Despite an aggressive RICO statute, the Georgia prosecution will face big challenges to convicting Trump
“As for RICO, Georgia has a much more expansive law than the federal government, with many more state laws that can be used for charges…. also requires less proof to show a criminal enterprise has been formed and less proof to show a comprehensive conspiracy.” - World
- 900 views
it’s very clear that Fani Willis has something else on her mind besides justice.
Doesn’t really matter what she has on her mind. What matters is due process of law.
As to whether Trump has a personality disorder or personality trait of narcissism, I don’t think that proves guilt.
Since it’s not a crime to be a nut case, this is clearly true. But “guilty of specific crime A” and “guilty of disqualifying ethical or mental deficiencies” are two different things. There is more than one way to be unfit, and “evil, but not a criminal” or “delusional but not a criminal” isn’t much of a defense.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
- "it’s very clear that Fani Willis has something else on her mind besides justice."
Doesn’t really matter what she has on her mind. What matters is due process of law.
That is horrible.
I saw a document from an obscure legal organization, the "American Bar Association", that notes that the prosecutor is not to be simply about getting wins, but about the administration of justice. So if Willis is indeed ignoring the responsibility of investigating murders and such to chase after this sort of thing, she is violating a very basic legal principle.
And yes, it does have to do with due process, because what is going on is that she and her staff are depriving crime victims (and their estates) of that due process in order to chase after a fairly, ahem, "innovative" legal theory. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be used to devote limited resources to important cases, not to chase after things like this. This also applies to the New York case, where the state AG actually campaigned on a platform of "I'll get Trump". Trouble with that is that it clearly indicates that the AG has something else besides justice in mind.
One can quibble over whether it's an affirmative legal defense, but anyone whose local DA is obviously pushing an agenda that does not include "justice for the most serious offenses" ought to object to that.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
>>Doesn’t really matter what she has on her mind. What matters is due process of law.<<
On the surface, such a sentiment sounds like it ought to be right, but any amount of thought will show that it can’t possibly be true.
Take, for example, a person who kills someone else in an automobile crash. Consider the following possibilities. They:
- Had a medical incident (and may or may not have known about a medical condition)
- Were not paying attention
- Were doing stupid stuff like racing or driving under the influence
- Intended to hit the other person with malice aforethought
The determination of which of the above is true (and maybe other factors as well) will have a huge influence on what “due process of law” decides in that case about their guilt. In other words, what is “on [their] mind” matters greatly.
I’d argue that judges and prosecutors must be held to an even higher standard than that used for determining criminal intent. Any judge or prosecutor that either wants to convict no one, convict anyone, convict (or exonerate) based on irrelevant details like race, status, or wealth, or in the case of a judge has expressed that the person they are sitting in judgment on should be in prison is not qualified for their position, at least in this particular case. Further, the first three conditions would argue against a person with such biases ever being trusted as a court official in any case. How the “due process of law” plays out will be affected greatly by whether the count officials can actually be impartial in the execution of their jobs or not.
Dave Barnhart
The concept of "standard of care" might be helpful in these cases.
In medicine, malpractice is defined as deviating harmfully from the "standard of care." That is defined as customary level and type of care that most practitioners would give.
Where he writes "judge", I'd write "prosecutor" as well.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
>>Where he writes “judge”, I’d write “prosecutor” as well.<<
What can I say — you’re right. Long day at work I guess. I just went back and edited my post.
Dave Barnhart
Here's a bit about the persecution from a former Notre Dame law professor. The reality here is that a law inconsistently applied functions not as law, but a convenient bludgeon to attack those whose views fall out of the mainstream of those calling the shots.
Again, I'm no fan of Trump's behavior, and I remember thinking before the Jan. 6 2021 demonstrations that "this will not work out well"--though I must confess that I didn't anticipate that it would get half as bad. But that doesn't excuse Willis appearing to neglect a horrendous violent crime problem in Fulton County/Atlanta in order to pursue novel legal theories with an obvious political implications.
