Trump and 18 others charged in Georgia election inquiry
Trump and 18 others charged in Georgia election inquiry
Donald Trump and 18 others are indicted on counts that include racketeering, perjury and theft.
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/2916091
Former US President Donald Trump has been charged with attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state of Georgia.
He and 18 others have been indicted on counts that include racketeering in a 41-charge document issued by a Fulton County grand jury.
The indictment marks the fourth time Mr Trump has been criminally charged this year.
He has denied the accusations in all cases.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis launched an investigation in February 2021 into allegations of election meddling against Mr Trump and his associates.
The list of defendants indicted late on Monday night includes former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former White House lawyer John Eastman and a former justice department official, Jeffrey Clark.
The indictment says the alleged co-conspirators "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump".
The charge sheet also refers to the defendants as a "criminal organization", accusing them of a number of crimes, including:
False statements and writings Impersonating a public officer Forgery Filing false documents Influencing witnesses Computer trespass Conspiracy to defraud the state Theft and perjury.The most serious charge, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico) Act, is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.
The act - designed to help take down organised criminal syndicates like the mafia - helps prosecutors connect the dots between underlings who broke laws and those who gave them marching orders.
You're viewing a single thread.
Wait, I don't get it, isn't it confirmed that Trump tried to overturn the Georgia election by calling up the Georgia Secretary of State on the phone and asking him to find votes?
Can you plead not guilty to stabbing a guy if a bunch of people watch you stab that guy?
How does the presumption of innocence legally survive when it's recorded and confirmed that you are guilty?
You can plead 'not guilty' even if you were arrested holding the bloody knife, its just not going to do you much good.
As for the presumption of innocence, as DA Willis put it in her statement this evening, an indictment is just a series of allegations, its up to the prosecutor and team to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Going back to the knife analogy, you're going into the case where you're legally presumed innocent, but the bloody knife/witnesses will show that you stabbed that guy.
Everyone pleads "not guilty" the first go around, even clearly guilty people, even people who plan to plead guilty.
You can always change a "not guilty" plea to "guilty" (ie, plea deal, etc). It gives your lawyers more time to get a handle on the case, get paperwork together, work with the prosecutors, etc.
Ah, thank you, this is the answer I was looking for. Appreciate it.
Very concise and specific.
So they only way to forfeit the person of innocence is by confessing to the alleged crime?
You could confess to the police, and then still plead not guilty. As others have said, you can later change your plea if you and your lawyer decide that's the best course of action.
Thanks, the timeline of the plea was definitely sticking in my brain. That's fascinating
Well, you see, first amendment and all that.
Trump just happened to be recorded while saying out loud some random thoughts he happened to have at that particular moment.
He wasn't telling anyone to do anything, and his words were not targeted to anyone in particular.
Just because he happened to be on the phone with someone is completely coincidental and totally unrelated.
So, any attempt to charge Trump with a crime would mean that you are ONLY criminalizing THOUGHTS and SPEECH.
Checkmate.
This is basically the explanation Trump used in regards to the recent threat he made on Truth Social about going after anyone that goes after him.
Lol there's so much more than the one call, they got literally months of records in evidence. Could read it, or just watch the DA conference for a summary
The presumption of innocence is really important because it reduces the chance for abusing the prosecutorial process (of course that does still happen). Prosecutors must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. That's a high bar to clear, but it gets easier when the defendant builds you a staircase.
Every defendant deserves the right to plead guilty, even this criminal.
That's what I mean by "presumption of innocence", yes.
Does the presumption of innocence still apply even if the crime has already been confirmed to have happened?
If someone steals a candy bar right in front of a clerk on camera and gets arrested and for some reason the case goes to trial, can they still plead not guilty?
Even though that crinee is confirmed to have been perpetrated by that person?
What are they circumstances under which the presumption of innocence is waived or forfeited?
Does the presumption of innocence still apply even if the crime has already been confirmed to have happened?
Yes. The crime (and the criminal) legally hasn't been "confirmed". The point of a trial is to "confirm" it.
For example, there's probably at least 50 million people who believe no crime occurred.
They're WRONG, of course, but the point of the trial is to prove them wrong.
Got it now, thanks.
I had it in my head that there was some way to forfeit that presumption of innocence, but couldn't imagine what that way was.
But apparently there is not. Thanks
Yes, because theoretically someone that strongly resembles the candy bar stealer got mixed up in the whole deal and got arrested instead. I get where you're coming from, but being able to defend yourself no matter what is a good thing.
I don't think you get where I'm coming from, but I appreciate the effort.
I think you mean plead innocent. I mean everyone deserves both, but in this case there's no doubt trump's got the right to plead guilty
There's no such thing as pleading innocent. The court will either find you guilty or not guilty. The court will not, and in fact cannot, find you innocent. Only not guilty. Or in most cases, "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
Sorry, "not guilty" was what I meant
Because that’s the way it is man…
I can live-stream myself performing a public execution in front of a crowded stadium full of people, and plead not-guilty. And the presumption of innocence before the court means I can do that as much as I want regardless how obviously guilty I may be.
And like it or not, that’s better than the alternative. A presumption of guilt before the court opens oneself to much more easily be wrongfully imprisoned for crimes you didn’t commit. Not accounting for obvious injustices that have occurred due to shortcomings and corruption in the system, these initial principals give us the best shot at having a system that’s less likely to fuck us than not.
So the presumption of innocence is only forfeited by a confession, full stop?
A conviction is only supposed to happen if it's proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) they're charged with. They're "presumed innocent" until they're afforded due process (a trial, plea, etc) by the court.
A "not guilty" plea essentially just means "I want a trial".
A confession isn't a plea -- it could have been coerced, the result of misunderstanding, mental impairment, etc. A trial gives the defense the opportunity to make those arguments.
Okay, a not guilty plea being a request for a trial clicked into place for me with your explanation, thanks.
May I introduce you to Kent McElroy:
Over the course of his life, McElroy was accused of dozens of felonies, including assault, child molestation, statutory rape, arson, animal cruelty, hog and cattle rustling, and burglary. [...] McElroy was shot to death in broad daylight as he sat with his wife Trena in his pickup truck on Skidmore's main street. He was struck by bullets from at least two different firearms, in front of a crowd of people estimated as numbering between 30 and 46. Nobody called for an ambulance. Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness was either unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots. The DA declined to press charges.