INDICTED (INDICATED) #4 - Quadfecta! Perfecta? - Judge Scott McAfee - Georgia v. Trump ET AL - P01135809- Fani Willis

[Foggy]

Ah, a judge with a subtle sense of humor.

I bet that goes right over the heads of some of the quadfectee's attorneys, who wasted their lives studying and aren't familiar with Monty Python.

"My motion is a parrot? WTF?"

[sugar magnolia]

Ah, a judge with a subtle sense of humor.

I bet that goes right over the heads of some of the quadfectee's attorneys, who wasted their lives studying and aren't familiar with Monty Python.

"My motion is a parrot? WTF?"

And so totally appropriate, considering yesterday was the anniversary of the first MP episode.

[Dr. Ken]

[bill_g]

She is the sharpest quill in the penbox, isn't she?

[Maybenaut]

She is the sharpest quill in the penbox, isn't she?

I would’ve made that argument. It’s not frivolous.

[bill_g]

She is the sharpest quill in the penbox, isn't she?

I would’ve made that argument. It’s not frivolous.

Calling prosecutorial misconduct? I imagine you would, but I don't think you would cite a case commonly applied to appellant challenges. But, IANAL.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 65563&ei=7

Former publicist for Kanye West-turned Trump co-defendant Trevian Kutti claimed Monday she will be Donald Trump's next press secretary in a now-deleted social media post, The Messenger reported.

“I look forward to redeeming Black women in politics by becoming Press Secretary to the 47th President of the United States @realDonaldTrump,” Kutti wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

In a similar post on Instagram, Kutti added the caption, "I'm protected." That post has also since been deleted.

Kutti has pleaded not guilty to felony charges in Georgia in connection to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. The case is part of the 41-count Fulton County grand jury indictment against Trump and 18 other co-defendants.

Experts say her comments could make it difficult for Kutti to strike a plea deal with prosecutors.

“It certainly doesn't help her case if she testifies,” said Georgia trial lawyer and former RICO prosecutor Chris Timmons. “It adds bias if you think you’re going to get a position in the Trump administration.”

“The other thing is I wouldn’t offer her a deal if she claims she's going to be press secretary… that’s the biggest thing there,” he said, adding that for Trump “it could be witness tampering, but you’d have to prove it’s an exchange for testimony.”

[Maybenaut]

She is the sharpest quill in the penbox, isn't she?

I would’ve made that argument. It’s not frivolous.

Calling prosecutorial misconduct? I imagine you would, but I don't think you would cite a case commonly applied to appellant challenges. But, IANAL.

Here’s why I would’ve made the argument if I was in Powell’s lawyer’s position. The cited case supports my position, and at least one circuit court of appeals has said it applies to grand jury proceedings. I imagine prosecutorial misconduct isn’t something that comes up in very many cases, and that’s probably why there aren’t any cases in Georgia or whatever federal circuit this is all happening in that extend the Supreme Court decision to presentations to the grand jury. But there’s nothing wrong with citing cases from other jurisdictions and saying the same law should apply in this jurisdiction, even if there aren’t currently any cases that specifically say that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising this argument.

ETA: I’m not saying the judge got it wrong. The judge is going to follow the law as it currently is in his jurisdiction. But if Powell didn’t raise this now, the issue is waived in the event she gets convicted and wants to appeal.

[p0rtia]

I (ANAL) listened to the oral arguments from Powell's lawyer and the State att on the prosecutorial misconduct ("they mus have lied"), dismiss now issue.

Powell's lawyer was in overdrive, featuring his angry-as-hell outrage and repeating at least five times (during the back and forth) that Powell had 1) not had anything at all to do with Coffee County, 2) the proof of that was that she had not signed the document (not sure which one) that supposed showed she did (someone else typed in her name), and 3) there was no crime in Coffee County anyway, because the team had been invited in.

Scott (I call him Scott, now) amiably said that this seemed to be an issue for the jury, so please stop. Hence his short denial.

I got curious and read the following (very good) breakdown of the case. Not exactly support of the position that Powell had "nothing to do with Coffee County."

