Does Trump ever do any jail time? (18 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"?

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I hope they're right.

Evidently the judge who presided over this special grand jury came out today and made a statement that she didn’t do anything illegal or even wrong. In fact, under GA law she would have been okay to reveal who was recommended for indictment. The only thing she’s not allowed to discuss are the deliberations themselves.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Evidently the judge who presided over this special grand jury came out today and made a statement that she didn’t do anything illegal or even wrong. In fact, under GA law she would have been okay to reveal who was recommended for indictment. The only thing she’s not allowed to discuss are the deliberations themselves.

ATLANTA (AP) — Almost as soon as the foreperson of the special grand jury in the Georgia election meddling investigation went public this week, speculation began about whether her unusually candid revelations could jeopardize any possible prosecution of former President Donald Trump or others.

Emily Kohrs first spoke out in an interview published Tuesday by The Associated Press, a story that was followed by interviews in other print and television news outlets.

In detailed commentary, she described some of what happened behind the closed doors of the jury room — how witnesses behaved, how prosecutors interacted with them, how some invoked their constitutional right not to answer certain questions.

Lawyers for Trump say the revelations offered by Kohrs shattered the credibility of the entire special grand jury investigation. People hoping to see the former president indicted worried on social media that Kohrs may have tanked a case against the former president.

But experts said that while Kohrs’ chattiness in news interviews probably aggravated Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who’s leading the investigation, they were not legally damaging.

Willis likely “wishes that this woman hadn’t gone on the worldwide tour that she did,” said Amy Lee Copeland, a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Georgia who’s not involved in the case. “But is this a headache that is grinding the machine to a halt? It’s not. It’s just one of the many frustrations that attends the practice of law.”
Trump’s attorneys in Georgia, however, are jumping on the interviews.

Drew Findling and Jennifer Little, who represent Trump in the Fulton County case, said they’ve had concerns about the panel’s proceedings from the start but have kept quiet out of respect for the grand jury process. After Kohrs’interviews, they felt compelled to speak out.

“The end product is, the reliability of anything that has taken place in there is completely tainted and called into question,” Findling said. But he also said he wasn’t attacking “a 30-year-old foreperson.”

“She’s a product of a circus that cloaked itself as a special purpose grand jury,” he said.

Findling and Little hadn’t filed any challenges in the case by Thursday but said they’re “resolute” as to Trump’s innocence and keeping their options open.

“We’re considering everything and anything to look after the interests of our client,” he said………

Trump investigation: Could grand juror's words tank charges?

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers in Georgia are criticizing the Fulton County investigation into potential illegal election meddling after the foreperson of the special grand jury helping the probe went public.

apnews.com

 

[coldseat]

ATLANTA (AP) — Almost as soon as the foreperson of the special grand jury in the Georgia election meddling investigation went public this week, speculation began about whether her unusually candid revelations could jeopardize any possible prosecution of former President Donald Trump or others.

Emily Kohrs first spoke out in an interview published Tuesday by The Associated Press, a story that was followed by interviews in other print and television news outlets.

In detailed commentary, she described some of what happened behind the closed doors of the jury room — how witnesses behaved, how prosecutors interacted with them, how some invoked their constitutional right not to answer certain questions.

Lawyers for Trump say the revelations offered by Kohrs shattered the credibility of the entire special grand jury investigation. People hoping to see the former president indicted worried on social media that Kohrs may have tanked a case against the former president.

But experts said that while Kohrs’ chattiness in news interviews probably aggravated Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who’s leading the investigation, they were not legally damaging.

Willis likely “wishes that this woman hadn’t gone on the worldwide tour that she did,” said Amy Lee Copeland, a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Georgia who’s not involved in the case. “But is this a headache that is grinding the machine to a halt? It’s not. It’s just one of the many frustrations that attends the practice of law.”
Trump’s attorneys in Georgia, however, are jumping on the interviews.

