Does Trump ever do any jail time? (1 Viewer)

[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"?

 

[J-DONK]

Well, that leaves two possibilities:

1) George W. Bush was presented with evidence that showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and he decided to lie and say they did so that we could invade their country.

2) George W. Bush was presented with evidence that showed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and he decided to invade their country to prevent them from using them (either as actual weapons, or as threats).

Since 1 seems incredibly unlikely and there has been no evidence shown to support that, I'm going to go with option 2.

This has been analyzed to the upteeth degree. The general conclusion is that intelligence was no where near as sure about any of the claims of the Bush admin. There were conflicting reports about a bunch of this intel. I don't know if that is worthy of war crimes alone, but the torture camps are a slam dunk.

One of Obama's many blunders is how he handled not prosecuting the Bush administration. I read an article around the time of the Kavanaugh hearings that went into his role, and some of his suspected involvement in all of this. How if Obama had prosecuted the Bush administration for it's crimes, Kavanaugh would not be on the court.

 

[DaveXA]

This has been analyzed to the upteeth degree. The general conclusion is that intelligence was no where near as sure about any of the claims of the Bush admin. There were conflicting reports about a bunch of this intel. I don't know if that is worthy of war crimes alone, but the torture camps are a slam dunk.

One of Obama's many blunders is how he handled not prosecuting the Bush administration. I read an article around the time of the Kavanaugh hearings that went into his role, and some of his suspected involvement in all of this. How if Obama had prosecuted the Bush administration for it's crimes, Kavanaugh would not be on the court.

Explain to me why Obama never closed Gitmo? Is that not a torture camp? And the troops that were involved in the Abu Ghraib fiasco were prosecuted.

Just to humor you, here's a short recap of the fallout from related incidents there.

In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and April 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten and three years in prison, respectively. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the commanding officer of all detention facilities in Iraq, was reprimanded and demoted to the rank of colonel. Several more military personnel who were accused of perpetrating or authorizing the measures, including many of higher rank, were not prosecuted.

 

[J-DONK]

Explain to me why Obama never closed Gitmo? Is that not a torture camp? And the troops that were involved in the Abu Ghraib fiasco were prosecuted.

Just to humor you, here's a short recap of the fallout from related incidents there.

Obama tried to close Gitmo actually. It was one of his campaign promises going back to 2008.

Republicans move to oppose closing Gitmo

“Our troops should never have to confront a former Guantanamo detainee.”

thehill.com

 

[Lapaz]

Explain to me why Obama never closed Gitmo? Is that not a torture camp? And the troops that were involved in the Abu Ghraib fiasco were prosecuted.

Just to humor you, here's a short recap of the fallout from related incidents there.

I think Obama thought it would be easier to close Gitmo than it turned out to be, and also learned about some of the benefits of keeping it open. One difficulty was placing all of the inmates, but I don't think they tried as hard as they could to place all of them, since they still had valuable information that might be accessible while they were housed at Gitmo. I'm sure some were being tortured, but it is not a torture camp per se, since I also think many were just imprisoned like they would be anywhere else. I agreed with Obama keeping it open for the worst and most dangerous inmates.

 

[DaveXA]

Obama tried to close Gitmo actually. It was one of his campaign promises going back to 2008.

Republicans move to oppose closing Gitmo

“Our troops should never have to confront a former Guantanamo detainee.”

thehill.com

I don't think he ever made a real effort to close it once he was clued in after he got into office. Fwiw, I don't really have a huge problem in concept. I don't actually blame Presidents for not always keeping their promises for 2 reasons. One, when you become President, things change. I've heard of Presidents coming out of their first full security briefings after taking office visibly shaken. We just don't know what we don't know. Second, some of those promises are out of their hands. Congress can often have a lot to say about whether those promises happen. So that's understandable.

That said, President Obama had 8 years, and there was no appreciable movement on Gitmo, but a think at some point he realized that effort wouldn't help our national security interests.

Tbh, I thought Obama was a solid President. I liked him and even as a Republican (at the time) I would have been happy to work for him.

 

[Lapaz]

I think the pardons free up those that are pardoned to tell everything they know without fear of prosecution. I wonder if Flynn will now honor his pledge to the country by telling all he knows, rather than fealty to Trump?

 

[DaveXA]

I think the pardons free up those that are pardoned to tell everything they know without fear of prosecution. I wonder if Flynn will now honor his pledge to the country by telling all he knows, rather than fealty to Trump?

I'm curious as to what he knows, but rumors are that's he's essentially bankrupt, he'll probably seek a way to monetize this whole mess. Write a book I guess.

Fwiw, anything he writes will have to be vetted before it's published because of his prior clearance. That doesn't go away when you become a citizen.