I would go a step further; prosecutors/DAs who politicize prosecutions by selectively prosecuting only their political opponents need to be disbarred. It's a big deal when Lady Justice takes off her mask and puts her finger on the scale.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Aaron: Doesn’t really matter what she has on her mind. What matters is due process of law.
Dcbii: On the surface, such a sentiment sounds like it ought to be right, but any amount of thought will show that it can’t possibly be true.
Take, for example, a person who kills someone else in an automobile crash. Consider the following possibilities. They:
- Had a medical incident (and may or may not have known about a medical condition)
- Were not paying attention
- Were doing stupid stuff like racing or driving under the influence
- Intended to hit the other person with malice aforethought
The determination of which of the above is true (and maybe other factors as well) will have a huge influence on what “due process of law” decides in that case about their guilt. In other words, what is “on [their] mind” matters greatly.
My statement “Doesn’t really matter what she has on her mind. What matters is due process of law” is in reference to the mindset of the prosecutor, not the facts of the case.
Of course determining the intent of the defendant is relevant.
What is not relevant includes things like…
- The motives of the prosecution
- The consistency of the prosecution in doing its job
The reason these are not relevant is that the law doesn’t specify “if prosecuters have the right motives” or “as long as prosecutors are consistent in application of the law… but if they aren’t, this law is void.”
So my point is that you have findings of fact, findings of law, and consequences, and these should run their course properly (aka due process) regardless of all the failings of those tasked with upholding the law.
I’ve made this point in a variety of other contexts, because it’s such a consistent problem among Trump defenders: you can’t fix inconsistency in upholding the law with more inconsistency. I don’t mean “shouldn’t.” I mean “can’t.” It is impossible to fix the problem that way. It’s like trying to save a sinking ship by punching more holes in the hull.
So should this prosecutor only go after political enemies with this particular law? Of course not. If she does (and I don’t know one way or the other about that; I haven’t researched), does that nullify the law? No. Does it mean her political enemies should not be prosecuted? No. … so it isn’t relevant. It’s a problem, but a separate one.
Edit to add: I know we do have some legal custom of factoring in prosecutorial misconduct in particular cases. As far as I know, though, this has to do with the rules of evidence. If you get the evidence illegally, or fail to properly disclose it to the defense, your evidence is thrown out and the defendant can end up being acquitted. This is different from saying the prosecution is politically motivated or has failed to prosecute other cases that should have gone to court. I don’t think those have been valid defense arguments… though I wouldn’t be surprised if juries sometimes found them persuasive.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
>>What is not relevant includes things like…
- The motives of the prosecution
- The consistency of the prosecution in doing its job<<
You may not think that is relevant, but it most definitely is. I might agree that our system doesn’t deal well with a prosecutor or judge with an agenda, but I don’t agree that it’s not fixable. For the same reasons that jurors with axes to grind are dismissed during jury selection (if found), the same types of things need to happen with permanent officers of the court, like prosecutors and judges (who have a much greater burden of being consistent, honorable, and impartial). Putting your finger on the scales of justice is wrong, and when those who see it look the other way, it will not help fix the problem any more than more inconsistency will.
Dave Barnhart
"Selective prosecution" is indeed a defense that can be used when prosecutors bring cases that are obviously directed against one side of the aisle (e.g. Donald Trump), but not the other (e.g. Al Gore, Hilliary Clinton, and Stacey Abrams). It's not often successful, but this is one of the clearest cases of selective prosecution I've ever heard of.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s true that lawyers can throw all sorts of things at juries that the juries might find persuasive, though the legal reasoning isn’t really valid.
But no, laws are not null and void when they’re prosecuted selectively. Until they’re removed by a duly elected legislature (or ruled unconstitutionally vague or something by a judge) they are on the books and breaking them is a crime. (And “but so and so got away with it!!” is even less valid than when kids make that argument to parents or students make it to teachers).
Also…
Al Gore, Hilliary Clinton, and Stacey Abrams
I’m not remembering the Stacey Abrams case at the moment but I’m pretty sure neither Al Gore nor Hillary Clinton did anything remotely like what Trump et al did in the state of Georgia in potential violation of Georgia’s Rico law. … I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Abrams didn’t either.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion