America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 months ago by RayR. 9 replies replies.
How Donald Trump Could Attack Georgia RICO Prosecution
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Case could turn on questions about criminal intent and existence of a coordinated enterprise to keep Trump in power


WSJ

The anti-racketeering law used against Donald Trump in Georgia is a powerful tool for prosecutors, but legal observers say the former president and his 18 co-defendants have several strategic plays they could use in attempting to beat charges that they conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

The linchpin of the prosecution by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is the allegation that Trump and others knowingly and willfully participated in a criminal enterprise whose aim was to keep Trump in power. There is an array of additional charges against Trump and other defendants, but almost all of them flow from the alleged racketeering conspiracy. To win a conviction on the racketeering charge, prosecutors will need to prove that the former president knowingly joined a conspiracy with a plan to commit at least two underlying crimes.

Observers said Trump and his co-defendants were likely to pursue a pair of main themes: that there was no criminal enterprise, and that even if there were, they didn’t individually participate in it.

Former President Donald Trump is facing four separate indictments at both state and federal levels. WSJ breaks down each of the indictments and what they mean for his 2024 presidential campaign. Photo Illustration: Annie Zhao
“They’d say that there may have been a similar goal—that Trump remain president—but there was no coordination,” said Jack Cunha, a lawyer in Boston who has defended racketeering cases. “They’re going to say this isn’t the mafia or a street gang. They’ll say this is just hardball politics.”

A lawyer for Trump said the former president is innocent of all the charges brought against him and never should have been indicted.

One key issue for prosecutors in the case isn’t specific to racketeering but instead is central in a range of prosecutions: Establishing that a defendant had an intent to engage in wrongdoing. In this case, that means prosecutors will need to show that Trump and his associates were pushing claims of voter fraud that they knew weren’t true.

Trump and his lawyers insisted that tens of thousands of people had voted illegally in Georgia, claiming that the ballot had been corrupted by votes from dead people, felons and underage residents.

The question could come down to whether jurors believe that Trump’s professed doubts about the integrity of the election were reasonable at the time, in light of a lack of evidence to support the accuracy of his fraud claims.

“He’s going to argue vociferously that he genuinely believed he won the election and there was rampant voter fraud,” said Tom Church, a criminal-defense attorney outside Atlanta.

Jerry Froelich, an Atlanta criminal-defense lawyer, said the credibility of that defense was undermined by Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr, who at the time disputed the claims of widespread voter fraud.

“He’s got a hard sell saying ‘I believe there’s fraud’ when the attorney general is telling him no, and all the courts are telling him no,” Froelich said.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis used the state’s sweeping anti-racketeering law to describe an elaborate plot to stay in power over the will of Georgia voters. PHOTO: ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/REUTERS
Georgia’s broadly written racketeering law gives state prosecutors even more latitude than their federal counterparts when pursuing alleged criminal enterprises.

Racketeering activity under the state law encompasses a broader range of crimes than under federal law and can be more easily used to target alleged schemes that are short in duration. Georgia’s law also has a sweeping definition of what can constitute a racketeering, or RICO, enterprise. It can apply to a loose association of individuals lacking a structural hierarchy, a chain of command or even a common purpose.

In the past, Georgia’s law has been used against street gangs, swindlers and opioid-prescription schemes. Perhaps most visibly, the law was central in the 2013 charges against 35 Atlanta public-school officials and teachers in a standardized-test cheating scandal. Of the dozen former administrators, principals and teachers who went to trial, 11 were convicted of the racketeering charges, with one acquittal.

The Trump indictment isn’t the first time that Georgia prosecutors have made a racketeering case against a defeated political candidate. In 2002, a DeKalb County jury convicted former Sheriff Sidney Dorsey of racketeering and murder charges for ordering the assassination of his political opponent who defeated him in a tight election.

Defense lawyers in previous cases have argued the Georgia statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, but those claims have been rejected by the state’s highest court.

Lawyers for the defendants in the Atlanta test-cheating trial argued that the racketeering charges were overkill, denied the existence of any conspiracy and attacked the credibility of prosecution witnesses who had taken plea deals. The one defendant acquitted, a former special-education teacher, pointed to the poor test scores of her students as evidence of her innocence.

In the election case, Georgia prosecutors could win a racketeering conviction against Trump without having to show that he personally committed any underlying crimes to further the enterprise, only that he participated in a plan to overturn the election through criminal means.

“I like the state’s side, but it’s not a slam dunk,” said Chris Timmons, who tried numerous racketeering cases as a former DeKalb and Cobb County prosecutor.

Part of Trump’s early strategy is likely to involve an effort to have the case moved into federal court, a tactic that could boost his bid to delay the proceedings. A federal venue also could give the former president a broader and potentially more sympathetic pool of jurors.

Observers expect Trump’s legal team to portray him as a victim of a politically motivated prosecution and assail the use of a law initially intended to combat organized crime. With an effective emotional appeal, his lawyers could aim to persuade at least one juror that a guilty verdict is unjust even if the prosecution proves its case.

The RICO law’s association with mob bosses and organized crime could give jurors reservations, Timmons said.

“Any time you bring a RICO case when it’s not against the mafia, there’s a chance that the jury thinks the case is overcharged,” he said. “There’s a massive danger of jury nullification.”
rfenst Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Live by RICO, Die by RICO


NYT Opinion

WASHINGTON — I first met Rudy Giuliani in 1986 when I was a Times reporter writing about corruption cases in New York. Gotham was awash in so much municipal sleaze, a detective joked that city employees were streaming into the F.B.I. office with their hands up.

Giuliani, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, got in a kerfuffle with Robert Morgenthau, the storied Manhattan district attorney who was a model for the D.A. in “Law & Order,” because Rudy considered the local prosecutor to be superfluous, so he wasn’t sharing information.

Giuliani, 41, was already renowned as a scourge of organized crime. (The next year he would become the scourge of Wall Street, perp-walking white-collar criminals in handcuffs in tableaus of virtue conquering vice, even though the charges sometimes failed to stick.)

Morgenthau favored a sweater with a hole in it. Giuliani was bandbox-perfect, feral and ready to pounce. Morgenthau had an understated tenacity. Giuliani was like a cult leader among acolytes.

He grew up thinking he would be a priest — until he decided he didn’t want to be celibate. When I met him, he was still speaking passionately about good and evil, right and wrong. His eyes gleamed when he talked about routing blackguards who had breached the public trust. He was following a Thomas Dewey model: Clean up corruption and parlay that into higher office.

The phone rang as I came into the paper the morning my story ran. Giuliani was demanding to talk to my editor — the story made him seem holier-than-thou!

He didn’t know how good he had it. Now he just seems crazier-than-thou. It’s a Puccini opera, really, about an opera-loving federal prosecutor and heroic mayor who spirals into lawlessness, as well as multiple divorces, depression, drinking, money problems, sexual harassment claims, Cameo cameos and “Borat” humiliation.

Giuliani went from cleaning up corruption to ginning up corruption, from crimebuster to criminal defendant in Georgia and unindicted “Co-Conspirator 1” in D.C. Rudy, the prosecutor who made his reputation aggressively pursuing RICO cases, is now Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, a defendant in the Georgia RICO case about the deranged plot to steal the election.

We have seen many cases of mobsters turning state’s evidence for prosecutors. But now we have the rare experience of seeing a prosecutor turn into a mobster.

After all those years spent prosecuting the Five Families in New York, Giuliani surrendered himself to the lamest mob boss there ever was: Don Trump.

We saw the coup attempt play out, but it’s startling to see the Georgia indictment refer to “this criminal organization,” “members of the enterprise,” “corruptly solicited” and “acts of racketeering activity.”

Trump, mentored by mob lawyer Roy Cohn, always loved acting like a mobster, playing the faux tough guy, intimidating his foes, swanning around like John Dillinger, Al Capone and John Gotti. He told Timothy O’Brien, the author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald,” that he admired Gotti because the mobster sat through years of trials with a stone face. “In other words, tough,” Trump said.

As Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress, Trump ran his family business “much like a mobster would do,” using “a code,” letting capos do the dirty work and expelling rats.

“Trump both fetishized mobsters and did business with them,” O’Brien told me. “The way he fetishizes mobsters informs this fascination he has about Putin and Kim Jong-un. He loves ‘bad-ass’ guys who roll like they want to roll. He sees himself the same way.”

True to his longtime practice of stiffing the help, Trump is turning a deaf ear to Giuliani’s desperate pleas, in a tin-cup trip to Mar-a-Lago, to pay his legal bills.

Desperate to stay relevant, Giuliani made himself Trump’s legal button man, pressing the conspiracy theories his boss wanted to hear on Ukraine and the Bidens, and then on election fraud. Giuliani can take credit for helping spur both Trump impeachments.

As the great Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett wrote in his 2000 book, “Rudy: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani,” Rudy had his own family history with wiseguys. Although Giuliani’s father, Harold, taught him to hate the mob, some cousins had mob connections. Barrett wrote that Rudy’s father had broken legs and smashed kneecaps for his brother-in-law’s loan-sharking in the ’50s. Barrett also revealed that Rudy’s dad went to Sing Sing for robbing a milkman at gunpoint.

Rudy told The Times’s Sam Roberts his family moved to Long Island from Brooklyn to avoid his mobbed-up relatives, and it was a reason he got into law enforcement.

“Rudy wants to be the mob slayer and then he winds up doing mobster-like things and getting in bed with a wannabe mobster,” O’Brien said, “and neither one of them can shoot straight, and they end up getting in trouble with the law. It’s a dime-store psychodrama that is both comic and grotesque at the same time.”
RayR Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
MAUREEN DOWD sounds like she was BUTTHURT by Giuliani and is lashing out by attacking his personality and spreading propaganda that he was plotting with Trump and the rest of the MAGA MOB in a "deranged plot to steal the election". She used the words MOB and MOBSTER 14 times in her hit piece op-ed as well as phrases and techniques used by Mafioso.

It's called the "illusory truth effect, if you repeat a claim over and over again, idjuts will actually believe it is true.
ZRX1200 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
Switch party affiliation and withdraw from the presidential race.

That’s the only way for the machine that’s powered by morons.
8trackdisco Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,082
ZRX1200 wrote:
Switch party affiliation and withdraw from the presidential race.

That’s the only way for the machine that’s powered by morons.


Wouldn't it be more fun for him to run as a democrat and challenge Biden for the nomination and have him taken on the Republicans. The Dems would vote for him, so would all of the Always Trumpers.

It would be fun to watch MSNBC, Fox and CNN's head exploding trying to figure out how to unknot that Burmese Fustercluck.
ZRX1200 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
Well that’s the crux of it….the fustercluck is there with or without him, that’s the silent part that blind people don’t wanna say. My side is good the other side is bad.
rfenst Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Trump in Fulton County

Voters, not prosecutors, should select presidential nominees.


WSJ

One does not need to approve of Donald Trump’s behavior to be appalled at the prosecutorial abuses directed against him, nor to be concerned about destructive precedents being set in the partisan pursuit of a former president.

The Journal’s Cameron McWhirter, Jan Wolfe and Aruna Viswanatha reported on Thursday from Atlanta:

Former President Donald Trump surrendered at the Fulton County, Ga., jail to answer charges that he operated a criminal enterprise that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory in the state.

It provided a striking moment in which, for the fourth time this year, Trump had to present himself to authorities to face criminal charges—and the first time he, or any former U.S. president, stood for a mug shot.

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky is a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. He argued recently:

The attack on the First Amendment and the very structure of the American legal system by the Star Chamber of Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis is a profound assault on our democratic republic and the rule of law... Willis is trying to criminalize free speech and have a chilling effect on anyone in the future who might dare to question the results of an election...

By naming as alleged co-conspirators the lawyers who were representing Trump and providing him with advice and counsel in the legal actions that were in the state and before legislators during public hearings and in private conversations, Willis is also attacking the fundamental way that our justice system works, in which lawyers are tasked with vigorously pursuing the interests of their clients.

