[tomder55]

The 6th amendment states

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

U.S. Constitution - Sixth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The trial will be in Florida. But the grand jury that indicted him was a biased DC grand jury.

Federal Law has the same provision.
18 USC 3232: District of offense-(Rule) (house.gov)

It also violated DOJ guidelines

---

9-11.121 - VENUE LIMITATIONS

A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district.

9-11.000 - Grand Jury | JM | Department of Justice

The search warrant at MAL violated the 4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The search warrant gave the FBI carte blanche discretion to seize any government record in Trump's possession be they classified or not

3 of his lawyers quit and violated the attorney client privilege violating the 6th amendment

[jlisenbe]

This has great potential to get ugly. People will only stand for this injustice for so long. And that's not to say that Trump hasn't behaved foolishly because he has, but if they intend to prosecute him, they would be well advised to do it in the most legal and honest fashion possible. That does not seem to be happening at all.

[tomder55]

Did not mention that Trump's attorneys resigning and turning state's evidence is likely also a 6th amendment violation

[tomder55]

According to various legal experts I have read ;the Trump case could go on without conclusion throughout the campaign season. That of course is what I always suspected . The Dems may or may not want to put Trump in jail. But what they really want is to have him have the Damocles sword suspended over his head. They want him to be the nominee who has the threat of trial and conviction against him.

The main reason for the timeframe for the trial is that there are many boxes of material that the prosecution claims hold the nations top secrets in them . Well as the saying goes ;'discovery is a b*tch'. Trump has the right to see the evidence and a jury will need to see the evidence to make a determination. But the government does not want some of the evidence public. The judge has already issued a gag order to Trump so he cannot talk about ;or post on social media about what he is asking for in the discovery phase.

Donald Trump Restricted From Info in His Criminal Case (newsweek.com)

A decision will have to be made about the more than 300 classified docs Trump is reported to have retained at MAL. Trump will claim that all of them being released is vital to his defense. The process of deciding which ones will be allowed to become evidence could be a long one

Former Federal prosecutor (of the Blind Sheik among other cases ) Andrew C McCarthy (and author of the Russia Hoax Book 'Ball of Collusion' ) said in an interview that the discovery issues in this case are so complex that he does not believe the case will go to trial.

HH: Does that question, does that question get decided before they begin to seat a jury? In other words, do the Trump lawyers go in and say “Judge, make a ruling right now that the jury is going to see these documents, because the government has put all the weight on these documents. They’ve convinced the country that Trump put us at risk. They’re going to have to prove the documents put the country at risk, not that the classification existed, but that the documents themselves were dangerous.” Does that get argued and decided before the trial begins?

AM: Yes, and this is the reason why I don’t think they can get the case to trial. So when you are in a situation like this, what applies is what’s known as CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act. And it’s a kind of a, I always thought of it, Hugh, as like a pre-trial trial of the trial in the sense that the regular rules of evidence applied. So you know, you don’t get a heightened standard of relevance and probative value just because you’re dealing with classified information. It’s the regular rules applied. But what happens is the government says what classified information it intends to offer in the trial. The defense after getting discovery tells the court what classified evidence it intends to introduce in order to make its defense. And then what has to happen is the court has to rule, especially if the government objects, which it typically does, to how much the defense wants to put in. The court has to rule on what’s relevant and admissible on the regular standards of evidence. And at that point, if the court says that there has to be classified information introduced at the trial because it’s relevant and it helps the defense makes its defense, then the government has a choice to make. Usually, the first round is you try to propose a substitution, which gives the defense the information that they need to make their arguments to the jury, but they withhold the actual classified information. Often, the judge will say that’s not good enough, they have to get the information. And then the way the law works is the Justice Department and the Executive Branch are supreme in the area of classified information. The judge is supreme as to the litigation. So what happens is the Attorney General can order the judge not to allow certain documents to come into the case. The judge then can say okay, fine, but then these counts have to be dismissed, or perhaps even the whole indictment has to be dismissed, because the defense can’t get a fair trial without this information. That takes a long time to play out. Just to give you a quick sense of this, in the Blind Sheik case, for example, we had an issue about Pakistan acting as our cutout in Afghanistan when we were supporting the Mujahideen during the war against the Soviets. I can talk about this now, because it got declassified during the 9/11 Commission hearings, but I wasn’t allowed to talk about it before that. But we had an 18-month litigation, Hugh. And I think by the time we finally got to trial, I read a 9-line stipulation to the jury about what the impact of Pakistan was.
HH: Wow.
AM: It took 18 months to get there.

Andrew C. McCarthy On The Nuts-and-Bolts of Prosecuting Former President Donald Trump - The Hugh Hewitt Show

[tomder55]

Judge Cannon set the Trump document case for May 20 ,2024 ;right in the middle of the Repub primary season .

Judge Aileen Cannon Kills Trump's Hopes of a Post-Election Trial (newsweek.com)

By that time the Repubs will pretty much know who their candidate will be . But Trump will have to devote a lot of his time in pre-trial prep instead of on the campaign trail .

[Curlyben]

Pretty obvious they are trying to tie Trump up in legal nonsense to scupper any attempt at re-election.
The Establishment has, yet again, shown how it wont be made a fool of, by anyone.
In some cases status quo is for the greater good...

[tomder55]

thus the lingering Monarchy and all it's privilege for a single family .

[Curlyben]

thus the lingering Monarchy and all it's privilege for a single family .

Indeed, however in this case, The Establishment refers to the entirety of the American ruling class, of either party.
About time term limits were brought in to keep things fresher and more grounded in reality.

[jlisenbe]

Are MP's subject to term limits in Britain?

[Curlyben]

UK MPs are synonymous with House of Reps, as the lower house of Government.
All are re-elected every 4-5 years.

The Lords are more like the Senate, and they are term limited to 15 years.

[jlisenbe]

So MP's can basically be re-elected many times? As I understand it, the power lies with the ministers of parliament in the House of Commons. The House of Lords, with much less power, are limited to three terms. Do I have that right?

[tomder55]

About time term limits were brought in to keep things fresher and more grounded in reality

.

absolutely !! Congress rushed through an amendment imposing term limits on the Executive. But to get Congress to amend the rules for themselves is not going to happen. Thankfully the framers in their wisdom created a second means to amend the constitution that by-passes Congress.

How the States Can Save America - YouTube

If I am not mistaken the Lords are largely ceremonial . Our Senate has vastly more power.

[jlisenbe]

I'm not opposed to term-limits, but I'm not sure what problem that will solve. Look at the new House members elected in the past five or six years. Do we need more AOC's?

[tomder55]

The framers envisioned citizens sacrificing some of their time to serve before going back to their real jobs. Many of them modeled their views under the Cincinnatus model of a public servant . Twice Washington was called out of retirement . Twice he gave up power when he served his time.

I'd take flash in the pan All Out Crazy over a lifetime position for the corrupt Madam Mimi. Term limits by themselves will not fix corruption . But one of the leading causes of it is the endless pursuit of $$$ to fund reelections . Incubents have rigged the system to give themselves tremendous advantage over challengers .

Most Americans support term limits. The biggest opponents are incumbent politicians and the unions and lobbyists that support them . Legislation often serves their self interests over those of the nation's .

Get their a$$es into the real world and let them experience the lives of people who have to work for a living . George McGoven is the famous example of what happens when reality hits them between the eyes.
He was a lifer . Then he set out on his own after 18 years in the swamp. He failed miserably .

He observed later

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn's 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.

A Politician's Dream Is a Businessman's Nightmare - WSJ

AOC with term limits would have a choice to throw her hat in the ring for some other elected position or more likely become another celebrity talking head.

[jlisenbe]

It would limit terms for the bad pols, but would also do the same for the good ones, so I think that would be a wash. I do agree that making pols experience the world of business would be good, but if it happens only AFTER they had been in Congress, then what good would it accomplish?

I'm open to the idea, but I'm not sure it would accomplish much. In my mind, the problem is not so much pols like AOC as it is the dumb voters who elect people like her, and I don't see term limits fixing that. One of the biggest problems we have is the firm grip liberals have on the media and in universities. Those two combined are producing an ill-informed, ignorant electorate that happily elects people like Biden and Pelosi. We need to start becoming much more engaged in those two institutions.

[tomder55]

I don't want them in there long. The corrupting too often happens in Congress.

AOC went into Congress complaining she did not have the funds to have homes in DC and NY .

How has she done since ?

AOC Net Worth 2023 (Forbes) $13 Million Assets - Net Worth Club 2023 (caclubindia.com)

[jlisenbe]

The corrupting too often happens in Congress.

Now that much I would agree with. There does seem to be a corrupting process which occurs when what otherwise might be good people are put into positions of great power.

So what term limits are you proposing?

[tomder55]

Max 2 -6 year terms for Senate
Max 3- 2 year terms for House
Max 1 decade served on SCOTUS

It is all a long shot

To me the biggest road block is that an amendment is needed for this ;and it is unlikely to be done by Congressional initiative.

We do not amend the Constitution enough. But that is the only way for us to survive as a republic. Instead we allow the black robed oligarchs to systematically rewrite the constitution . That gives them way too much power in a supposed coequal system .

[jlisenbe]

Max 2 -6 year terms for Senate...maybe
Max 3- 2 year terms for House...I would go for six terms.
Max 1 decade served on SCOTUS...Haven't really considered that. The problem with SCOTUS is that they are now perceived to be a sort of super legislature. The idea of interpreting law seems to be a lost concept.

[tomder55]

Lifetime is too long. William Douglas served in SCOTUS for 37 years . He was just shy of a vegetable in his last year. I would compromise to 18 years with a reconfirmation after 8 years , . Space them out so that a majority one way or the other depends on the configuration of the Senate

The time for geezer's drooling in their oatmeal leadership
has got to end.