Does Trump ever do any jail time? (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Everything I've seen and heard says that the split second Donald Trump is no longer president there will be flood of charges waiting for him

And if he resigns and Pence pardons him there are a ton of state charges as an understudy waiting in the wings if the fed charges can't perform

What do you think the likelihood of there being a jail sentence?

In every movie and TV show I've ever seen, in every political thriller I've ever read about a criminal and corrupt president there is ALWAYS some version of;

"We can't do that to the country",

"A trial would tear the country apart",

"For the nation to heal we need to move on" etc.

Would life imitate art?

Even with the charges, even with the proof the charges are true will the powers that be decide, "we can't do that to the country"?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

one or more.

So now need list of who testified ....i distinctly remember Lindsey Graham. Who else? ( not saying he committed perjury - just thinking of major Rs who testified )

I believe Rudy testified as well. On the state side, the governor, secretary of state, and his top assistant all testified.

I believe they spoke to a few of the "alternate electors," especially those they had on camera going into the county election office and tampered with those ballot machines.

 

[SFIDC3]

The prospect of that a-hole Lindsey Graham going to prison is almost as glorious as his grand leader doing the same....almost.....

 

[Optimus Prime]

so in typical Trump fashion the only one facing any consequences for the things he's done are the people around him (saying/doing things for his benefit)

Billy Bush on the 'grab 'em by the Pursey' bus - "Trump said the thing, all i did was laugh at the thing - I get fired and my career is ruined and he gets elected president"

Michael Cohen - Crimes committed on behalf (and direction of) of individual A (guess who Individual A is)

His CFO - claims he embezzled millions from Trump but kept his job

100s of people sentenced for Jan 6th

Who knows how many more and now those who testified and lied in this case

 

[efil4]

so in typical Trump fashion the only people facing any consequences are the people around him (saying/doing thing for his benefit)

Billy Bush on the 'grab 'em by the Pursey' bus - "Trump said the thing, all i did was laugh at the thing - I get fired and he gets elected president"

Michael Cohen - Crimes committed on behalf of individual A

His CFO - claims he embezzled millions from Trump but kept his job

100s of people sentenced for Jan 6th

Who knows how many more and now those who testified and lied in this case

penultimate con man.

There really hasnt been and possibly wont be anyone as prolific a con man ever again.

And, i keep repeating this, NO ONE wants to admit they were conned. So they find different ways to rationalize ( in this case ) - " its a political witch hunt" or " im being targeted for my beliefs" - but NEVER admitting to the con as that would put their own judgement/intelligence in question.

The beauty of the con.

 

[coldseat]

penultimate con man.

There really hasnt been and possibly wont be anyone as prolific a con man ever again.

And, i keep repeating this, NO ONE wants to admit they were conned. So they find different ways to rationalize ( in this case ) - " its a political witch hunt" or " im being targeted for my beliefs" - but NEVER admitting to the con as that would put their own judgement/intelligence in question.

The beauty of the con.

That ship has long ago sailed in regards to Trump and it's not coming back.

I'm not convinced that they care about their own judgement or intelligence. The majority of Trump supporters publicly celebrate how stupid and debased they are/appear.

 

[superchuck500]

penultimate con man.

There really hasnt been and possibly wont be anyone as prolific a con man ever again.

 

[superchuck500]

Pence on the subpoena. Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about - the court has already ruled on executive privilege in this specific case and found that it doesn't apply (for two reasons - one is that the privilege has limits and criminal prosecution is one of them per the SCOTUS in Nixon and two, the executive privilege doesn't apply to executive branch activities and this DOJ investigation is an executive branch activity as was recently discussed in the 11th Circuit's ruling the Mar-a-Lago warrant case).

He also fails to recognize the silliness of claiming both executive and legislative privilege at the same time.

 

[MT15]

He’s an unAmerican punk is what he is.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If we can allow rap lyrics in murder trials as admission of guilt why not the pursey tape?
=================


Attorneys for Donald Trump want to ban from his upcoming civil rape trial the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the former president boasts graphically about how celebrities can molest women.

Trump attorneys Alina Habba and Michael Madaio filed papers in Manhattan federal court late Thursday seeking to block references to the 2005 taped encounter and the tape itself from an April trial stemming from the claims of longtime advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

They called the tape “irrelevant and highly prejudicial” and said it might unjustly be used to suggest to jurors that Trump had a propensity for sexual assault and therefore must have raped Carroll. They also asked to prevent testimony from two women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct and to ban references to his campaign speeches.