 

[SFIDC3]

I actually don't. And regardless, it's never been close to proven. If it was, there would have been charges and people paying the price for it. The Iraq war was started based on faulty intelligence where everyone including Colin Powell and Congress believed the evidence was credible enough that even the UN agreed they thought was real.

I can't remember who was responsible for the bad intelligence, but I want to say something got lost between the hard intel on the ground and when it arrived at it's destination at DOD and the White House. I wasn't a fan of Bush or his administration, but this wasn't on him. I don't think he's smart enough to pull something like that off and get away with it.

Cheney and his minions were plenty clever and they had a decent man who was also a useful idiot. I was watching that shirt show were they were presenting evidence of WMD, in my bosses office with a few others, no one thought it was evidence of anything except a really poor dog and pony show....Believe what you want but that was an historically bad moment and decision based on intentionally doctored intel pushed by those who had an agenda...

 

[J-DONK]

I don't think he ever made a real effort to close it once he was clued in after he got into office. Fwiw, I don't really have a huge problem in concept. I don't actually blame Presidents for not always keeping their promises for 2 reasons. One, when you become President, things change. I've heard of Presidents coming out of their first full security briefings after taking office visibly shaken. We just don't know what we don't know. Second, some of those promises are out of their hands. Congress can often have a lot to say about whether those promises happen. So that's understandable.

That said, President Obama had 8 years, and there was no appreciable movement on Gitmo, but a think at some point he realized that effort wouldn't help our national security interests.

Tbh, I thought Obama was a solid President. I liked him and even as a Republican (at the time) I would have been happy to work for him.

You can't really put this on obama. A simple google search of " Obama blocked from closing gitmo" would give you a ton of articles from different years of Republicans obstructing the closure of the base. He never really relented on it like you suggest. Also, we didn't need gitmo before, and we don't now. The amount of prisoners that were released, and returned to the "terrorist" activates was insanely low.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From the post
==============
Should Donald Trump be prosecuted?

The question feels so compelling, the need for an answer so pressing, because Trump’s behavior in office has been so appalling and his disdain for the rule of law so manifest.

But it’s the wrong question, both dangerously premature and sloppily unspecific.

Before anything can happen, appropriate federal and state authorities need to gather the facts about Trump’s behavior, whether as president or before he took office.

Then they need to consider whether prosecution is justified and in the best interests of the country. Everyone should settle down, because that’s going to take some time.

It’s not an easy call. Anyone who believes it to be simple is not grappling with the implications of taking the unprecedented step of lodging criminal charges against a former president.

The United States is not a place, chants notwithstanding, where those in power lock up their political enemies. There is a delicate line between the pursuit of justice and indulging the urge for retribution.

Prosecuting Trump may well be justified, but the consequences of further inflaming an already divided country ought to be sobering.

A decision this momentous needs to be made on the merits and kept as far from politics as possible..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-donald-trump-be-prosecuted-proceed-with-caution/2020/11/25/3274900a-2f4d-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html

 

[insidejob]

From the post
==============
Should Donald Trump be prosecuted?

The question feels so compelling, the need for an answer so pressing, because Trump’s behavior in office has been so appalling and his disdain for the rule of law so manifest.

But it’s the wrong question, both dangerously premature and sloppily unspecific.

Before anything can happen, appropriate federal and state authorities need to gather the facts about Trump’s behavior, whether as president or before he took office.

Then they need to consider whether prosecution is justified and in the best interests of the country. Everyone should settle down, because that’s going to take some time.

It’s not an easy call. Anyone who believes it to be simple is not grappling with the implications of taking the unprecedented step of lodging criminal charges against a former president.

The United States is not a place, chants notwithstanding, where those in power lock up their political enemies. There is a delicate line between the pursuit of justice and indulging the urge for retribution.

Prosecuting Trump may well be justified, but the consequences of further inflaming an already divided country ought to be sobering.

A decision this momentous needs to be made on the merits and kept as far from politics as possible..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-donald-trump-be-prosecuted-proceed-with-caution/2020/11/25/3274900a-2f4d-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html

And not charging him and at least trying to imprison him signals that all he's done is a-ok for future presidents. We can't just pretend that we don't know he's Individual 1 in Cohen's case or that there are indictments in both federal and state courts just waiting for him to become a citizen again for things he did both before in office and while in office for his whole criminal family.

He's unique in this regard. Should someone as uniquely criminal ever get elected president in the future, do we want them knowing that access to POTUS is for sale to the highest bidder?

He made his bed and deserves to lie in it...in prison. If he weren't president, there'd be no question whatsoever as to whether he should be held accountable for what's known to be numerous federal and state charges. Only his cult doesn't think he should be prosecuted.

 

[Richard]

I keep trying to read your post, but your new profile pic is scaring me.

 

[Saintamaniac]

From the post
==============
Should Donald Trump be prosecuted?

