this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)
Politics
561 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I listened to the podcast opening arguments (759) and the guest said they picked charges that can be proven without Trump trying to spin them.
Also they are federal charges and it's a federal case, even if the court is physically in Florida.
I didn't mean to imply that they'd be state charges. Federal charges have to have a venue, and venue is generally chosen based on where the crime took place. These would be in a different venue because the crime arguably took place in New Jersey rather than Florida.
Wasn't the wilful retention in Florida? And if they're interconnected, maybe they just bundled it together.
It was. But dissemination wasn't one of the charges in the Florida indictment, which suggests that they're either not going to charge him with dissemination, or they're holding off on those charges for now.