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/wh ... ty-georgia

What the Heck Happened in Coffee County, Georgia?
Anna Bower Tuesday, August 15, 2023

Some tidbits:

Prior efforts to get access to voting machines had largely failed. Powell said the judges who had ruled on Trump’s legal challenges were “corrupt,” according to the recollection of former White House counsel Eric Herschmann. And Powell felt that time was running out to preserve evidence from the machines, she later told the Jan. 6 committee.
....
Powell’s team had a plan: The federal government could seize voting machines in the states under a 2018 executive order. It was an idea that Powell had been mulling before she arrived at Tomotley in late November, ever since she heard the “cyber guys” talk about the prospect of obtaining “hunting licenses”—that is, search warrants—to seize and inspect voting machines, according to her testimony before the Jan. 6 committee.
...
Powell told the committee that Giuliani said during the meeting that he had a plan to access voting machines in Georgia. But Powell said she wasn’t aware of the details as to how Giuliani planned to get access to machines.
---
Paul Maggio, the chief operations officer of SullivanStrickler, sent an email to Powell, Logan, Penrose, and others. “We are on our way to Coffee County Georgia to collect what we can from the Election / Voting machines and systems,” he wrote, attaching an invoice for SullivanStrickler’s $26,000 retainer fee. The invoice billed Powell’s PAC, Defending the Republic.
...
In Powell’s Jan. 6 committee testimony, she downplayed any alleged role she played in efforts to gain access to voting machines. “I think I was asked to pay expenses of some of those trips in some way, some of the teams of cyber people that were going to look for them,” she said. “I didn’t have any role in really setting them up or making sure how they were done that I remember.”
---
The next day, on Jan. 8, Maggio again emailed Powell. “Everything went smoothly yesterday with the Coffee County collection,” he wrote. “Everyone involved was extremely helpful. We are consolidating all of the data collected and will be uploading it to our secure site for access by your team. Hopefully we can take care of payment today.”

[bob]

I haven't followed the federal law closely, but shirley there's a pre-trial right (and remedy) to allow an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings.

Really, the law would want to encourage that because the remedy might very well be dismissal of the indictment without prejudice to the prosecutor's seeking another indictment (depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct). Instead of waiting post-trial or post-affirmance to toss the verdict

Turning to the merits, "We disagree, ipso facto, the prosecutor lied," is pretty weak sauce. Rarely will a prosecutor admit to lying, so the evidence of a material intentional (or perhaps negligent) falsehood must be pretty good.

[Kriselda Gray]

I would’ve made that argument. It’s not frivolous.

Calling prosecutorial misconduct? I imagine you would, but I don't think you would cite a case commonly applied to appellant challenges. But, IANAL.

Here’s why I would’ve made the argument if I was in Powell’s lawyer’s position. The cited case supports my position, and at least one circuit court of appeals has said it applies to grand jury proceedings. I imagine prosecutorial misconduct isn’t something that comes up in very many cases, and that’s probably why there aren’t any cases in Georgia or whatever federal circuit this is all happening in that extend the Supreme Court decision to presentations to the grand jury. But there’s nothing wrong with citing cases from other jurisdictions and saying the same law should apply in this jurisdiction, even if there aren’t currently any cases that specifically say that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising this argument.

ETA: I’m not saying the judge got it wrong. The judge is going to follow the law as it currently is in his jurisdiction. But if Powell didn’t raise this now, the issue is waived in the event she gets convicted and wants to appeal.

I didn't really understand what they were calling prosecutorial misconduct. What did the prosecutors (allegedly) do?

[bob]

What did the prosecutors (allegedly) do?

The Hill (last week): Judge rejects Sidney Powell’s attempt to dismiss Georgia charges over misconduct accusations:

Powell’s attorney at a Thursday court hearing argued she had nothing to do with an elections office breach in Coffee County, Ga., that she is charged over in the indictment, alleging that prosecutors had failed to interview key witnesses and ignored evidence.

I don't believe there's a duty for the prosecutor to affirmatively interview witnesses who may be favorable to the defense. "Ignoring" (or more precisely, not presenting exculpatory evidence to the grand jury) might be grounds for misconduct. But that would require showing in court that: (1) the exculpatory evidence exists; (2) the prosecutor knew (or should have known) about its existence; and (3) didn't present it to the grand jury.

With "showing" being key: Unsupported allegations (read: speculation) aren't going to win this kind of motion.