Drew Findling and Jennifer Little, who represent Trump in the Fulton County case, said they’ve had concerns about the panel’s proceedings from the start but have kept quiet out of respect for the grand jury process. After Kohrs’interviews, they felt compelled to speak out.

“The end product is, the reliability of anything that has taken place in there is completely tainted and called into question,” Findling said. But he also said he wasn’t attacking “a 30-year-old foreperson.”

“She’s a product of a circus that cloaked itself as a special purpose grand jury,” he said.

Findling and Little hadn’t filed any challenges in the case by Thursday but said they’re “resolute” as to Trump’s innocence and keeping their options open.

“We’re considering everything and anything to look after the interests of our client,” he said………

Trump investigation: Could grand juror's words tank charges?

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers in Georgia are criticizing the Fulton County investigation into potential illegal election meddling after the foreperson of the special grand jury helping the probe went public.

apnews.com

The overreaction to this forepersons interview is so ridiculous. If Emily Kohrs interview is the reason that's used to either not bring indictments or to dismiss them, then those indictments where never truly going to be brought or heard. She literally said nothing that would affect the case. She had a sly grin during the interview, that's all. OMG!!!

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former President Donald Trump said Saturday that he would not drop out of the 2024 presidential race if he were indicted in any of the federal and state investigations he faces.

“I wouldn’t even think about leaving,” Trump told reporters at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, where attendees named him their favored presidential candidate shortly before he took the stage.

Trump is facing a number of investigations that include several criminal inquiries. Prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, have been probing the effort by Trump and his allies to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results, while the US Department of Justice is investigating the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, as well as Trump’s handling of classified material after he left office.

Trump remains defiant in the face of the ongoing probes and on Saturday argued “they’ve weaponized justice in our country.”.............

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/04/politics/trump-cpac-speech/index.html

 

[Optimus Prime]

“This is not normal,” Donald Trump’s opponents warned as he took office and began enacting his agenda. He gave them so many chances to use the phrase that it became first a cliché and then a sorry joke.

But the warning was not wrong: Trump acclimated Americans to many egregious actions by exposure therapy. What was once novel and frightening became familiar; familiarity bred contempt, but also enough acceptance to let Trump get away with a lot. Ironically, Trump may himself now risk falling victim to the same pattern. The idea that a former president might be indicted for a crime has, through repetition, gone from an unthinkable breach of long-settled norms to something so expected that the actual event may feel like an anticlimax.

Yesterday, The New York Times broke the news that Trump has been invited to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, which is investigating whether he illegally paid hush money to an adult actress to cover up an affair. The $130,000 payment is a matter of fact; Trump denies the affair and any lawbreaking. Such an invitation is almost always a prelude to charges, and it is almost always declined.

Trump responded publicly with a video and a statement in which he hit all the usual notes: witch hunt, Democratic politicians, Hunter Biden, etc. But at this point, Trump seems to be laying the groundwork to defend himself in court, rather than trying to head off every one of the investigations into him.

Each of those probes is moving ahead at speed, and any could produce charges. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg seems to almost be in a race to indict with Fani Willis, the prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, who is investigating attempts by Trump and others to subvert the 2020 election there. (By comparison to the Fulton County probe, the allegations in Manhattan feel awfully pedestrian, but maybe this shows how Trump has normalized behavior once deemed unacceptable.)

Meanwhile, federal Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is looking into potential crimes related to the January 6 insurrection and Trump’s mishandling of documents, is facing a de facto deadline of the next presidential inauguration.

Not that long ago, the idea that a former president could be indicted for a crime was a topic of dread, even for those who believed that charging Trump was justified or even prudent.

“One can easily imagine a losing president resisting the call to leave the White House at least in part because he feared subsequent prosecution, or a winning president prosecuting her opponents over normal political differences,” Paul Rosenzweig wrote in The Atlantic in October 2020. “Indicting one former president risks making a habit of doing so, and reducing America to little more than a revolving-door banana republic.” (This was prophetic; Trump lost, tried to resist leaving, and is now threatened with prosecution.)

