ways the judgement is on ourselves. A decision on the direction we want to take. A decision on what's acceptable. The GOP identifying with Trump, or not.


John Lauro's defence of free speech & taking legal advice



“Everything that President Trump did was with the advice of lawyers and counsel . . . that’s an absolute defense to a criminal case,” he said, claiming that Eastman told Trump, “This is a protocol you can follow—it’s legal,”


It's true, Trump took a decent amount of legal advice.

Trump followed Lawyer Jack Eastmans (co-conspirator no.2) advice

He ignored that of Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and subsequently Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue.


Whether it's a contract or treason, the reason you take legal advice is for protection should the case come to court.

Trump has form in deceiving lawyers.

In indictment 1 re. Classified docs

art of choosing a lawyer and which advice to follow is all about whether you can win if a case comes to court.



The search for a one handed lawyer.


But the indictment lists a number of people, including then Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and then Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who “refuted” Trump’s claims of election fraud and told him the Justice Department “could not and would not change the outcome of the election,” according to the indictment.


defence Aug 1st Indictment

Trumped up charges.

Mr Trump is forgetting it's the court who decides based on evidence.


Evidence based decision making.


In many ways the judgement is on ourselves. A decision on the direction we want to take. A decision on what's acceptable. The GOP identifying with Trump, or not.


Mr Trump, 77, who is again running for president, denies wrongdoing. On social media he called the case "ridiculous".

BBC


Commentaires


bottom of page