The question feels so compelling, the need for an answer so pressing, because Trump’s behavior in office has been so appalling and his disdain for the rule of law so manifest.

But it’s the wrong question, both dangerously premature and sloppily unspecific.

Before anything can happen, appropriate federal and state authorities need to gather the facts about Trump’s behavior, whether as president or before he took office.

Then they need to consider whether prosecution is justified and in the best interests of the country. Everyone should settle down, because that’s going to take some time.

It’s not an easy call. Anyone who believes it to be simple is not grappling with the implications of taking the unprecedented step of lodging criminal charges against a former president.

The United States is not a place, chants notwithstanding, where those in power lock up their political enemies. There is a delicate line between the pursuit of justice and indulging the urge for retribution.

Prosecuting Trump may well be justified, but the consequences of further inflaming an already divided country ought to be sobering.

A decision this momentous needs to be made on the merits and kept as far from politics as possible..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-donald-trump-be-prosecuted-proceed-with-caution/2020/11/25/3274900a-2f4d-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html

Trump once said out loud that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose any votes. He's absolutely right. So at what point would "best interest of the country" play into holding him accountable? So is justice in the US now determined by whether it's in the best interest of the country? Are we saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.....if it's in the best interest of the country? Do we excuse crimes if the person committing the crimes has a large enough following that they threaten social unrest or national security?

I'm asking these question because it seems that they are being answered by the article. So if trump decides he's going the shoot someone, he gets away with it because the people who support him might cause civil unrest and that's not in the best interest of the country. So essentially, everone is equal in the eyes of the law except the president. He's only equal to others if it's in the best interest of the country, otherwise, he gets to commit crime with impunity.

 

[DaveXA]

Trump once said out loud that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose any votes. He's absolutely right. So at what point would "best interest of the country" play into holding him accountable? So is justice in the US now determined by whether it's in the best interest of the country? Are we saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.....if it's in the best interest of the country? Do we excuse crimes if the person committing the crimes has a large enough following that they threaten social unrest or national security?

I'm asking these question because it seems that they are being answered by the article. So if trump decides he's going the shoot someone, he gets away with it because the people who support him might cause civil unrest and that's not in the best interest of the country. So essentially, everone is equal in the eyes of the law except the president. He's only equal to others if it's in the best interest of the country, otherwise, he gets to commit crime with impunity.

Well, I've never believed that of Trump literally shot someone in public that he would get away with it. It was always hyperbolic, and it still is. He'd be immediately arrested, and tried on murder charges and spend the rest of his life in jail. And I actually think he'd lose a lot of votes if he did that.

As for the other crimes, he'd have to be proven guilty, and the type of crime would have to matter. I don't know that Congress should pursue that, but there are other authorities who could potentially make something stick. I guess time will tell whether that happens.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I keep trying to read your post, but your new profile pic is scaring me.

Every time I see the pic for the first second I think it’s buster from arrested development

 

[brandon]

Well, I've never believed that of Trump literally shot someone in public that he would get away with it. It was always hyperbolic, and it still is. He'd be immediately arrested, and tried on murder charges and spend the rest of his life in jail. And I actually think he'd lose a lot of votes if he did that.

As for the other crimes, he'd have to be proven guilty, and the type of crime would have to matter. I don't know that Congress should pursue that, but there are other authorities who could potentially make something stick. I guess time will tell whether that happens.

This all assumes it wouldn’t be spun as self-defense from a scary black guy.

 

[DaveXA]

This all assumes it wouldn’t be spun as self-defense from a scary black guy.

Sure, but that's certainly not what he was suggesting. In Trump's own mind, he thinks there's no limits on people's loyalty. It's classic NPD. Obvious reality is that everyone has their own limits to supporting a given person. Trump has always been prone to hyperbole, that was a good example of it.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Well, I've never believed that of Trump literally shot someone in public that he would get away with it. It was always hyperbolic, and it still is. He'd be immediately arrested, and tried on murder charges and spend the rest of his life in jail. And I actually think he'd lose a lot of votes if he did that.

As for the other crimes, he'd have to be proven guilty, and the type of crime would have to matter. I don't know that Congress should pursue that, but there are other authorities who could potentially make something stick. I guess time will tell whether that happens.

Shooting someone and killing someone are two different things. It's hyperbole until it actually happens. You're entitled to your opinion on it. I base my opinion on it on his followers and enablers, the same followers and enablers who looked the other way during impeachment when they essentially fixed the trial to allow him to walk. If Senators in the face of a mountain of evidence would do what they did, what makes someone think that an everyday trump supporter, some of whom have publicly stated they would die for trump, wouldn't gleefully vote to acquit him in a trial.

After everything trump has said and done, 70 million people still voted for him to be president. I think the case for not losing voters has been more than made.