Carroll, 79, sued Trump in November after New York state temporarily changed laws to allow adult rape victims to sue their abusers, even if the attacks occurred decades ago. A trial is set for April 24, and Trump and Carroll are both expected to testify……..

Trump lawyers try to ban 'Access Hollywood' tape from trial

Attorneys for Donald Trump want to ban from his upcoming civil rape trial the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the former president boasts graphically about how celebrities can molest women

www.independent.co.uk

 

[MT15]

So, a tape in which Trump brags about committing sexual assault “might suggest” to jurors that Trump has a propensity for sexual assault? I think the court should be forced to play that tape for the jurors. It shows them who he is.

 

[Optimus Prime]

this was an interesting article
=====================
ATLANTA (AP) — They were led down a staircase into a garage beneath a downtown Atlanta courthouse, where officers with big guns were waiting. From there, they were ushered into vans with heavily tinted windows and driven to their cars under police escort.

For Emily Kohrs, these were the moments last May when she realized she wasn’t participating in just any grand jury.

“That was the first indication that this was a big freaking deal,” Kohrs told The Associated Press.

The 30-year-old Fulton County resident who was between jobs suddenly found herself at the center of one of the nation’s most significant legal proceedings. She would become foreperson of the special grand jury selected to investigate whether then-President Donald Trump and his Republican associates illegally meddled in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. The case has emerged as one of Trump’s most glaring legal vulnerabilities as he mounts a third presidential campaign, in part because he was recorded asking state election officials to “find 11,780 votes” for him.

For the next eight months, Kohrs and her fellow jurors would hear testimony from 75 witnesses, ranging from some of Trump’s most prominent allies to local election workers. Portions of the panel’s final report released last Thursday said jurors believed that “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and urged local prosecutors to bring charges. The report’s recommendations for charges on other issues, including potential attempts to influence the election, remain secret for now.

The AP identified Kohrs after her name was included on subpoenas obtained through open records requests. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney advised Kohrs and other jurors on what they could and could not share publicly, including in interviews with the news media.

During a lengthy recent interview, Kohrs complied with the judge’s instructions not to discuss details related to the jury’s deliberations. She also declined to talk about unpublished portions of the panel’s final report.

But her general characterizations provided unusual insight into a process that is typically cloaked in secrecy.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was on the receiving end of Trump’s pressure campaign, was “a really geeky kind of funny,” she said. State House Speaker David Ralston, who died in November, was hilarious and had the room in stitches. And Gov. Brian Kemp, who succeeded in delaying his appearance until after his reelection in November, seemed unhappy to be there.

Kohrs was fascinated by an explainer on Georgia’s voting machines offered by a former Dominion Voting Systems executive. She also enjoyed learning about the inner workings of the White House from Cassidy Hutchinson, who Kohrs said was much more forthcoming than her old boss, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Kohrs sketched witnesses in her notebook as they spoke and was tickled when Bobby Christine, the former U.S. attorney for Georgia’s Southern District, complimented her “remarkable talent.” When the jurors’ notes were taken for shredding after their work was done, she managed to salvage two sketches — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence — because there were no notes on those pages.

After Graham tried so hard to avoid testifying — taking his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Kohrs was surprised when he politely answered questions and even joked with jurors.

Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was funny and invoked privilege to avoid answering many questions but “genuinely seemed to consider” whether it was merited before declining to answer, she said..................

Inside the Trump grand jury that probed election meddling

Emily Kohrs was between jobs when she suddenly found herself at the center of one of the nation’s most significant legal proceedings.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Pence on the subpoena. Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about - the court has already ruled on executive privilege in this specific case and found that it doesn't apply (for two reasons - one is that the privilege has limits and criminal prosecution is one of them per the SCOTUS in Nixon and two, the executive privilege doesn't apply to executive branch activities and this DOJ investigation is an executive branch activity as was recently discussed in the 11th Circuit's ruling the Mar-a-Lago warrant case).

He also fails to recognize the silliness of claiming both executive and legislative privilege at the same time.