Brian Rafferty, Powell’s attorney, had argued in the dismissal motion that prosecutors had committed “troubling and unethical conduct” in charging Powell, because she had “nothing to do” with the Coffee County breach, and that it wasn’t a crime anyways because local officials had extended an invitation to visit the office.

A bad-faith charging decision may be misconduct, but this smells like this was a disguised demurrer that argued, even assuming the facts are true, Powell didn't commit a crime.

But see:

“The court has heard no evidence other than we don’t like the fact that we got indicted, we disagree with the state’s theory of the case, and therefore there must have been prosecutorial misconduct. That is not how this works,” [DDA Will] Wooten said.

That is, in fact, not how it works.

[Maybenaut]

I haven't followed the federal law closely, but shirley there's a pre-trial right (and remedy) to allow an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings.

Really, the law would want to encourage that because the remedy might very well be dismissal of the indictment without prejudice to the prosecutor's seeking another indictment (depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct). Instead of waiting post-trial or post-affirmance to toss the verdict

Turning to the merits, "We disagree, ipso facto, the prosecutor lied," is pretty weak sauce. Rarely will a prosecutor admit to lying, so the evidence of a material intentional (or perhaps negligent) falsehood must be pretty good.

It seemed to me that the judge was saying that he’s bound by the caselaw of his jurisdiction, which is why Powell’s motion was “procedurally defective,” and it would remain that way until and unless some higher authority said the S.Ct case extended to grand jury proceedings.

I agree that’s a stupid way to run a railroad, given the amount of lip service usually afforded to “judicial economy.” The cynic in me has observed over the years that things are more likely to be done in the interest of judicial economy when doing so works in favor of the government. Otherwise, the convict gets to languish in prison while he or she waits to hear the appellate court say, “oh, yeah, that shouldn’t have happened.” On my darker days, my inner cynic notes the difficulty appellate judges appear to have with the notion that sometimes justice requires that they let the bad guy go.

As to the merits, I agree she’d never get there. Even if she could show that some of the testimony was perjured, she’s have to show the prosecutor knew it and presented it anyway. Never going to happen.

[Kriselda Gray]

What did the prosecutors (allegedly) do?

The Hill (last week): Judge rejects Sidney Powell’s attempt to dismiss Georgia charges over misconduct accusations:
But see:

“The court has heard no evidence other than we don’t like the fact that we got indicted, we disagree with the state’s theory of the case, and therefore there must have been prosecutorial misconduct. That is not how this works,” [DDA Will] Wooten said.

That is, in fact, not how it works.

Thanks bob!!

[Gregg]

My Classic Somics version of the facts still reads

"Sydney Powell had nothing to do with the crime in Coffey County that her PAC paid for and for which she received updates and reports about as soon as they were done, doing what she paid them to do. That she had nothing at all to do with. And it wasn't illegal to break the law anyhow. Release the Kraken!"

[Volkonski]

Judge orders RNC chair and Alex Jones to testify at Georgia election subversion trial

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/politics ... index.html

The judge presiding over the Georgia election subversion case signed orders Tuesday to compel Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to testify at the first trial in the sprawling case.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee granted a request from District Attorney Fani Willis to order the testimony from these two high-profile witnesses. The development raises the stakes for the trial of Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell. They have pleaded not guilty.

The judge determined that McDaniel and Jones are both “a necessary and material witness in this prosecution” and said they “will be required to be in attendance and testify,” according to court filings.

As chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, McDaniel is in the midst of a contentious GOP primary race in the 2024 presidential election where former President Donald Trump, a co-defendant in this case, is running again.

“Ronna McDaniel possesses unique knowledge concerning communications between herself and Donald Trump as well as communications between herself and John Eastman regarding the conspiracy to cause certain individuals to falsely hold themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors,” McAfee wrote, referring to the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Trump and Eastman have also been charged in the case and pleaded not guilty.

Jones is a notorious conspiracy theorist who led a protest on US Capitol grounds during the January 6, 2021, insurrection but never went inside the building. Prosecutors told the judge that video footage shows Chesebro marching near the Capitol with Jones.

[Kendra]

Executive privilege claims in 5...4...3...2...1...

[Maybenaut]

Executive privilege claims in 5...4...3...2...1...

Can a person who is not an employee of the Executive Branch claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive? Is there a crime-fraud exception to executive privilege like there is to other types?

Questions, I haz them.

[keith]

Executive privilege claims in 5...4...3...2...1...

Can a person who is not an employee of the Executive Branch claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive? Is there a crime-fraud exception to executive privilege like there is to other types?

Questions, I haz them.

IANAL.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that anybody can claim any damn thing in the imaginative universe and be just about guaranteed somebody will pick up on it long enough to raise a stink, delay a trial, or make some political trouble.

Its called trolling. Or throwing hand grenades. Or being an asshole.

[Sam the Centipede]

Can a person who is not an employee of the Executive Branch claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive? Is there a crime-fraud exception to executive privilege like there is to other types?

Mayb, you disappoint me! Haven't we frequently had this from bob and other sticklers: anybody can claim anything?!

Whether they'll get it or not is another matter.

Ok, we probably need to assume "successfully" or a similar adverb before "claim".

As for claiming privilege: wouldn't it be as with attorney-client privilege, that the privilege only attaches to the client. Can anybody else ever claim a-c privilege when they're not a client?

[Maybenaut]

Can a person who is not an employee of the Executive Branch claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive? Is there a crime-fraud exception to executive privilege like there is to other types?

Mayb, you disappoint me! Haven't we frequently had this from bob and other sticklers: anybody can claim anything?!

Whether they'll get it or not is another matter.

Ok, we probably need to assume "successfully" or a similar adverb before "claim".

As for claiming privilege: wouldn't it be as with attorney-client privilege, that the privilege only attaches to the client. Can anybody else ever claim a-c privilege when they're not a client?

I should have been more precise. I meant to ask whether a person could successfully claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive branch.

I think the executive privilege scenario is slightly different from the attorney-client scenario. The fact that the communication occurred in the presence of the third party or the client told the third party about the communication waives the privilege.

I don’t know if the fact that the communication was with a non-executive person waives the privilege, like it would in the attorney-client scenario. And if it doesn’t, does the crime-fraud exception apply?

[bill_g]

Fani Willis Tells Jim Jordan to Pound Sand in Scathing Letter: ‘You Are Abusing Your Authority’

Michael Luciano Oct 11th, 2023, 7:16 pm

The letter war between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) took another turn on Wednesday, with the prosecutor firing off a missive telling the congressman to mind his own business.

Willis is prosecuting Trump and his co-defendants over their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result in Georgia, which he lost. Jordan, a staunch Trump ally and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has demanded Willis answer questions about her case. Her refusal to do so, Jordan said in a Sept. 27 letter, “reinforces the Committee’s concern that your prosecutorial conduct is geared more toward advancing a political cause and your own notoriety than toward promoting the fair and just administration of the law.”

Jordan also claimed his committee “has the constitutional authority to conduct oversight” of her probe.

Willis wrote back on Wednesday, suggesting Jordan is “ignorant” and even cited a recent Fox News appearance of his in which he said he is “trying to stop this stuff”:

"A charitable explanation of your correspondence is that you are ignorant of the United States and Georgia Constitutions and codes. A more troubling explanation is that you are abusing your authority as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to attempt to obstruct and interfere with a Georgia criminal prosecution. See O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24. Indeed, you confessed to this motivation on Mark Levin’s September 10, 2023, show: when discussing one of my office’s active prosecutions. you boasted, “We’re trying to get all the answers, but we’re trying to stop this stuff as well” (emphasis added). While you may enjoy immunity under the United States Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, that does not make your behavior any less offensive to the rule of law.

As the person chosen by the citizens of Fulton County to be their District Attorney, I serve them, and my team and I are exceptionally busy. We have already written a letter—which I have attached again for your reference–explaining why the legal positions you advance are meritless. Nothing you’ve said in your latest letter changes that fact. As I have explained, your requests implicate significant. well recognized confidentiality interests related to an ongoing criminal matter, as well as serious constitutional concerns regarding federalism and separation of powers."


Read Willis' full letter to Gym Jordan here.

[raison de arizona]

[bill_g]

She GI Janed him.

► Show Spoiler

Suck my dick

[Suranis]

My word. That pole, which she told him to take a spin on, really is quite high.