Does Trump ever do any jail time? (3 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"?

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's technically protected yes, but if the SS thinks you're serious and a legitimate threat, they will do their thing whether it's a sitting or former President. It's been a minute since I last read on it, but I believe they use the same criteria in terms of threat assessment for both current and former Presidents.

Interesting.

A "double standard" for presidents.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If Trump is convicted, it will be because a jury unanimously found that he committed those crimes he is accused of committing. Being the “frontrunner” or the nominee means nothing. Unless you want to allow a front runner or nominee to be above the law and have the right to commit crimes.

Not at all. Front runners can be held accountable first by the voters and then by the courts, so they are even more accountable that ordinary Schmoes, as they should be.

 

[MT15]

Not at all. Front runners can be held accountable first by the voters and then by the courts, so they are even more accountable that ordinary Schmoes, as they should be.

BS. That is just a way to do an end run around the rule of law. Which you evidently don’t really believe in when it suits your biases.

 

[Snarky Sack]

BS. That is just a way to do an end run around the rule of law. Which you evidently don’t really believe in when it suits your biases.

That "end run" you speak of will happen whether I like it or not.

There is no way that the DOJ can push fast enough to have the trial over with before the election. It took them about ten months from the raid to the indictment, and they had all the physical evidence they will ever have. Unlikely that they will even start the trial during the election. If they do, Team Trump can and will present their case as slowly and with as much detail as they can so that it does go past the election.

It would be interesting to see whether Trump attends the trial or campaigns. I'd bet on campaign, but that is more a guess than prediction.

Trump either wins or loses the election.

If he loses, the DOJ has clear sailing to present their case to the Trump supporters who will make up a large part of any Florida jury.

If he wins, we will see some interesting history in the making.

 

[MT15]

I don’t agree with your assessment about the trial. I think it happens before the election. For the reasons you have enumerated.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don’t agree with your assessment about the trial. I think it happens before the election. For the reasons you have enumerated.

They will want rush it because of the upcoming election? I think that is true of the DOJ. They have shown an incredible amount of optimism in their seven years effort to get Trump. They likely think their case is winnable, as they did the others.

As I say above in my edited post, they had all the physical evidence they will ever have. But they may have interviewed dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. If - if - the standard is that Team Trump gets the same amount of time that the DOJ got to look at the evidence and interview those witness, that is ten months. That would put the earliest date for completing discovery at April, well into primary season.

That is best case scenario for finishing discovery. There is no requirement that the defense take only as much time as the prosecution did. I don't believe that discovery has started, because it is awaiting security clearances for Trump's lawyers. Once it starts, there will be heavy negotiations, with accusations from both sides of either withholding evidence or asking for evidence not needed or allowed. Judge Cannon will have to rule and many of her rulings will likely be appealed by one side or another.

That's just one pre-trial procedure. There will be plea negotiations, jury selections and a myriad of pre-trial motions to be filed, ruled on, and in many cases, appealed.

I wonder if that is the DOJ's goal, or if they filed the charges knowing that would likely happen. If the election takes place in the middle of the trial, and Trump pardons himself, in the media narrative, the DOJ will be the heroes who had Trump cornered but he cheated his way out of it.

If Trump loses the election, I predict the wind will go out of the DOJ's sails, having accomplished their purpose.

 

[DaveXA]

Interesting.

A "double standard" for presidents.

How did you get that from what you quoted?

 

[Snarky Sack]

How did you get that from what you quoted?

I should have said a double standard for presidents and former presidents.

People on this forum could joke about killing me, or even say seriously that they would like to kill me, and the SS would not pay them a visit. That's the double standard.

I'm not saying that the double standard is wrong. For the sake of the country, presidents, former presidents, especially serious candidates for president, are treated differently.

 

[DaveXA]

I should have said a double standard for presidents and former presidents.

People on this forum could joke about killing me, or even say seriously that they would like to kill me, and the SS would not pay them a visit. That's the double standard.

