That may be the case, but this DOJ seems unable to even indict a salami sub.
2 Likes
My experience is not in criminal law, though civil rights is sort of “criminal-adjacent.” So I’m a bit out of my depth here (creationists please note: you might want to admit that sort of thing from time to time). But yes, my impression is that it’s rather easy to secure indictments. Bear in mind that grand jury proceedings go on without a judge to stop prosecutors from engaging in crazy bullshit, and that they go on without any defense – it’s a prosecution-only show, and the standard is probable cause, not reasonable doubt.
The weird thing here is that it’s not clear how this sort of show benefits The Orange Peril. Cheeto Benito might get a short-term publicity hoo-hah from indicting Mark Kelly et al., but the prosecution of such a case is utterly doomed, in multiple directions.
There’s the First Amendment, which would probably protect this speech even if it were otherwise criminal.
There’s the problem that “seditious conspiracy” requires at a minimum that one seek to “prevent, hinder or delay” the execution of the law; merely restating black-letter law on the obligation of members of the armed services obviously not only does not hinder, but ENCOURAGES the execution of the law.
There’s the problem that this preventing, hindering or delaying must be “by force.” Mere advocacy is never force, and we have cases which make that very clear as a matter not only of statutory construction but of First Amendment law, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio.
There’s the problem that conspiracy usually requires that some conspirator have performed an “overt act” in furtherance thereof. Even where this is not required, an overt act is quite important as it bears on things like actual intent.
There’s the problem that a conspiracy must have some definite object; here we have only the restatement of a general proposition of law which is undoubtedly correct.
Procedurally, let’s say an indictment were to issue. That still might happen if the corrupt officials in the Justice Department (that agency name always sounded Orwellian, but never so much as it does now) responsible for this decide to keep pursuing it. The defendants might seek to dismiss the indictment, and assuming that the only facts alleged are that the defendants made the statements they made in their advertisement, they’d probably succeed, because the statement of facts simply fails to allege an actual crime.
But failing that – or, perhaps, due to a strategic choice – let’s say they proceed to trial. They’d demand a speedy trial, so this would happen sooner rather than later. At trial, the likeliest outcome would be a “directed verdict” at the close of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence. This is what we call it when the District Judge rules that even if every bit of prosecution evidence is believed, it isn’t enough to prove the crime – a jury’s role is to decide FACTS, not law, so if the facts shown cannot satisfy the elements of the crime, there is nothing for a jury to decide. Failing that, the defendants proceed with a defense, and again move for a directed verdict. And, of course, failing that, the likelihood of a jury convicting is close to nil.
Whichever of these various negative outcomes follow, it cannot be anything other than an embarrassing rebuke to Orange Julius. There really is no upside in this thing.
4 Likes
First it was Norwegian Ridgebacks, then Norwegian Elkhounds, pretty soon someone will come up with a Norwegian Parrot.
2 Likes
Isn’t whining how “corrupt” judges refuse to give him what he wants one of his big things? It’s all aimed at destroying the rule of law, of course. When it’s not just whining.
And - to no surprise - it turns out that Pirro brought in inexperienced outsiders to make the indictment.
Probably because no Justice Dapartment prosecutors would touch it with a barge pole.
And if they explain that to Trump, he will claim the Dalmatians versus the Alsatians was yet another war he ended.
Meanwhile, because of the Super Bowl halftime show, Trump is threatening tariffs against Puerto Rico for exporting Bad Bunny. (The President also blamed Joe Biden for the NFL’s new kickoff rule.)
1 Like
It’s weird that I have to ask you if this is true, but that’s the world we live in now.
2 Likes
Weird for sure. The second Trump administration is a bizarre combination of Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone and the 2006 film, Idiocracy.
And there’s three years left to go.
2 Likes
But when the mad king demands his courtiers bring him the heads of his enemies, their only options are to continue to curry his favour or find another line of work. It seems most competent prosecutors in the DOJ have chosen the 2nd option.
