Jan. 6 charge faced by Trump upheld on appeal for second time

[SimplyMe]

The trial regarding Jan. 6th has not taken place yet. It will start in March 2024.

Second Federal Grand Jury Indicts Trump – This Time For Election Interference

On August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Donald Trump of 4 counts of criminal felonies.

www.jan-6.com

The charges are centered on three criminal conspiracies:​

• A conspiracy to defraud the United States of America through dishonesty or deceit, obstructing official government function of collecting, counting, and certifying the 2020 presidential election
• A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct the January 6 congressional proceeding of counting and certifying the electoral college votes for the 2020 presidential election
• A civil rights conspiracy for plotting to subvert the will of voters

​

It is also worth noting that three of the defendants have already chosen to plead guilty. Two of those three are lawyers, who you would think would know if the charges were merely some type of "political persectution" and wouldn't plead guilty unless there was actually enough evidence to convict them. This is doubly true since, even if they were convicted in a "political trial," they would have the recourse to appeal the verdicts. By pleading guilty, they've lost most of their ability to appeal.

 

[Pommer]

I asked and you failed to answer... what else do I need to see.
Nothing.

You were taken to the river but you failed to drink; why should any poster take anything posted by you seriously?

 

[DaisyDay]

When? I never provide a link when talking to people in my community.

Are people in your community the only ones you have conversations with? You never give a reference to anything? Or get one?

Nope.
Or am just a smart cookie and a people person.

Or you don't care to check facts.

Or I could ask you.
What contract did Trump enter into with the entire USA that he might have defrauded?
Which one, how and with whom?
By what means and what proceeding?
Whos rights, what rights, and with whom?
What speaking indictment?

Last first: Link to definition:

A “speaking” indictment is a colloquial term used by criminal law practitioners to refer to a lengthy and detailed indictment that includes more facts and allegations than is required by law. Prosecutors have discretion in selecting how much information to include in an indictment. Sometimes, defense attorneys can make a motion to strike surplusage where the “speaking” indictment contains unnecessarily prejudicial allegations.

Speaking indictments can have both negative and positive implications for the defense. On the one hand, they can provide defense lawyers with a roadmap of the way the prosecution views the case and is thus beneficial from that perspective. On the other hand, judges sometime allow the jury to have copies of the indictment, and a speaking indictment may prejudice the jury because it is a written copy of the prosecutor’s version of the case. A skilled federal defense lawyer who has experience with speaking indictments will develop a strategy that is most advantageous to the client when faced with such an indictment.​

Specifically: this indictment

So that is worth nothing. You thing the President violated a law that no one else thinks to bring an indictment for.

Rude! You said you wanted my opinion on a crime Donald did - why? So you could dish out the insults? And you think you're "a smart cookie and a people person"?

 

[dwb001]

Are people in your community the only ones you have conversations with? You never give a reference to anything? Or get one?

If I or they ask... not unbidden.

Or you don't care to check facts.

We are working in the realm of opinion at the moment.

Last first: Link to definition:

A “speaking” indictment is a colloquial term used by criminal law practitioners to refer to a lengthy and detailed indictment that includes more facts and allegations than is required by law. Prosecutors have discretion in selecting how much information to include in an indictment. Sometimes, defense attorneys can make a motion to strike surplusage where the “speaking” indictment contains unnecessarily prejudicial allegations.​

​

Speaking indictments can have both negative and positive implications for the defense. On the one hand, they can provide defense lawyers with a roadmap of the way the prosecution views the case and is thus beneficial from that perspective. On the other hand, judges sometime allow the jury to have copies of the indictment, and a speaking indictment may prejudice the jury because it is a written copy of the prosecutor’s version of the case. A skilled federal defense lawyer who has experience with speaking indictments will develop a strategy that is most advantageous to the client when faced with such an indictment.​

Specifically: this indictment

Rude! You said you wanted my opinion on a crime Donald did - why?

to see if you have one or are capable of verbalizing it.

So you could dish out the insults?

i have not done that. If I insult you, you will know.

And you think you're "a smart cookie and a people person"?

That is one possibility.

 

[JustOneWay]

We are working in the realm of opinion at the moment.

Some more than others.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a good thing Trump didn't commit any crimes.

That will be up to the juries in his various trials.