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

samiam5211 said:

I'm hoping that they gave Trump a deadline of 12/15 to turn himself in or be arrested, and his "Big Announcement" was just something to make it look like they arrested him to stop him from revealing JFK Jr. is his running mate.

Click to expand...

What a clown this guy is

Former President Donald Trump unveiled Thursday a “limited edition collection” of NFT trading cards featuring cartoon-like images of himself depicted as a superhero, Hollywood actor and more, after teasing a “major announcement” on his Truth Social account.

Click to expand...

superchuck500 said:

What a clown this guy is

Trump’s ‘Major Announcement’ Was To Hawk His $99 NFTs

Trump is also running a sweepstakes competition to win a dinner, golf outing or Zoom meeting with him, among other prizes.

www.forbes.com

Click to expand...

yea, getting arrested would have been much better for his reputation than what he did to himself today.

superchuck500 said:

What a clown this guy is

Trump’s ‘Major Announcement’ Was To Hawk His $99 NFTs

Trump is also running a sweepstakes competition to win a dinner, golf outing or Zoom meeting with him, among other prizes.

www.forbes.com

Click to expand...

After more than a year of digging through evidence to understand what happened on one of the darkest days in American history, the House January 6 committee has issued its findings: Former President Donald Trump aided an insurrection and should be charged with multiple felonies.

That conclusion is extraordinary, unprecedented and wholly necessary exactly two years after Trump sent a late-night tweet to his supporters to come to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, promising that it “will be wild!”

The question, though, is what the Department of Justice will do, and what the consequences of that decision may be. Indicting Trump would be incredibly controversial and would no doubt enrage many. And there are risks, too, of fueling the perception that Democrats are using the DOJ to go after political opponents. If it were simply about partisan revenge, such a prosecution would be disgusting and egregious.

But the committee’s findings are about a shocking attack on American democracy, one with which the nation has not fully reckoned. How strong are our democratic institutions if those who attempt to level them can simply walk away without being held accountable? Can a democracy thrive if attempts to topple it are simply washed away?..........

Optimus Prime said:

After more than a year of digging through evidence to understand what happened on one of the darkest days in American history, the House January 6 committee has issued its findings: Former President Donald Trump aided an insurrection and should be charged with multiple felonies.

That conclusion is extraordinary, unprecedented and wholly necessary exactly two years after Trump sent a late-night tweet to his supporters to come to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, promising that it “will be wild!”

The question, though, is what the Department of Justice will do, and what the consequences of that decision may be. Indicting Trump would be incredibly controversial and would no doubt enrage many. And there are risks, too, of fueling the perception that Democrats are using the DOJ to go after political opponents. If it were simply about partisan revenge, such a prosecution would be disgusting and egregious.

But the committee’s findings are about a shocking attack on American democracy, one with which the nation has not fully reckoned. How strong are our democratic institutions if those who attempt to level them can simply walk away without being held accountable? Can a democracy thrive if attempts to topple it are simply washed away?..........

MSN

www.msn.com

Click to expand...

I think they do need to push on with the conspiracy charges - and the focus needs to be not on the things trump said (in speeches and tweets) but the things he actually did or refused to do, that’s where the criminal activity was. The speeches were likely protected first amendment activity, but when you add “overt acts”, it gets much more bite from the prosecution. They have to present it based on actions.

Most of his NFT images were lifted directly from copyrighted sources and I hadn’t thought of the money-laundering angle.

superchuck500 said:

I think they do need to push on with the conspiracy charges - and the focus needs to be not on the things trump said (in speeches and tweets) but the things he actually did or refused to do, that’s where the criminal activity was. The speeches were likely protected first amendment activity, but when you add “overt acts”, it gets much more bite from the prosecution. They have to present it based on actions.

Click to expand...

Or negligent actions? I.e. not addressing the rioting crowd to get them to disperse or stop damaging the Capitol.

DaveXA said:

Or negligent actions? I.e. not addressing the rioting crowd to get them to disperse or stop damaging the Capitol.

Click to expand...

I don’t think negligence is an element of any of these relevant charges. You can’t negligently conspire against the US government, or negligently support sedition.

superchuck500 said:

I don’t think negligence is an element of any of these relevant charges. You can’t negligently conspire against the US government, or negligently support sedition.

Click to expand...

But can you actively support sedition by willfully refusing to act?

Like a bank guard who's in cahoots with the robbers.

"Ok, while Pete cracks the safe, what do you do, Joe?"
"I don't hit the silent alarm."
"Right. And after we get in the van?"
"I wait four hours before calling the cops."

So, the House is going to make Trump‘s taxes public. Seems fair, since he campaigned in 2016 on a promise to make them public and then welched on that promise once he won.

MT15 said:

So, the House is going to make Trump‘s taxes public. Seems fair, since he campaigned in 2016 on a promise to make them public and then welched on that promise once he won.

Click to expand...

And this is after the White House announced publicly that he was being audited due to the said program. CNN just reported that the IRS only started an audit AFTER the Ways and Means Committee requested that taxes.

superchuck500 said:

I don’t think negligence is an element of any of these relevant charges. You can’t negligently conspire against the US government, or negligently support sedition.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't use the right word. I'm thinking of the comment Meadows made where he stated Trump said he thought Pence was getting what he deserved. Trump didn't respond and arguably allowed those actions against the Capitol to happen. It seems to me he's criminally liable.

MT15 said:

So, the House is going to make Trump‘s taxes public. Seems fair, since he campaigned in 2016 on a promise to make them public and then welched on that promise once he won.

Click to expand...

So that’s a hell of an angle they’re taking - basically they have to be released because the public interest that was supposed met by the required audit didn’t happen.

DaveXA said:

I guess I didn't use the right word. I'm thinking of the comment Meadows made where he stated Trump said he thought Pence was getting what he deserved. Trump didn't respond and arguably allowed those actions against the Capitol to happen. It seems to me he's criminally liable.

Click to expand...

Unless they were literally under direct control (they were not) he can’t really be criminally responsible for what they did at the Capitol when he was sitting in the White House.

But he can be guilty of conspiracy to accomplish a crime if he took overt acts toward their fruition.

superchuck500 said:

So that’s a hell of an angle they’re taking - basically they have to be released because the public interest that was supposed met by the required audit didn’t happen.

Click to expand...

yeah, I don’t care what their angle is. The man ran on a promise and a pledge to release them, and then said no. He deserves this as much as anyone ever has. Plus, they’re going to redact a bunch of stuff. It’s already worth it to discover how badly the IRS fumbled their duty.

If I donate more than $200 in cash I have to have receipts and proof. He was allowed to claim he donated tens of millions of dollars in cash and not show proof? That’s ridiculous.

MT15 said:

yeah, I don’t care what their angle is. The man ran on a promise and a pledge to release them, and then said no. He deserves this as much as anyone ever has. Plus, they’re going to redact a bunch of stuff. It’s already worth it to discover how badly the IRS fumbled their duty.

If I donate more than $200 in cash I have to have receipts and proof. He was allowed to claim he donated tens of millions of dollars in cash and not show proof? That’s ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Yep - and just to be clear I meant that the angle was strong, a good justification.

I love how the right is losing their minds right now. "all politicians should have to release thier taxes!! and the justices too!!!
Thats the difference in the right and left. You won't find many on the left who would disagree with that. But, the right has the most to lose in that, because they run on the "responsible conservative" angle that will be proven a lie quickly..

Bigdaddysaints said:

I love how the right is losing their minds right now. "all politicians should have to release thier taxes!! and the justices too!!!
Thats the difference in the right and left. You won't find many on the left who would disagree with that. But, the right has the most to lose in that, because they run on the "responsible conservative" angle that will be proven a lie quickly..

Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. Who would have a problem with releasing their taxes if they were running for office? Only someone with something to hide from their supporters. It almost seems like a huge bluff. When democrats have no problem with it, you will see a huge swath of republicans fold and quickly change their tune.

Members of the Jan. 6 committee have said that Donald Trump should never again hold public office in light of his role in inciting an insurrection, and the committee has referred the former president to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

But putting Trump in jail, even if this happens before the next election, will not keep him from seizing power. He can still run for president, even if he is in jail. In 1920, socialist Eugene Debs ran for president after being imprisoned for espionage and sedition, winning over 900,000 votes.

Also, nothing prevents Trump from acting as president from behind bars should he capture the presidency. The Supreme Court that he helped shape might even find a legal basis to release him so he can better perform his presidential duties.

While indictment and even conviction cannot keep Trump off the ballot, Congress can bar him from running by voting to exclude him from office under the 14th Amendment. The Jan. 6 committee’s report accuses Trump of inciting an insurrection.

The language of the statute the committee cites as a basis for indictment for insurrection comes from a provision of the 14th Amendment that bars a former officeholder from seeking office again. That statute not only criminalizes inciting an insurrection but also criminalizes giving “aid or comfort” to insurrectionists, which many believe Trump did and continues to do................