Although Rosenzweig recommended investigating Trump for crimes committed only before or after his presidency, others came to different conclusions. Even some strident Trump critics felt that any attempt to prosecute was too fraught to consider, while others felt the rule of law demanded comprehensive investigations and charges if justified, no matter when any crimes occurred...................

Trump Gets a Taste of His Own Medicine

 

[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

The tape of Donald Trump boasting about sexual aggression towards women that detonated late in the 2016 election campaign but did not prevent him from winning the presidency will be permitted at a forthcoming civil trial in New York.

A federal judge ruled on Friday that the columnist E Jean Carroll can use the 2005 remarks by Trump, caught on tape in conversation with an Access Hollywood TV show personality, in support of her lawsuit accusing Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s……

Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape can be used in civil rape trial, judge rules

E Jean Carroll can use tape of former president boasting of touching women’s genitals without consent in New York trial

www.theguardian.com

 

[J-DONK]

Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely (Published 2023)

The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.

www.nytimes.com

The prosecutors offered Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, the people said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.

 

[FullMonte]

Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely (Published 2023)

The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.

www.nytimes.com

Apparently, just for clarification, NY law REQUIRES prosecutors to make this type of invitation to anyone they consider a potential defendant.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

I am a bit skeptical of this NY state indictment, but I suppose we shall see soon.

This is the one that I hope nails Trump’s crusty hide to the wall - the DOJ cases:

He Helps Trump Navigate Legal Peril While Under Scrutiny Himself

Boris Epshteyn is the latest aide to take on the role of slashing defender of the former president, even as the Justice Department seeks information about him in the Jan. 6 and documents inquiries.

www.nytimes.com

He Helps Trump Navigate Legal Peril While Under Scrutiny Himself

 

[MT15]

There’s a GA tape that we haven’t heard yet:

 

[coldseat]

I am a bit skeptical of this NY state indictment, but I suppose we shall see soon.

I'm honestly skeptical of all of the prosecutions of Trump. With every day that passes, it feels like we won't get any charges against Trump. It shouldn't take 2 years + to bring charges against Trump for the crap he's clearly guilty of. It kind of feels like these prosecutors are just grandstanding and stringing us along.

I'm at 60/40 on them not charging Trump with anything.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm honestly skeptical of all of the prosecutions of Trump. With every day that passes, it feels like we won't get any charges against Trump. It shouldn't take 2 years + to bring charges against Trump for the crap he's clearly guilty of. It kind of feels like these prosecutors are just grandstanding and stringing us along.

I'm at 60/40 on them not charging Trump with anything.

Yeah, if you're a prosecutor/judge, are you gonna risk/stake your career on off chance of losing a case against Trump? That's a tough one. As much as I hate Trump, our legal system is failing us.

 

[killa]

Does Trump ever do any jail time?​

For what? What’s he been convicted of that demands jail time? I would think slo Joe would be convicted first.

 

[efil4]

Does Trump ever do any jail time?​

For what? What’s he been convicted of that demands jail time? I would think slo Joe would be convicted first.

oh im gonna hate myself for this...


You mean " what has he been accused of that demands jail time".


a lot.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Does Trump ever do any jail time?​

For what? What’s he been convicted of that demands jail time? I would think slo Joe would be convicted first.

Oh, I see you are brand new here. Reach out to @Farb and @SaintForLife for advice on sticking around. Support your claims with facts and/or sound reasoning and you should have no problems here.

 

[killa]

oh im gonna hate myself for this...


You mean " what has he been accused of that demands jail time".


a lot.

Accused? You can accuse anyone anytime. I mentioned the word “convicted” did I not?

 

[killa]

Oh, I see you are brand new here. Reach out to @Farb and @SaintForLife for advice on sticking around. Support your claims with facts and/or sound reasoning and you should have no problems here.

Been on many a political forum. Been kicked off some. Left some. Not my first rodeo.