Post New

Well, former president Trump is officially accused of being the head of a criminal organization. Trump was charged with 13 counts in the indictment.

Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Ken Chesebro, Jeff Clark, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, a couple of Trump campaign staffers, and a bunch of Georgia state defendants were indicted on RICO and other charges.

The indictment laid out eight ways the "enterprise" obstructed the election: by lying to the Georgia state legislature, by lying to state officials, by creating fake pro-Trump electors, by harassing election workers, by soliciting Justice Department officials, by soliciting Vice President Mike Pence, by breaching voting machines and by engaging in a cover up.

The racketeering case extends to conduct in Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.


The Trump Counts:

Count 1: Violation of the Georgia RICO Act

Count 5: Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer

Count 9: Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Officer

Count 11: Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree

Count 13: Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings

Count 15: Conspiracy to Commit False Filing False Documents

Count 17: Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree

Count 19: Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings

Count 27: Filing False Documents

Count 28: Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer

Count 29: False Statements and Writings

Count 38: Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer

Count 39: False Statements and Writings

That was quick. Happy you and Watching the Herd are around, but where is Albaby?

MAGA must be thrilled....why?

- States' rights are being exercised.
- Georgia allows televised trials...free publicity with better ratings than GOP debates.

- Trump now has 'tradeworthy' named co-conspirators he can try to throw under the bus as part of his interminable delay strategy to stay out of jail.
(in a laugh-out-loud moment, 'expert' ABC analyst stated Trump was very interested in knowing named co-conspirators out of deep friendships!)
- Trump can finally say everything straight to a Judge's face when it really matters...no need to hold back when you have a live nationwide audience.

kudos to the DA for not letting expediency get in the way of justice via the sheer volume of named defendants, nor the time this will take.
unlike clarence thomas, she is risking this w/out a guaranteed job for life.

That was quick. Happy you and Watching the Herd are around, but where is Albaby?

I'm around - just a little busy. And not much really to say about the Jack Smith indictments that didn't already get discussed pretty thoroughly on the boards.

As for the GA indictment, obviously this is the one that carries the greatest risk for Trump - at least in terms of process. Since these are state crime charges, federal pardons aren't available. That means that Trump, of course, can't be pardoned. But it also means that none of the other indicted folks can be pardoned, either. Which increases the risk that one or more might be willing to plea out and become cooperating witnesses - a risk not present in the January 6th indictments, since those "co-conspirators" weren't separately indicted (probably in part for that reason).

Albaby

As for the GA indictment, obviously this is the one that carries the greatest risk for Trump - at least in terms of process. Since these are state crime charges, federal pardons aren't available. That means that Trump, of course, can't be pardoned. But it also means that none of the other indicted folks can be pardoned, either. Which increases the risk that one or more might be willing to plea out and become cooperating witnesses - a risk not present in the January 6th indictments, since those "co-conspirators" weren't separately indicted (probably in part for that reason).


Scanning the charges, he's going to jail. Not because reserving a conference is illegal, but when you have 5,000 charges and you can pick the jury you want, you can convict anybody of anything:

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/16914019...

The scope of the alleged conspiracy is massive. Indeed, every call, speech, and tweet appears a criminal step in the conspiracy. District Attorney Fani Willis appears to have elected to charge everything and everyone and let God sort them out.

democrats would do well to remember that what goes around, comes around.

As for the GA indictment, obviously this is the one that carries the greatest risk for Trump - at least in terms of process.

Something else that I learned last night watching round #4 of Indictment Tonight...

Judges have the following choices when sentencing a convicted RICO defendant:

* 5-20 years jail time
* $25,000 fine or 3x the money gained from the RICO acts
* both jail time and fines

These rules are just for the RICO conviction itself. The defendant still faces punishment for the other crimes collected together under the RICO charge.

A key remaining question about the Georgia case is whether a new law passed in April 2023 providing the ability to forcibly remove a special prosecutor from office for alleged failure to perform duties will be leveraged by Georgia Republicans to push Fani Willis out of power and have a replacement drop the case. Given the brazen corruption already demonstrated by various statewide and county Republican party figures including those named in the indictment, that would seem to be a significant risk. On the other hand, it seems highly likely Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Governor Brian Kemp and former Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan have all demonstrated sufficient moral backbone and motivation to actively work within their party to prevent such a blatant abuse of power from being attempted -- at least for a case involving Donald Trump.