Mike Pence is expected to fight his grand jury subpoena as part of the January 6 criminal investigation with the “speech or debate” protection – a move that could prevent the special counsel from obtaining his testimony about key conversations with Donald Trump and members of Congress.

The special counsel overseeing the Trump investigations recently issued a subpoena to Pence – a key witness with unique insight into a number of conversations with the former president and the efforts to stop the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Pence spoke to Trump one-on-one on 6 January 2021, when Trump was imploring him to unlawfully reject electoral college votes for Biden at the joint session of Congress, and was at a December 2021 meeting at the White House with Republican lawmakers who discussed objections to Biden’s win.

The two interactions are of particular investigative interest to the special counsel Jack Smith as his office examines whether Trump sought to unlawfully obstruct the certificationand defrauded the United States in seeking to overturn the 2020 election results.

Pence is not expected to ignore the grand jury subpoena, in recognition that some of the special counsel’s questions might pertain to issues beyond his role as presiding officer on 6 January – a role the vice-president assumes when certifying a presidential election – such as deliberations on election night, according to people familiar with the matter.

But Pence would invoke the speech or debate clause – the constitutional provision that protects congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work – for testimony about his preparations for the day with Trump and members of Congress that the special counsel might not otherwise be able to obtain.

The issue for the special counsel is broadly whether the presiding officer at the joint session is protected by the clause, and if so, the extent of the protection for Pence in his preparations for assuming that role.

“The crux of it is whether they’re going to treat him as a senator or representative – whether he is covered by the text,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“But if you get past the threshold question, the historical distinction between legislative and political functions seems to put Pence’s behaviour on the legislative side of the line,” Vladeck said, adding that the clause would “probably” be absolute for any deliberations Pence had about preparing for the joint session……..

Mike Pence effort to block January 6 testimony could succeed, experts say

Constitutional provision could prevent special counsel from obtaining information about conversations with Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

this was an interesting article
=====================
ATLANTA (AP) — They were led down a staircase into a garage beneath a downtown Atlanta courthouse, where officers with big guns were waiting. From there, they were ushered into vans with heavily tinted windows and driven to their cars under police escort.

For Emily Kohrs, these were the moments last May when she realized she wasn’t participating in just any grand jury.

“That was the first indication that this was a big freaking deal,” Kohrs told The Associated Press.

The 30-year-old Fulton County resident who was between jobs suddenly found herself at the center of one of the nation’s most significant legal proceedings. She would become foreperson of the special grand jury selected to investigate whether then-President Donald Trump and his Republican associates illegally meddled in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. The case has emerged as one of Trump’s most glaring legal vulnerabilities as he mounts a third presidential campaign, in part because he was recorded asking state election officials to “find 11,780 votes” for him.

For the next eight months, Kohrs and her fellow jurors would hear testimony from 75 witnesses, ranging from some of Trump’s most prominent allies to local election workers. Portions of the panel’s final report released last Thursday said jurors believed that “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and urged local prosecutors to bring charges. The report’s recommendations for charges on other issues, including potential attempts to influence the election, remain secret for now.

The AP identified Kohrs after her name was included on subpoenas obtained through open records requests. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney advised Kohrs and other jurors on what they could and could not share publicly, including in interviews with the news media.

During a lengthy recent interview, Kohrs complied with the judge’s instructions not to discuss details related to the jury’s deliberations. She also declined to talk about unpublished portions of the panel’s final report.

But her general characterizations provided unusual insight into a process that is typically cloaked in secrecy.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was on the receiving end of Trump’s pressure campaign, was “a really geeky kind of funny,” she said. State House Speaker David Ralston, who died in November, was hilarious and had the room in stitches. And Gov. Brian Kemp, who succeeded in delaying his appearance until after his reelection in November, seemed unhappy to be there.

Kohrs was fascinated by an explainer on Georgia’s voting machines offered by a former Dominion Voting Systems executive. She also enjoyed learning about the inner workings of the White House from Cassidy Hutchinson, who Kohrs said was much more forthcoming than her old boss, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Kohrs sketched witnesses in her notebook as they spoke and was tickled when Bobby Christine, the former U.S. attorney for Georgia’s Southern District, complimented her “remarkable talent.” When the jurors’ notes were taken for shredding after their work was done, she managed to salvage two sketches — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence — because there were no notes on those pages.

