The decision by Jack Smith to request dismissal of the cases against
Donald Trump brings up a question many of us have been asking all along,
which is why were the cases initiated in the first place?

Regardless of whether or not Trump may have committed the acts he was
accused of and whether there may have been enough evidence for
conviction, three things had to be obvious to everyone:

1) Trump was not going to be tried if he won the election.
2) Trump had at least a 50-50 chance of winning the election.
3) By the time the cases were brought, it was probably too late for
prosecutors to have any reasonable hope the cases could be completed
before the election.

In light of these points, does it not seem the only reason the cases
were brought when they were was to try to influence the election to
increase the chance Trump would lose? Otherwise, why waste all that
time and money if you knew there was a 50-50 chance the cases would have
to be withdrawn?

Ironically, if that were the reason, it may have had the opposite effect
of actually mobilizing Trump voters to turn out. The ultimate irony
here is that Jack Smith may have unwittingly helped Trump win the election.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:03:38 -0800, Rick wrote:

The decision by Jack Smith to request dismissal of the cases against
Donald Trump brings up a question many of us have been asking all along, which is why were the cases initiated in the first place?

Regardless of whether or not Trump may have committed the acts he was
accused of and whether there may have been enough evidence for
conviction, three things had to be obvious to everyone:

1) Trump was not going to be tried if he won the election.
2) Trump had at least a 50-50 chance of winning the election.
3) By the time the cases were brought, it was probably too late for prosecutors to have any reasonable hope the cases could be completed
before the election.

In light of these points, does it not seem the only reason the cases
were brought when they were was to try to influence the election to
increase the chance Trump would lose? Otherwise, why waste all that
time and money if you knew there was a 50-50 chance the cases would have
to be withdrawn?

Ironically, if that were the reason, it may have had the opposite effect
of actually mobilizing Trump voters to turn out. The ultimate irony
here is that Jack Smith may have unwittingly helped Trump win the
election.

"Public interest" ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/27/2024 11:43 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:03:38 -0800, Rick wrote:

The decision by Jack Smith to request dismissal of the cases against
Donald Trump brings up a question many of us have been asking all along,
which is why were the cases initiated in the first place?

Regardless of whether or not Trump may have committed the acts he was
accused of and whether there may have been enough evidence for
conviction, three things had to be obvious to everyone:

1) Trump was not going to be tried if he won the election.
2) Trump had at least a 50-50 chance of winning the election.
3) By the time the cases were brought, it was probably too late for
prosecutors to have any reasonable hope the cases could be completed
before the election.

In light of these points, does it not seem the only reason the cases
were brought when they were was to try to influence the election to
increase the chance Trump would lose? Otherwise, why waste all that
time and money if you knew there was a 50-50 chance the cases would have
to be withdrawn?

Ironically, if that were the reason, it may have had the opposite effect
of actually mobilizing Trump voters to turn out. The ultimate irony
here is that Jack Smith may have unwittingly helped Trump win the
election.

"Public interest" ?

At a cost of $50 million+?

The point remains that no prosecutor ever brings a case unless there is
a reasonable probability of conviction - and that implies that the case
can even be brought to trial in the first place. In this case you have
a candidate for president who was either leading in the polls or at
worst 50-50 when the charges were filed, so they had to know there was
at least a 50-50 chance the charges would have to be dropped if the
candidate won election. They also had to know that the mere filing of
the charges could have an effect on the election, which makes it seem
the $50 million+ spent was effectively a contribution to the Harris
campaign.

Otherwise, why not wait until after the election to determine whether to
file the charges? IT would still be within the presumed 5-year statute
of limitations,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:40:59 -0800, Rick wrote:

On 11/27/2024 11:43 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

[quoted text muted]

At a cost of $50 million+?

*Shrug*

Successive UK governments have pursued eye-wateringly expensive cases
they were bound to lose (e.g. the recent Rwanda farce) with the excuse of "public interest". Which is really code for "political face" with a
little dash of "let's undermine judges by pretending they are thwarting
the 'will of the people'" which is a usual precursor to "Judges ? What do
they know ?". Something the US might want to watch out for ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/27/2024 11:40 AM, Rick wrote:

The point remains that no prosecutor ever brings a case unless there is
a reasonable probability of conviction - and that implies that the case
can even be brought to trial in the first place.  In this case you have
a candidate for president who was either leading in the polls or at
worst 50-50 when the charges were filed, so they had to know there was
at least a 50-50 chance the charges would have to be dropped if the
candidate won election.  They also had to know that the mere filing of
the charges could have an effect on the election, which makes it seem
the $50 million+ spent was effectively a contribution to the Harris
campaign.

Otherwise, why not wait until after the election to determine whether to
file the charges?  IT would still be within the presumed 5-year statute
of limitations,

A prosecutor should not bring a case unless hesh thinks that conviction
is a near certainty. The point is to punish wrongdoers with fines and/or prison, not to "punish" them by making them spend a lot of money
defending themselves.

But that's based on the assumption that the case will go to trial. If it
turns out that some external factor (having nothing to do with the
defendant's guilt or innocence) might stop the case from going forward,
I think it is reasonable to pursue it - regardless of what effect it
will have on the election.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/2024 6:23 PM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 11/27/2024 11:40 AM, Rick wrote:

The point remains that no prosecutor ever brings a case unless there
is a reasonable probability of conviction - and that implies that the
case can even be brought to trial in the first place.  In this case
you have a candidate for president who was either leading in the polls
or at worst 50-50 when the charges were filed, so they had to know
there was at least a 50-50 chance the charges would have to be dropped
if the candidate won election.  They also had to know that the mere
filing of the charges could have an effect on the election, which
makes it seem the $50 million+ spent was effectively a contribution to
the Harris campaign.

Otherwise, why not wait until after the election to determine whether
to file the charges?  IT would still be within the presumed 5-year
statute of limitations,

A prosecutor should not bring a case unless hesh thinks that conviction
is a near certainty. The point is to punish wrongdoers with fines and/or prison, not to "punish" them by making them spend a lot of money
defending themselves.

But that's based on the assumption that the case will go to trial. If it turns out that some external factor (having nothing to do with the defendant's guilt or innocence) might stop the case from going forward,
I think it is reasonable to pursue it - regardless of what effect it
will have on the election.

But knowing that one of two possible "external factors" (each with a 50%
chance of happening) would almost certainly end the case at a
considerable waste of several million dollars, while the other
possibility would allow the case to proceed, and knowing that we would
know on election day which of those two possibilities would occur with
100% certainty - why would any responsible prosecutor NOT wait until
election day to make the decision?

Assuming the statute of limitations is not a factor, the only reason I
can think of for a prosecutor to pursue a case before the election is to actually affect that election.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)