WTH

Scanning the charges, he's going to jail. Not because reserving a conference is illegal, but when you have 5,000 charges and you can pick the jury you want, you can convict anybody of anything:

That's not really true. Prosecutors have enormous ability to get indictments of almost anybody of anything (though it's not unlimited). But you still need to be able to prove up your case in order to get a criminal conviction, particularly since defendants have the right to appeal those convictions.

Reserving a conference room isn't illegal. Neither is buying a car, by way of example. But if you have a gang of people that conspire to rob a bank, and one of those people's role in the conspiracy is to buy a cheap and quick getaway car, then buying the getaway car is an overt act in favor of the conspiracy. Even if the gang gets busted before they actually do the bank job, the crime lies in conspiring to rob the bank, and buying the car is an overt act that advances the conspiracy even though that act in most other contexts would be completely innocent.

Judges have the following choices when sentencing a convicted RICO defendant

Yes, that's another way that GA case presents Trump with a far greater risk of actual jail time - there's a mandatory minimum sentence. Even if Trump were to be convicted on the New York state business fraud charges, it's highly unlikely that a judge would sentence a first-time offender to any real jail time. I've heard more than a few defense attorneys say the same thing about the classified documents case as well - that while Trump faces a very high theoretical jail sentence in that case, it's pretty likely that his sentence wouldn't involve any actual prison, if convicted.

Because the GA state crimes have mandatory minima, conviction comes with far greater peril for Trump's personal freedom.

In reverse order:
Reserving a conference room isn't illegal. Neither is buying a car, by way of example. But if you have a gang of people that conspire to rob a bank, and one of those people's role in the conspiracy is to buy a cheap and quick getaway car, then buying the getaway car is an overt act in favor of the conspiracy. Even if the gang gets busted before they actually do the bank job, the crime lies in conspiring to rob the bank, and buying the car is an overt act that advances the conspiracy even though that act in most other contexts would be completely innocent.

Under this logic, I could order 4 sandwiches from Subway and the way this has been charged, that's part of the conspiracy. This stuff is all circumstantial.

But...

But you still need to be able to prove up your case in order to get a criminal conviction, particularly since defendants have the right to appeal those convictions.

They will seat an adequately left-winged enough jury and place the case in front of a reliable judge. All they're going to have is the above circumstantial stuff but with that setup it'll more than enough to secure multiple felony convictions and jail time.

And as an example of circumstantial (and rather sensationalist nonsense):

On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

This is in, "Come on, man" territory.

Under this logic, I could order 4 sandwiches from Subway and the way this has been charged, that's part of the conspiracy.

No, you couldn't. Again, the crime of conspiracy requires an agreement to commit an illegal act coupled with overt acts (whether criminal or not) in furtherance of the agreement to commit the crime. Just buying 4 sandwiches from Subway doesn't satisfy those elements.

They will seat an adequately left-winged enough jury and place the case in front of a reliable judge. All they're going to have is the above circumstantial stuff but with that setup it'll more than enough to secure multiple felony convictions and jail time.

Plenty of people are convicted of crimes based on "circumstantial evidence." There's nothing inherently improper about that - happens all the time. You don't always have an eyewitness.

And as an example of circumstantial (and rather sensationalist nonsense):

On or about the 3rd day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Georgia hearings now on @OANN. Amazing!" This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Ah. I think you are confusing two separate legal concepts here: circumstantial evidence and overt acts.

One of the essential requirements of a conspiracy charge is the existence of, well, a conspiracy. That is, a common plan or scheme that is mutually agreed to by one or more persons to commit a crime. As an example, if a group of people get together and plan out a robbery (think the planning scene in Ocean's 11, or any other heist movie), that agreement satisfies the "common plan" part of a conspiracy charge.

However, words alone do not constitute the crime of conspiracy. To be charged, you also have to have committed an overt act to advance the goals or aims of the conspiracy. To return to my Ocean's 11 example, simply getting together in Elliot Gould's house wasn't a crime - but when they started going out and buying vans and computers and costumes and what not, they then had started to commit overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Once they had done that, the crime of conspiracy had been committed - even if they decided to call off the heist and not have the third act of the movie.

"Circumstantial evidence," in this context, would involve not having any direct evidence of the existence of a common plan or agreement, but instead trying to prove the common plan or agreement by other means. The tweet you referred to, though, isn't being offered for that purpose - it's being offered to show that there was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

They will seat an adequately left-winged enough jury and place the case in front of a reliable judge. All they're going to have is the above circumstantial stuff but with that setup it'll more than enough to secure multiple felony convictions and jail time.

My God, what a persecution complex.

I believe Trump is a corrupt criminal and should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Whether or not it will get to a judge and jury and whether or not there will be a conviction, I don't know.

Thanks. Wish you weren't so busy. :) But happy to hear from you. Yes, and I understand that the State pardons in Georgia aren't at the whim of the Governor also. That there's a process and review for that. But now that I think about it, Republicans see process as in the way of what they want to do.

Dope1: All they're going to have is the above circumstantial stuff...


First, isn't it interesting that during the second impeachment trial, minority leader McConnell and other republicans were saying, "We don't think impeachment is the right way to hold Trump accountable; that's the job of the courts."

Now that he's being indicted, republicans are all: "Wait, you can't put a former president on trial! That's election interference! That's weaponizing the justice department!"


As far as "circumstantial stuff" is concerned, well, sure, those forged fake electoral certificates are clearly "circumstantial".

Just kidding, those are very real.

And there's also nothing "circumstantial" about unlawfully accessing the election machines in Coffee County.

And Trump's call pressuring Raffensperger is certainly very real, as are Giuliani's calls pressuring state legislators and Meadows's calls to put pressure on election authorities.

Then there's the very public co-conspirators' lies and intimidation targeting the ballot counters Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

Oh, and let's not forget Jeffrey Clark's preparation of a draft letter that falsely claimed the Department of Justice had been investigating "various irregularities in the 2020 election."

And then there's the president himself organizing electors to falsely proclaim that Trump was the real winner in Georgia (Trump called the Republican National Committee with John Eastman from the White House to organize the fake slates of electors).

Plus Willis says that members of the conspiracy filed false documents, made false statements to government investigators, and committed perjury during the Fulton County judicial proceedings.

And who knows what else Willis has and who's going to flip between now and the trial?

But sure, nothing but "circumstantial stuff".

Seriously, escape the cult while you still have time.

Scanning the charges, he's going to jail. Not because reserving a conference is illegal, but when you have 5,000 charges and you can pick the jury you want, you can convict anybody of anything:

Adding to Albaby. These multiple charges are layered in so that some (most) will survive appeal. One of the analysis I read pointed this out, but didn't go as far as explaining a hypothetical process in enough detail to illuminate the problems. But it did make me look at each charge and wonder what scrutiny it would face on appeal. Ain't this fun? :)




democrats would do well to remember that what goes around, comes around.

Let it come around. At the Federal level, Democrats have fielded administrations with far less corruption than Republicans. Administration = Executive branch, OK? Not the Legislative or Judicial branch.

And yes, we have our problems at the state and local levels, we know. And prosecutorial discretion has a liberal bias because we didn't do anything illegal. But emails... Hunter Biden...

That's weaponizing the justice department!

Because it is.
I get that you're a fan of it and wish they would just skip the trial, throw Trump and every Republican in jail and declare the democrats the only legally allowed political party in the country, but the rest of us don't feel that way.

Let it come around. At the Federal level, Democrats have fielded administrations with far less corruption than Republicans.

That's laughable. J. Edgar Hoover was a wonderful tool for...multiple democrat Presidents. That few democrats are ever charged for abuses of power merely proves my point.

And prosecutorial discretion has a liberal bias because we didn't do anything illegal

Right. democrats don't lie to FISA courts, fabricate evidence and they for sure don't violate the civil rights of ordinary citizens.

Never happens.

Got it.

Dope1: All they're going to have is the above circumstantial stuff...

Dope, I believe eyewitness testimony isn't circumstantial. So there's a memo outlining "how to" on the fake electoral slates. Fake electoral slates were submitted to the archives. So you get an eyewitness on the memo, eyewitnesses on the submission, eyewitness on the meeting in the White House, etc., etc., etc. So everything can be tied together and linked back to Trump? We shall see.

You can cast doubt on it all you want to, but it isn't up to the vote of a partisan Senate this time. And Donald can't get a Federal pardon. Trump has appeal rights, and Clarence is still on the courts, so you have a chance that way too. Not everyone is corrupt.

That's laughable. J. Edgar Hoover was a wonderful tool for...multiple democrat Presidents. That few democrats are ever charged for abuses of power merely proves my point.

Hoover is widely seen today as an autocrat who used secret surveillance and other illegal means to control politicians and infiltrate and disrupt domestic political groups in the service of his conservative worldview. No operation confirms this verdict more vividly than the FBI's wide-ranging electronic surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., which culminated in a threatening letter to King accompanied by tape recordings of romantic trysts'an effort designed to drive King from the civil-rights movement or induce him to commit suicide.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/...

Right. Democrats don't lie to FISA courts, fabricate evidence and they for sure don't violate the civil rights of ordinary citizens.

Well, you can compare convictions from 1968 on of Administrations and see what you get. Prior to 1968 it has to be looked at as to whether it's conservative or liberal. I knew one FBI agent, and he thought it was a conservative organization mostly. There was the messy migration over a long period of time - the Southern Strategy, ya know, which you don't seem to agree happened.

Hoover is widely seen today as an autocrat who used secret surveillance and other illegal means to control politicians and infiltrate and disrupt domestic political groups in the service of his conservative worldview

He was a staunch anti-communist, which of course would put him miles out of step with the democrats of today - who are more likely to embrace socialistic principles than their party forebears ever were.

Nice try, but during his reign at the FBI only 2 Presidents didn't want anything to do with him: Eisenhower and Truman. The rest made use of his information.

Well, you can compare convictions from 1968 on of Administrations and see what you get.

Again, you're making my point. democrats are never arrested or tried, much less convicted, for any crimes committed while in office. Republicans are, as this thread makes clear.

Let's test you. When is Eric Holder's contempt of Congress arraignment? How about Lois Lerner's?

Dope1: Let's test you. When is Eric Holder's contempt of Congress arraignment?

When Eric Holder was held in contempt, it led to a seven-year legal battle over privilege, a legal battle that ended when the House and the Justice Department reached a settlement. So tell us, why would he be arraigned?

Lerner pissed off House republicans by making an opening statement before exerting her Fifth Amendment rights, so they held her in contempt because they were pissed.


Dope1: Again, you're making my point. democrats are never arrested or tried, much less convicted, for any crimes committed while in office. Republicans are, as this thread makes clear.

Now let's test you. The House voted to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas in 2019. I don't recall either being prosecuted, do you?

Nobody's making your point because you don't really have a point.


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/house-vo...

The Dope1 Crime hypothesis is: Democrats and Republicans commit a similar number of crimes while employed in the US executive branch.

The Dope1 Conviction hypothesis is: DOJ uses different prosecution standards for Democrats and Republicans resulting in few Democrat convictions.

Here are 3 test cases (the names have been changed). All were found in Contempt of Congress. Which one deserved jail time?

The Justice Department released 7,600 pages of documents on Operation Movie Time. A Contempt of Congress resolution against John was drafted in response to the committee allegedly being "stonewalled by the Justice Department" on additional documents. John offered to provide the documents on the condition that doing so would satisfy the committee subpoenas and resolve the dispute. The committee chair rejected the offer. The Congress Oversight Committee voted 23'17 along party lines to hold John in contempt of Congress for not releasing the additional documents. Later the President asserted executive privilege over the remaining documents requested by the committee.

There were several government investigations concerning George's performance as a public employee, including destruction of emails and lying to Congress about it. George pleaded guilty to criminal charges of contempt of Congress. George became most notorious for hiring "Geeks on Call", a private technological services company, to allegedly perform a "seven level wipe" of his home and office computers after becoming involved in litigation with OSC subordinates who accused him of politically motivated harassment.

Thomas answered a planted question at a meeting of the American Bar Association by stating that the IRS was "apologetic" for what he termed "absolutely inappropriate" actions. Thomas was declared in contempt of Congress in connection with his invocation of the Fifth Amendment not to testify on the matter before a congressional committee. The Justice Department did not pursue criminal contempt charges against Thomas. The U.S. Attorney's Office wrote: "Thomas did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege by making general claims of innocence. The Constitution would provide Thomas with an absolute defense if he were prosecuted for contempt."

This is an interesting exercise. I'll take a stab and albaby can come along later to tell why my layman's perspective is wrong.

John deserved jail time. He did fail to respond to subpoena. He later tried to sidestep accountability by offering compliance in exchange for immunity. That the president subsequently asserted executive privilege is not a factor. It might have been if John asserted from the beginning that was his reason for non compliance but wthout the president actually doing so at the time, I doubt that would hold up.

George, who sounds a lot like Hillary, deserves jail time but we have previously discussed why her lack of intent excuses her from accountability under a poorly written statue.

Thomas could go either way. He should not have to testify against himself regarding the comment at the ABA meeting but he should not be able to use that as an excuse not to testify to the committee about other topics they may want to ask him about. I suppose he should show up and then assert fifth amendment based on the questions asked. So for not showing up at all he deserves jail time.

In reading over lizgdals scenarios again, I withdraw my comment about George being a proxy for Hillary as I don't recall her pleading guilty to anything. But with the guilty please, there is no question of guilt, so George deserves sanctions, whether that is jail time is a matter of severity. And I suppose jail time for John and Thomas should also be tempered with severity, maybe jail time is too harsh but a big fine, a public apology, and community service would be in order. Of the three, John seems most flagrant and of any of them, he is most deserving of some time in jail.

Politics as usual and it was a pity they sorted down the Tea Party entities that way. I remember remarking to my boss, "112 of those? There has to be at least one absolute fraud in there. It's a shame. All you'd have to do is figure out how to find the fraudulent entity. The one where they are just taking the money. But we'd need access to all the databases, including state data bases, and look at all their filings, bank accounts, who operates them, etc." But just in exploring it I found out the exams are all by mail. You write them and they send it in. Not worth the time.

That's laughable. J. Edgar Hoover was a wonderful tool for...multiple democrat Presidents. That few democrats are ever charged for abuses of power merely proves my point.

Another inversion of reality. Projection is the way the right sees the world. "Everybody is as corrupt as we are." Fortunately that's not true

I'll take a stab and albaby can come along later to tell why my layman's perspective is wrong.

John deserved jail time. He did fail to respond to subpoena. He later tried to sidestep accountability by offering compliance in exchange for immunity. That the president subsequently asserted executive privilege is not a factor. It might have been if John asserted from the beginning that was his reason for non compliance but without the president actually doing so at the time, I doubt that would hold up.

Man....being called by name in a thread dealing with legal issues? How can I resist!

Anyway, this would be a really tricky law school exam question - but John almost certainly can't be convicted of a crime here, because of John's office. Though not explicitly stated in the hypothetical, John is probably an officer of the Executive Branch, and probably the head of a department. The records being subpoenaed are government records in the custody of the Executive Branch. John is almost certainly not being subpoenaed in his individual capacity.

That makes all the difference in whether John can be found personally criminally culpable. Unlike, say, a private citizen or a local government like a municipality, the Executive is a co-equal branch of government to Congress. As such, it has certain constitutionally legitimate defenses against Congress exercising the subpoena aspect of the Legislative power against it. The Executive Branch has Constitutional arguments to support pushing back on the scope, timing, and substance of Congress trying to assert power over it. Those defenses are strongest if the release of documents to Congress could interfere with the due exercise of executive function (like if Congress tried to subpoena national defense information from Defense, or materials on ongoing negotiations with another country from State, or records on a current investigation from Justice). They are weaker when release of the requested materials to Congress would have no impact on ongoing Executive operations.

So unlike Steve Bannon (for example), a Cabinet-level executive officer would have some colorable defenses against providing government (not personal) records and testimony to Congress - which would almost certainly defeat any personal criminal charges against them. Firstly, and most obviously, they might be right. Their refusal to comply with the subpoena might have been legal, appropriate, and correct under the Constitutional power granted to the Executive. But even if they're not right, the doctrine of qualified immunity gives them enormous protection. Put simply, government officials are allowed to make mistakes about the scope of what is permissible under their offices without being subject to criminal liability, as long as those mistakes are colorable. So even if John were later found to not have been justified in resisting the subpoena, as long as his refusal was colorable he would be immune from prosecution.

We're outside the hypothetical here, but a quick and dirty "gut check" on whether that's the case would be to see how the dispute was subsequently handled. If the fight over the subpoenaed documents was immediately resolved in favor of Congress in a "slam dunk" kind of court decision, then maybe - just maybe - prosecutors might have had a shot a criminal conviction. But if that dispute dragged out over years of court fighting, then John almost certainly was making at least a semi-valid point in resisting the subpoena, making it all-but-impossible that he would have committed a crime in pushing back.

>>I'll take a stab and albaby can come along later to tell why my layman's perspective is wrong.<<

.
.
.

Man....being called by name in a thread dealing with legal issues? How can I resist! - albaby

====================

And as expected you delivered by pointing out the distinction between a personal subpoena and one directed at your custodial role as a member of the executive branch, a distinction I was oblivious to.

Well done <g>.

Wow, I went the other direction. One looks like Lois Lerner, another Janet Reno, and the last one I had to look up and I think it's Steve Bocho. But the landscape is littered with people defying Congressional subpoenas, at least for a period of time. :)

And as expected you delivered...

My pleasure!

Albaby-man.....awaaaaaaaay!

flies off into the distance

Wow, I went the other direction. One looks like Lois Lerner, another Janet Reno, and the last one I had to look up and I think it's Steve Bocho. But the landscape is littered with people defying Congressional subpoenas, at least for a period of time. :) - Lapsody

--------------

Well that certainly is true. The flash mob shoplifters in California are more likely to be prosecuted than someone ignoring a congressional subpoena or the companion crime of showing up but then lying under oath at a congressional hearing.

The real problem is that Congress has no power of its own to arrest, prosecute or jail anyone. At best they are a referral operation to the DOJ. And if a corrupt DOJ refuses to prosecute, then there is no one else who can. If the contemptuous party happens to be someone who can be impeached, even that is not a real threat since conviction in a democrat senate will not happen. So these days it is pretty safe to ignore or lie to congress without fear of consequences.

And if a corrupt DOJ refuses to prosecute, then there is no one else who can.
''''''''
We'll the last AG that looked corrupt was Barr. The AG can reasonably differ with Congress, and Congress does put on a lot of shows for the base. As much as I want them to have more power when I'm interested, there is separation of powers. No resolution that I can see.

At best they are a referral operation to the DOJ. And if a corrupt DOJ refuses to prosecute, then there is no one else who can. If the contemptuous party happens to be someone who can be impeached, even that is not a real threat since conviction in a democrat senate will not happen. So these days it is pretty safe to ignore or lie to congress without fear of consequences.

I mean, that's not just a claim about lying to Congress. Most federal laws require federal enforcement - especially criminal laws. Congress doesn't just lack the power to enforce contempt findings. It lacks the power to enforce any federal law. It relies on the Executive to do that - and the DOJ for all criminal cases. If the DOJ doesn't prosecute substantive federal law (not just subpoena issues), there's no one else who can, either.

So if you stipulate a "corrupt DOJ [that] refuses to prosecute," then it's not just lying to Congress that's an issue - it's all federal law altogether. If DOJ refuses to prosecute wire fraud charges against Republicans, or counterfeiting charges against Democrats, then that's a bigger problem than just the tiny aspect of subpoena power.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.