1 Like
My first thought was that if the case actually proceeded, it could give an extra name-recognition boost for Senator Kelly if he wished to rev it into a presidential campaign run. (Trump never considers the Law of Unintended Consequences.)
2 Likes
I’ve been saying for decades that baseless rants against “activist judges” by such people as G.W. Bush were dangerous, and now we’ve reached the point where that danger is very much coming to life.
But I have some difficulty imagining this particular case going well for him. Obviously there’s a certain range of people in this nation who’d be ready for summary death penalty for Mark Kelly and others. But the offenses against reason are getting to be a bit much for some to bear.
I know a few people who voted for Trump without thinking about it very much. They were persuaded that Kamala Harris would bring us a boatload of “forever wars” and that Trump was, in some never-quite-stated way, good for the economy. They thought the immigration thing was going to be all about deporting murderous drug dealers, not about deporting the easiest immigrants to locate. Now, you can walk through their deepest thoughts without getting your ankles wet, so it’s too much to ask that they should have not thought those things. But some of them are un-thinking those things now, and some of them have at least a rough idea of the merits of freedom of speech which makes them a tad uneasy when this sort of nonsense comes along. What will they do in the next couple of rounds of elections? Who the hell knows? But there is at least some prospect of their turning against Trump, and a well-publicized whupping in the courts on the Kelly indictment would help, I think.
On the credibility of the courts, two things: (1) we have to stop confirming Trump appointments in order to stem the rot that’s going on from inside, and that’s tricky given that the Senate still seems to be a bit of a long reach for the Democrats, and (2) we probably should try to give people SOME kind of civics education that helps them understand what courts actually do and why. And that needs to encompass some elements of what our legal system is and how it works.
Most people don’t appreciate how the law works. Even basics – lately I keep seeing quite a lot of people hollering that constitutional rights are only for citizens, for example. You can figure out that that’s not so pretty quickly by just reading the blasted document, but you can also drill a bit deeper and understand how legal standards like constitutional rights are construed – the “rules of construction” are to a great extent pretty easy to grasp. And the idea, in a system founded upon the common law, that judges should never “make” law is quite insane. There’s a good deal of law we wouldn’t even have if judges didn’t make it. For example, in most (perhaps all) states there is no statute that says that you’re liable for damages if you injure someone through your negligence. Contracts are partly covered by statute, but there’s still no generally-applicable statute that says that one who breaches a contract owes consequential damages flowing from the breach. You can’t just “look it up,” or demand that the courts limit themselves to reading and carrying out what the law says, without discarding a great deal of how our whole legal system is built. And, of course, such things as constitutional rights are generally horribly lacking in specifics. No infringement of freedom of speech? Sure. What’s speech? What impairs the freedom thereof? Who may avail himself of this right? No unreasonable searches and seizures? Sure, no problem. What’s a search? What’s a seizure? What does “unreasonable” mean?
4 Likes
But is it true or was it a joke? I have no problem imagining that Trump forgets that Puerto Rico is an American territory.
Yes, I saw that coming. But, putting on my pedantic hat, it is in fact referred to as the “Norwegian Blue” – which is known for its beautiful plumage. 
1 Like
Pinin’ for the fjords.
The grand jury refused to indict, which is a good start. A public thrashing in court would have been even better.
It is a good start. It’s sad that grand jury proceedings and deliberations aren’t public in such cases; it would be a delight to hear from the members of that grand jury as to just what sorts of crazy they were subjected to along the way.
He’d probably also claim that it was Pomeranian agitation that started the war.
2 Likes
Indeed. I saw some of that back in 2016. From a Trump supporter who (still) has no idea what the U.S. Constitution actually says.
Doesn’t it say:
America, America, America, America, we love you. Guns, guns, guns, guns, we love you too. Amen.
1 Like
Pam Bondi as a server: