https://x.com/richardhanania/status/1969534195782598947?s=46

Not only is he ordering his AG to file made up charges against his enemies, but the very stable genius goes even further and admits that he fired the prior US Attorney because he refused to do so.

This one is definitely going in the legal textbooks since there are few examples this cut and dry

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49339949)

Selective prosecution means the government targets a person for prosecution based on an unjustifiable or discriminatory reason — not because of what they actually did, but because of who they are or what they believe.

It violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (for federal cases) or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (for state cases).

Federal courts generally require a defendant to prove two essential elements:

1. Discriminatory Effect

• Others similarly situated (people who committed the same or similar offenses) were not prosecuted, and

• The defendant was singled out for prosecution.

2. Discriminatory Purpose

• The government’s decision to prosecute was motivated by an impermissible factor, such as race, religion, political affiliation, or exercising a constitutional right (e.g., speech, protest).

A vindictive prosecution occurs when the government brings or escalates charges to punish a defendant for exercising a legal or constitutional right — for example:

• Appealing a conviction

• Refusing to accept a plea deal

• Demanding a jury trial

• Filing pretrial motions

• Exercising free-speech rights

In other words, the prosecution’s motive is retaliatory, not based on legitimate law-enforcement reasons.

Courts use slightly different formulations, but most federal circuits require proof of three key elements:

1. Exercise of a Protected Right

The defendant exercised a legal right — e.g., appealed a conviction, went to trial, filed a motion, or exercised free speech.

2. Prosecutorial Retaliation or Appearance of Retaliation

The prosecution’s decision to bring, increase, or maintain charges was motivated by a desire to punish the defendant for that action.

• This can be shown directly (e.g., statements, timing) or indirectly (a presumption from circumstances).

3. Causation / Adverse Action

The prosecutor filed or increased the severity of the charges or penalties as a result — for example:

• Filing more serious charges after the defendant refused a plea;

• Re-indicting on harsher counts after a successful appeal;

• Seeking a higher sentence in retaliation.

If those are proven, the court can dismiss the indictment or bar the prosecution

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49340045)

https://x.com/macfarlanenews/status/1976762137218371754?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49340759)

than it was for Leticia James, a prosecutor, to say she was going to charge Trump before she even had evidence he did anything?

This is a very hard issue for libs to win points on, given he's charging people who did the exact same thing. Turnabout is fair play...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49340783)

Trump, otoh, ordered these charges to be filed as retribution over the objection of the first prosecutor and they will be dismissed before they ever reach a jury. The prosecutors who filed them on Trump’s behalf will also be disciplined by the court and likely disbarred in whatever states they’re licensed in (see John Eastman, Ken Chesebro, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Lin Wood)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49340936)

By threatening to throw his son in jail unless he plead guilty?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49341115)

The James case is different. She is unequivocally guilty. So either the jury does the right thing, or they want to feel powerful by rejecting the charges altogether.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49341137)

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5549194-comeys-james-indictments-trump/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5785100&forum_id=2#49344882)