After Graham tried so hard to avoid testifying — taking his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Kohrs was surprised when he politely answered questions and even joked with jurors.

Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was funny and invoked privilege to avoid answering many questions but “genuinely seemed to consider” whether it was merited before declining to answer, she said..................

Inside the Trump grand jury that probed election meddling

Emily Kohrs was between jobs when she suddenly found herself at the center of one of the nation’s most significant legal proceedings.

apnews.com

article about the juror
==================
As an American citizen, I am gratified to hear that a Georgia special grand jury has recommended indictments against more than a dozen people for election fraud. But as a former prosecutor, I am mortified that a grand juror is talking about it publicly.

On Tuesday, Emily Kohrs, the foreperson of the special grand jury in Fulton County, went on a media tour of sorts, giving interviews to NBC News, The New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other news outlets, and she is apparently enjoying her moment in the spotlight. She revealed the names of witnesses who testified; Rudy Giuliani left her star-struck; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was “personable”; former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows “shared very little.” She told us that some witnesses were immunized. She confirmed that the jurors had listened to a recording of former President Donald Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and had discussed the slate of alternate electors.

Although she did not reveal the names of any of the people the grand jury recommended indictments for, when she was asked whether Trump was one of them, she replied: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.” Yikes.

Even more alarming were some of the things Kohrs said about her own experience. She said she swore in one witness while holding a Ninja Turtle ice pop she had received at the district attorney’s office ice cream party. A what?! Why on Earth would grand jurors be socializing with the prosecutors? A grand jury is an independent body, and prosecutors are trained to maintain a professional distance and avoid engaging in interactions that could be perceived as influencing their decisions.

Kohrs also revealed some other concerning facts. She reported that when witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment right to refrain from answering questions on the basis that their answers might incriminate them, she could hear all of the other grand jurors writing furiously. This could indicate that jurors were improperly holding the assertion of a constitutional right against witnesses. She said another member of the grand jury brought a newspaper into the room every day and pointed out stories about their investigation, though she herself avoided news coverage to maintain an open mind.

I can only imagine the skyrocketing blood pressure of District Attorney Fani Willis, who, unlike the special grand jury, actually has the power to bring indictments and who has said her decision is “imminent.” A blabbing grand jury threatens to upend the whole enterprise. At some point, impropriety by a grand jury could be grounds for a claim of violation of the due process rights of the accused. And a successful claim could butt area anything that occurred afterward, requiring dismissal of any indictments and a complete do-over, so long as the statute of limitations has not yet run.

This remains an unlikely scenario but one that should not be risked, especially when the stakes are so high. Already we are hearing rumblings from unhappy GOP witnesses — and their lawyers...........

We may rue the day we learned special grand jury foreperson Emily Kohrs' name

 

[MT15]

She seemed very naive to me, and not all that bright. But very well-meaning and she evidently followed the instructions that were given to the grand jury. She followed GA law. So, , who cares?

 

[DaveXA]

She seemed very naive to me, and not all that bright. But very well-meaning and she evidently followed the instructions that were given to the grand jury. She followed GA law. So, , who cares?

I care in that I wouldn't want her comments to harm the integrity of the grand jury and/or the case. Even if well meaning, it's just a bad idea imo. Just because the law says you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[FullMonte]

Pence on the subpoena. Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about - the court has already ruled on executive privilege in this specific case and found that it doesn't apply (for two reasons - one is that the privilege has limits and criminal prosecution is one of them per the SCOTUS in Nixon and two, the executive privilege doesn't apply to executive branch activities and this DOJ investigation is an executive branch activity as was recently discussed in the 11th Circuit's ruling the Mar-a-Lago warrant case).

He also fails to recognize the silliness of claiming both executive and legislative privilege at the same time.

I don't think it's all that silly. It's rational for him to claim executive privilege with regards to his conversations with the president (I'm not saying that it would hold up) and to also claim legislative privilege with regards to his conversations with members of congress.

 

[MT15]

I care in that I wouldn't want her comments to harm the integrity of the grand jury and/or the case. Even if well meaning, it's just a bad idea imo. Just because the law says you can doesn't mean you should.

Agreed, but from what I am reading from lawyer types it won’t have any effect on indictments.

 

[DaveXA]

Agreed, but from what I am reading from lawyer types it won’t have any effect on indictments.

Yeah, I hope they're right.