elmcitymaven

Happy (Superseding) Indictment Day to all who celebrate! Contrary to popular opinion (on here at least, it seems), Merchan is not in the bag for the Dems and he's been doing this job too long to put himself in a position where his sentence will be disturbed for obvious partisanship. For realz (legal term of art). In my own exceedingly 'umble opinion, since the state isn't begging for sentencing to happen immediately, and Trump is asking for a delay, there's going to be a delay. Maybe kick it out 90 days which... takes you to after the election. 90 days isn't an excessive amount of time to delay sentencing either, from the little I know about criminal law, especially when the sides stipulate to a continuance. Sometimes judges get cranky and tell you no, but in my experience in civil cases, they're generally amenable. They like when the sides play nice. Now, in the longer term? Another 'umble opinion, all my own: despite racking up 34 felonies, Trump isn't going to prison. Could he? Of course! But Merchan has discretion in sentencing. Worst case scenario (for Trump): confinement to Mar-a-Lago for a while, perhaps with restrictions on persons he can associate with while there; ankle monitor; some probation. Best case? Probation only, since he has never been convicted of a crime before. Who knows! There's a lot of leeway, but he's not going to have to worry about dropping the soap in his gold-plated shower at Mar-a-Lago. Peace be with you all, dipping out again until another indictment. Until then,

Like you, I went through the DCF process in London. At the interview, I submitted the copy of my decree absolute that I obtained from my solicitor. This bore an official seal from the High Court, but the seal was a very simple ink stamp of endorsement. No problems whatsoever. If you used a solicitor for your divorce, perhaps you can contact them for such a copy. Alternatively, you'll need to get it through the Principal Registry, as outlined above. Good luck -- this is the very last hurdle and you're nearly past the finish line!

Happy Fourth Indictment Day to all who celebrate! https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indicted-georgia-racketeering-rcna74912 FYI: probation is not available to a defendant convicted of RICO in Georgia.

The trial is not merely the verdict. The trial commences with the seating of the first juror, continues through opening statements, through direct and cross-examination of lay and expert witnesses, continuing on through closing statements and on through the jury instructions delivered by the judge to the jury. Every step of that will be public and open to our evaluation except for deliberations. Be open. Be skeptical. Weigh the evidence as we receive it. We ask the jurors to do these things. I will keep an open mind, too. It's not Trump's job to convince me of anything. It's the state's to convince me they have it right. I don't mind being wrong when I have a preconceived notion that turns out to be a dud or prejudiced.

LOL @Jericho has it right (mostly). There aren't any incitement charges here. The charges that relate to Trump's spoken words have to do with the three conspiracy counts. Put simply, it is one thing to say a thing, and quite another to say that thing in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime. If (as is alleged) Trump made certain statements that he knew were false with the intent to further any of the three conspiracies alleged (to obstruct an official proceeding; to defraud the United States; and/or to act in contravention of voters' civil rights), that speech is a requisite element in the actus reus of the crime. It is the "act in furtherance." At the same time, there is (as Jack Smith points out on page 1 of the indictment) still First Amendment protection for Trump to say things that are false, and even those which he knows to be false. There is no issue with any of that. Rather it is why those words were said. If the government cannot prove that the words were said in furtherance of any of those criminal conspiracy, then Trump will prevail. But if Trump cannot rebut these allegations, he will have a tough road. I make no secret of detesting Trump. But the point of justice is not only for justice to be done, but to be seen to be done. That is why we have public trials. If the charges are manifestly unjust and scant evidence exists to support the charges (and frankly, it is way, way too soon to tell any of that), he should not be punished. But he is being afforded substantial due process here, way more than you or I would be afforded in similar circumstances. He will be given ample opportunity to review all the evidence against him, and to challenge every scrap of it as well as every witness, as is his right. Good! I want him to get a fair trial. I can live with a not guilty verdict because I believe in the system. And where the stakes are this high, the system will bend over backwards to be fair. If any of you have not read the indictment, please do. Read it all, it's not very long and it's a straightforward read. Tune out what other people (maybe even me!) are telling you about its contents for a while. Consider several prospects: what if it is true? what if it is not true? what if only some of it is true? Hold these questions in your mind concurrently, because right now, none of us know which is the most correct, and what that will actually mean.

~ shrugs in legalese ~ If you can't do the time, get a good attorney. Trump's counsel so far... not so good.

Happy Indictment Day (re-redux) to those who celebrate! https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-indicted-charges-related-efforts-overturn-2020-election/story?id=101612810 Indictment here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

So THIS is what "rhythmic gymnastics" is.

Please. Unsealing happens when the public interest in who has put up a significant sum of money on behalf of a defendant outweighs the privacy interests of the persons who have so paid. Happened the other month with Sam Bankman-Fried, same deal. This sort of information is usually made public, and there needs to be something more particularized than asserting that harassment could occur. The outcome is normal and expected, and Santos has a chance to appeal the ruling. Maybe it's just me, but I want to know who puts up half a mil on behalf of a public servant accused of financial misconduct.

Happy Indictment Day (redux) to those who celebrate! https://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-indicted-time-sources/story?id=99408228

Wonder whose Cheerios he micturated in to get recommended for impeachment. https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-paxton-impeachment-1eaccf00ce80d26c4fc94eab1672e1bd