Posted on 11/13/2023 6:53:06 PM PST by Trump20162020
>>”As part of a plea deal, one of former President Donald Trump’s attorneys has told prosecutors in Georgia that she was informed in the wake of the 2020 election that Donald Trump was “not going to leave” the White House — despite the fact that he had already lost the election...”
Two lies right off the bat - one from an unnamed source and the other from the “journalist” writing the story. Trump DID leave the White House. And Trump DID NOT lose the election.
Imposters….everywhere!
It’s worse than that. In the legal proceedings surrounding the 2020 election challenges, these lawyers acted upon outlandish secondhand information that was given to them by someone who was not their client. On that basis alone they should be disbarred.
What has this got to do with the Georgia steal?
Again, there was no legitimate 2020 election to “overturn.” The premise is false on its face.
another nothing burger from the fake news kids at ABC
He left on 1/20/2021. It didn’t matter what he may have said before that date. His words are protected under the First Amendment.
And yet he did leave……
The law clearly says, “It is a crime to say Democrats have stolen an election.”
This proves Trump has to go to prison.
Heresay. Inadmissible.
1. So much for the sanctity of attorney-client privilege.
2. Sometimes when someone is making a proffer in exchange for leniency, they oversell (exaggerate, fabricate) the information.
3. The fact the Ellis was stopped twice during the proffer so as not to (further) breach the attorney client privilege speaks volumes as to what kind of person she is.
What's the crime?
I think the prosecutor may use this information in order to meet the elements of :
Conspiracy. A conspiracy is where there are two or more people who agree to commit an illegal act. The crime is committed at the point of the agreement. Some jurisdictions however require a conspirator to take an affirmative step or commit some overt act in furtherance of the crime.
Also, the evidence could be used under 404(b). Think motive, opportunity, absence of mistake, preparation or plan etc.
For actions always speak louder than words.
This is kind of like when Trump threw his driver out of his limo and raced to join the proud boys to storm the capital.
It’s a fact that is not admissible because it is hearsay and also because it’s not true to start with.
The prosecution has used this nugget the only way it can—
to get it broadcast so as to whip the TDS cult into a lather.
This is all very tantalizing.
What business is it of the Fulton County DA’s office? Did they suddenly take charge of the Federal government and the Presidency?
In fact it is admissible both under both Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and FRE 804.
You might want to brush up on your rules of evidence.
Trump named Powell a special prosecutor. She was not his personal attorney.
So much for the Kracken Lawyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.