Georgia case against Trump presents challenges from the start, from jury selection to a big courtroom

WABE ^ | 08/16/23 | Eric Tucker

[know.your.why]

The sprawling racketeering indictment returned this week by a grand jury in Fulton County presents a wide range of challenges. with so many defendants, prosecutors and defense lawyers will labor to keep the names and conflicting stories straight for those jurors over weeks or months. There will be countless legal details and basic logistics to argue or work out — even down to finding a courtroom big enough to fit everyone.

[RetiredTexasVet]

I think it will be transferred to Federal Court, float around for a couple of years with motion upon motion and then be thrown out for lack of substance.

[Political Junkie Too]

I believe that when the Framers put the clause into Article I Section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

...that they expected Presidents to be honorable people who became "fallen" during the term of their office, otherwise they would fault themselves (We the People) for putting them into office in the first place. The expectation would be that the rigors of the campaigns within the states to choose Electors to the Electoral College and the stature of the Electors within their own states would result in a President who was thought to be beyond reproach.

To that end, I can see an argument that indictments of President would be limited to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that resulted in impeachment, not everyday criminal acts. Even the modern Department of Justice acknowledges that allowing a President to be charged for crimes during his term would impede the President from carrying out his duties.

Once a President leaves office, he has become a national figure of the highest degree. There will be people who like the job he did, and there will be people who detest the job he did. Nevertheless, enough people in the country selected this person to become President specifically to do the job that risks having various segments of the population becoming displeased with the decisions made, while others will be pleased with outcomes in their favor.

I would like to see an argument that once leaving office, Presidents should enjoy a degree of immunity from retribution via the legal system intended to punish a President in ways that were not possible while the President was in office. I think the Constitution provides a good guide to this "Presidential Immunity" that former Presidents should only be indicted for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," and should enjoy immunity for all other lesser crimes.

"High Crimes" would, of course, include things like murder, income tax evasion, and illegal representation (e.g., foreign agents, etc.), but speech, assembly, petitioning for redress of grievances, private contracts, etc., should be off limits from political retribution via the courts.

Former Presidents cannot get a fair trial of any kind, anywhere, simply because of the job that the nation tasked them to do, and the enemies they may have made while doing it.

-PJ

[Fireone]

Not really, the verdict has already been printed, and will be handed to them, right after some clerk posts it online, mistakenly.

[Vaduz]

Wonder if Georgia is going to try and get Fetterman to run in their state.

[usurper]

Since it’s a show trial might as well make it like the circus come to town.

I bet they have a hell of a half time show, marching bands and perhaps even drag show.

[kabar]

I have no problem holding Presidents accountable for criminal acts. No one should be above the law. But what they are doing to Trump and his supporters is criminal and a violation of civil rights. It is frightening because the judicial system is corrupt along with DOJ and the FBI. The surveillance state is running amok.

[Political Junkie Too]

I have no problem holding Presidents accountable for criminal acts.

I do not disagree; I'm just trying to set a high bar for "criminal acts" so as not to make criminal what was not criminal just to punish someone who embarrassed the opposite party.

[frank ballenger]

Film version already out.....

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf4YINfjQaQ

[WASCWatch]

Jurors in state courts don’t get paid shit. The only potential jurors who won’t be able to find a way off the jury pool are homeless druggies.

[dblshot]

Or retired. My mom got picked once on a case that peripherally involved Julian Bond in Dekalb County GA. I’ve been passed over twice due to being ex law enforcement.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

EVERYONE has an opinion now. That's why a fair trial of President Trump is impossible no matter the charge, no matter the location, no matter the timing.

Maybe it's always impossible to guarantee a 100% fair trial. Moving the Jack Smith charges out of DC would probably lessen the unfairness of that case, but DOJ could use your argument against moving it.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

"Fast talkin Fanny" as in the Koko Taylor song Wang Dang Doodle.

Tell automatic slim
Tell razor totin' jim
Tell butcher knife totin' annie
Tell fast talkin' fanny

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

will take years and years to even find a jury member that is not biased.

You mean "would take years" if they wanted an unbiased juror.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

These were the Sondergerichte or the Nazi special courts. Judges in Nazi Germany were then instructed that in the event of any conflict between the Nazi Party and Law, the Nazi Party should always succeed as their objectives surmounted any notions of fair play.