XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.arts.tv, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: or.politics, alt.atheism   
   From: nowomr@protonmail.com   
      
   Trump seems to have already broken the ‘most important’ condition of his   
   release   
   If our system of justice is to retain any legitimacy, Trump’s latest Truth   
   Social transgression simply cannot go unaddressed.   
   /   
   Aug. 16, 2023, 5:56 PM EDT   
   By Glenn Kirschner, MSNBC Columnist   
      
   Former President Donald Trump now stands criminally indicted in four   
   separate cases. Presently, he is on pretrial release in three of those   
   cases, but it’s more than likely that the judge in the fourth case also   
   decides to release him pending trial in Fulton County, Georgia. However,   
   given a recent post in which Trump declared that a witness “shouldn’t”   
   testify before Fani Willis’ grand jury there, the former president may be   
   at higher risk of a judge getting sick of his bad behavior.   
      
   I attended Trump’s arraignment hearing in early August in federal court in   
   Washington, D.C. And I heard Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya say   
   something that caught my attention.   
      
   In the federal system, there are a number of laws that guide judges in   
   deciding when they can and/or should detain a defendant pending trial. The   
   Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 established a presumption in favor of   
   pretrial release. Congress further fine-tuned the law by amending the act   
   in 1984, requiring a judge to release a defendant pending trial unless the   
   judge concludes that detention is necessary to reasonably assure the   
   defendant will not flee and/or endanger others. When a judge decides to   
   release a defendant pending trial, they will set conditions of release   
   that, if violated, can result in sanctions, up to and including pretrial   
   detention.   
      
   I attended Trump’s arraignment hearing in early August in federal court in   
   Washington, D.C. And I heard Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya say   
   something that caught my attention. She told Trump that his “most   
   important condition” of release was not committing a state, federal or   
   local crime while on release. If Trump were to do so, she warned, a   
   warrant could be issued for his arrest and he could be detained pending   
   trial.   
      
   But on Monday, Trump posted something to social media that certainly could   
   be interpreted as violating that “most important” condition of release.   
   Just a few hours before the Georgia grand jury voted to indict him, the   
   now-defendant posted: “I am reading reports that failed former Lt.   
   Governor, Jeff Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand   
   Jury. He shouldn’t.” (Trump, who misspelled Duncan's first name, Geoff,   
   went on to call  Duncan “a nasty disaster.”)   
   'She knows who she is dealing with here': Judge sets limits for Trump;   
   violation seems inevitable   
   Aug. 11, 202306:41   
      
   Here we have Trump publicly telling a witness who he knew was scheduled to   
   testify before a grand jury investigating his alleged crimes, that the   
   witness should not testify. Cutting right to the chase, this is Trump   
   taking a page out of the “Witness Tampering for Dummies” playbook.   
      
   As is true in most jurisdictions, Georgia state law criminalizes attempts   
   to “influence witnesses.” Specifically, Georgia Code section 16-10-93   
   makes it unlawful to knowingly use intimidation or threats to persuade or   
   attempt to persuade another, to influence, delay or prevent the person’s   
   testimony in an official proceeding. (I’m focusing on Georgia law   
   specifically since Trump was threatening a witness testifying in that   
   state.)   
      
   This apparent violation of Georgia state law, which would constitute a   
   violation of Trump’s pretrial release conditions in his D.C. case, needs   
   to be addressed by Judge Tanya Chutkan, the presiding judge in the D.C.   
   proceeding.   
      
      
      
   Here, it’s important to note that not all violations of release conditions   
   are created equal. When a judge is notified of a possible violation of a   
   condition of release, the federal law applies different burdens of proof   
   depending on the nature of the violation. Specifically, 18 U.S. Code,   
   section 3148, directs that, if a person violates a condition of pretrial   
   release in a federal case, the judge shall enter an order of revocation   
   and detention if the judge finds that there is probable cause to believe   
   that the person committed a federal, state or local crime while on   
   release. This relatively low evidentiary burden of proof stands in stark   
   contrast to the much higher burden of proof — clear and convincing   
   evidence — that applies when a defendant is alleged to have “violated any   
   other condition of release” short of a crime.   
   Expert says Judge Chutkan 'knows exactly what levers to pull' to hold   
   Trump's 'feet to the fire'   
   Aug. 14, 202308:32   
      
   To say that defendant Trump has received different and far more favorable   
   treatment in his criminal cases as compared to other defendants is an   
   understatement. He stands indicted in four separate felony cases, spread   
   across three jurisdictions, both state and federal. And yet, there has not   
   even been a hint of any consideration of pretrial detention for a man   
   criminally charged with unlawfully retaining classified documents,   
   obstructing justice, violating our nation’s espionage laws, and seeking to   
   thwart the peaceful transfer of presidential power. And now, Trump adds to   
   an already distinguished criminal resume by allegedly attempting to   
   influence a witness, in apparent violation of both state law and the   
   conditions of his pretrial release.   
      
   It has often been said that witness tampering strikes at the very heart of   
   our criminal justice system. If our system of justice is to retain any   
   legitimacy, Trump’s latest transgression simply cannot go unaddressed.   
   This is only the beginning of a convoluted and lengthy process of justice   
   for Donald Trump. Those involved have a responsibility to apply the law   
   equally, without fear or favor. Otherwise, his brazen flouting of   
   conventions, not to mention laws, may only get worse. And that, in turn,   
   will make the path toward justice even murkier.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)