Mr. von Spakovsky delved into some specific allegations against Mr. Trump:

In order to justify her fantasy, Willis lists a series of actions that occurred from Nov. 4, 2020, to Sept. 15, 2022, which were supposedly overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. But Willis lists incident after incident (what the indictment terms “Acts”) of perfectly legal actions that not only don’t violate any laws, but are fully protected under the First Amendment...

The first “illegal” act listed is Trump on Nov. 4, 2020, making a “nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election.” She makes similar ridiculous claims against other defendants, such as Giuliani, for example, because he “appeared at a press conference at the Republican National Committee Headquarters” making similar “false statements concerning fraud” in the 2020 election.

Willis even laughably lists as part of the unlawful conspiracy many public tweets by Trump, such as one on Dec. 3, 2020, and another on Dec. 30, urging the public to watch the live coverage of the Georgia legislature’s hearings on the 2020 election. Or another tweet on Dec. 30 thanking the Georgia legislature “for today’s revealing meeting!” that Trump said uncovered “Massive VOTER FRAUD.”

Under that bizarre notion, would the legislators who participated in those hearings, listened attentively, and considered the allegations that had been raised be unindicted co-conspirators? That is how nutty Willis’ claims are—claims that are a direct attack on political speech.

It’s never clear whether prosecutors targeting Mr. Trump are trying to rule him out of U.S. politics or trying to anger Republicans enough to nominate him again and give Joe Biden a fighting chance at re-election. In either case they need to get out of the way and let voters make free decisions.

Speaking of fighting chances, time is running short for candidates who want to join races for 2024 presidential nominations. This fall brings filing deadlines for a number of early state primaries. Andy Laperriere and Melissa Turner of Piper Sandler write in a note to clients:

A lot of people believe Biden is going to get out of the race at the last minute. Despite the fact he is not a candidate, the betting markets give California Gov. Gavin Newsom about 17% odds of being the Democratic nominee, which puts him ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris (the obvious choice if Biden exits the race after the primaries, 6%) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr (who is running, 6%)...

If Biden gets out of the race after the first of the year, whoever would want to get in at that point would have to stand-up a campaign at a moment’s notice and pursue a write-in strategy to win the nomination. This is a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, and it is unfathomable Biden intends to leave the Democratic Party in that kind of jam.

We think there is a decent chance he won’t be the nominee, mainly because there is a very real chance of a health event that could prompt him to decide against seeking reelection. It’s now clear he was involved in the influence peddling that resulted in millions of dollars going to the Biden family, and there is an outside chance further disclosures could prompt him to withdraw from the race. But there is no evidence Biden intends to drop out. The idea there is a backroom deal for Biden to get out of the race and hand the reins over to Newsom ignores how the primary process actually works, which is that voters – not insiders – pick the nominees of the two parties. And it’s tough to be the nominee if your name isn’t on the ballot.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
rfenst wrote:
We think there is a decent chance he won’t be the nominee, mainly because there is a very real chance of a health event that could prompt him to decide against seeking reelection. It’s now clear he was involved in the influence peddling that resulted in millions of dollars going to the Biden family, and there is an outside chance further disclosures could prompt him to withdraw from the race. But there is no evidence Biden intends to drop out. The idea there is a backroom deal for Biden to get out of the race and hand the reins over to Newsom ignores how the primary process actually works, which is that voters – not insiders – pick the nominees of the two parties. And it’s tough to be the nominee if your name isn’t on the ballot.



What? Can you repeat that again, I didn't hear you.
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
^ I second that motion.

"Voters, not prosecutors, should select presidential nominees."

That's not how it works when you are trying to push the republic full-on into a Marxist-Leninist Utopia. Ask Fani, she'll tell ya.
Those proletariat and bourgeois voters cannot be trusted, the regime must be run by trained intellectuals who understand how to expropriate the wealth for the good of the state from the underserving classes.
Users browsing this topic
Guest