Another one flips

QP! said:
I don't know if that is a Felony or not in Georgia but i would suspect Jenna would escape a felony charge as i think her role was truly minimal in all of this. Besides standing behind Rudy and doing a few TV interviews, I do not see her as very instrumental, but then who knows what Kraken or CheeseBro said about her actions behind the scenes????

That is the beauty of this RICO charge, because i think many of these minor actors, likely would not have been charged if the State had to go after them one by one for lesser offenses, not tied to the biggest offense. And with these lessor actors facing the same potential fate as Trump and Giuliani even for much lesser roles, the incentive to cooperate is massive.


There was a lot of criticism about Fanni bringing such a big and unwieldy case with many saying she should have instead brought a narrowly tailored case focused in only on a handful of the most guilty. But that group would be more likely to stick together and not crack knowing that if they all reenforce each others testimony, then creating doubt in a jury is high.

Now with all these lesser people turning and offering up a growing map of over lapping facts and centering out the most guilty, i think the pressure on someone like Mark Meadows to separate himself from Trump and Giuliani, who i think are both 'ride or die', is immense. I think Meadows is the first of the KEY names to fall. Although it could be Rudy due to being so broke as that can create desperation.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis, thanks. I can't see them letting either Meadows or Guiliani off with mere probation and fines, can you?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Some states don't even have a vois dire process.
New Hampshire doesn't, for one.
I think it would be hard to know who's going to be there in the jury pool,
but without a vois dire process, you must rely on other things in jury selection.
Click to expand...

If they get the names of all the prospective jurors before they are called, they can search social media posts, voter registration lists, and other methods -- even interviewing associates -- to find out where their political leanings lie. This works both ways, of course. Prosecutors can also do background checks on the jurors who are chosen, and request that they be released if they lie during the voir dire process.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If they get the names of all the prospective jurors before they are called, they can search social media posts, voter registration lists, and other methods -- even interviewing associates -- to find out where their political leanings lie.
Click to expand...

I suppose, but it seems like a daunting exercise.
If they succeed, they can drag things out forever,
if there's even a willingness to retry all of the cases.
 
QP! said:
Jenna already pointing the finger at 'other attorneys' in the Trump Team Crazy group.

[video=youtube_share;p5joBZBgZSc]https://youtu.be/p5joBZBgZSc[/vide]
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. She admits failure of due diligence and took responsibility for her actions.

FWIW, she's a bit of a wacko, but then most of them are. Her comments in her divorce from her husband of two months are evidence of her mindset. She took a vow then violated it for trumped up reasons: https://biographyline.com/why-did-j...arate-both-sides-of-the-story-should-be-read/
Jenna Ellis and her ex-husband, television host and podcaster David Rives, reportedly divorced in August of this year.
In December of that year, a Twitter user shared a screenshot of Ellis’ since-deleted Facebook post, in which the lawyer indicated the reason for her divorce.

Ellis noted in the post that her ex-ignorance husbands of church authority and lack of accountability in their marriage contributed to their divorce.

“My spouse, David Rives, chose to separate in August, as you are aware. For certain extremely important matters, he resists all church authority, accountability, or biblical advice “she penned

Rives had been undergoing a “Matthew 18 process” from a Christian ministry for over five months at the time, according to Ellis.

“It is time to walk in truth openly,” the 36-year-old attorney continued, “and that the body of Christ should urge my husband toward truth and God, especially given he professes to be in ministry leadership and is abandoning his Christian duty in many areas.”

That particular phrase implied that she had issues with Rives because he was not a sincere Christian who did not carry out his religious obligations....

...On December 2, 2020, the TBN presenter responded to that tweet almost a year later, noting that Ellis posted the piece after the “second or third edit.” He said that his ex-wife had previously blamed her pastor for urging her to include those fabricated reasons in her original draft.

Rives went on to say that the same preacher assured him that he had never counseled Ellis to divorce him. He said, “The preacher informed me he never instructed her in that way.”
Click to expand...


Jenna-Ellis-Allegedly.jpg
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Interesting analysis, thanks. I can't see them letting either Meadows or Giuliani off with mere probation and fines, can you?
Click to expand...

I do not think Fanni or Jack would want to let any of the Top abusers off (Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, Eastman) with a lesser charge that means no jail time or felony but that decision will really be a function of the strength of the rest of their case.


I do think both Fanni and Jack, will know they are doing the "Trials of the Century" and how important a conviction of Trump is, in at least one of these and for that reason alone, they might consider pleading out everyone but Trump, if those people are willing. For Fanni to have 17 of the 18 indicted all pointing at Trump and give key corroborating evidence, would be a deal worth taking, IMO, as long as she could get a reasonable plea sentence on the other top guys. Maybe not jail, but felonies and other sanctions.

Just my opinion on how i think they should and do understand and see the unique threat of Trump and how important it is to lock this up (and him).
 
QP! said:
I do not think Fanni or Jack would want to let any of the Top abusers off (Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, Eastman) with a lesser charge that means no jail time or felony but that decision will really be a function of the strength of the rest of their case.


I do think both Fanni and Jack, will know they are doing the "Trials of the Century" and how important a conviction of Trump is, in at least one of these and for that reason alone, they might consider pleading out everyone but Trump, if those people are willing. For Fanni to have 17 of the 18 indicted all pointing at Trump and give key corroborating evidence, would be a deal worth taking, IMO, as long as she could get a reasonable plea sentence on the other top guys. Maybe not jail, but felonies and other sanctions.

Just my opinion on how i think they should and do understand and see the unique threat of Trump and how important it is to lock this up (and him).
Click to expand...

The others will still need to live in infamy forever



Public shame until their dying day

Their own grandchildren spitting on their graves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top