I'm not saying that the double standard is wrong. For the sake of the country, presidents, former presidents, especially serious candidates for president, are treated differently.

Of course they are, but you're comparing apples and peanuts. They're hardly the same thing. It's not a double standard. What would be a double standard would be one President being treated differently than another President. And a slightly different set of rules for say the Speaker of the House. That's not a double standard, but rather appropriate rules for appropriate positions in government.

 

[FullMonte]

Not at all. Front runners can be held accountable first by the voters and then by the courts, so they are even more accountable that ordinary Schmoes, as they should be.

How are front runners to be held accountable to the voters, unless the voters are given the evidence against them? That means that in order for the voters to hold them accountable for alleged crimes, prosecutors would have to publicly present all of the evidence of crimes that the candidate is accused of committing. I'm suer we would all agree that allowing prosecutors to publicly present evidence of crimes without a defense would not be a good idea....which means that the candidate should be allowed to present a defense to that evidence. Therefore, if the prosecutors are going to present their evidence, and the candidate will be allowed to present a defense, we would essentially be holding a trial. So, why not have that trial in the courts, following the rules of the courts?

As someone else has hinted at elsewhere...if a front running candidate were to pull out a weapon and murder one of their opponents during a debate, should that candidate be arrested and charged with that murder? Or should the fact that he is a front running candidate mean that we should wait until after the election before arresting and charging them if they do not win the election?

 

[MT15]

Interesting: Barr now thinks the DOJ will indict Trump on the Jan 6 case this summer.

 

[MT15]

They will want rush it because of the upcoming election? I think that is true of the DOJ. They have shown an incredible amount of optimism in their seven years effort to get Trump. They likely think their case is winnable, as they did the others.

As I say above in my edited post, they had all the physical evidence they will ever have. But they may have interviewed dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. If - if - the standard is that Team Trump gets the same amount of time that the DOJ got to look at the evidence and interview those witness, that is ten months. That would put the earliest date for completing discovery at April, well into primary season.

That is best case scenario for finishing discovery. There is no requirement that the defense take only as much time as the prosecution did. I don't believe that discovery has started, because it is awaiting security clearances for Trump's lawyers. Once it starts, there will be heavy negotiations, with accusations from both sides of either withholding evidence or asking for evidence not needed or allowed. Judge Cannon will have to rule and many of her rulings will likely be appealed by one side or another.

That's just one pre-trial procedure. There will be plea negotiations, jury selections and a myriad of pre-trial motions to be filed, ruled on, and in many cases, appealed.

I wonder if that is the DOJ's goal, or if they filed the charges knowing that would likely happen. If the election takes place in the middle of the trial, and Trump pardons himself, in the media narrative, the DOJ will be the heroes who had Trump cornered but he cheated his way out of it.

If Trump loses the election, I predict the wind will go out of the DOJ's sails, having accomplished their purpose.

They are still discovering evidence all along. And Smith is taking pains to ward off possible reasons for delay, and it seems the Judge is on board. I believe this case goes to trial much much sooner than you think.

 

[Snarky Sack]

How are front runners to be held accountable to the voters, unless the voters are given the evidence against them?

Great question! Thank you!

Let the DOJ/FBI bring their evidence publicly to the voter's representatives in Congress, to be examined and cross examined by what is a near even split in the House and a near even split in the Senate with Dems having the Senate and Reps having the House.

That means that in order for the voters to hold them accountable for alleged crimes, prosecutors would have to publicly present all of the evidence of crimes that the candidate is accused of committing. I'm suer we would all agree that allowing prosecutors to publicly present evidence of crimes without a defense would not be a good idea....which means that the candidate should be allowed to present a defense to that evidence. Therefore, if the prosecutors are going to present their evidence, and the candidate will be allowed to present a defense, we would essentially be holding a trial.

Yes, Congress in my above scenario would certainly give Trump a chance to request that witnesses be called, including himself if he so chooses. The DOJ also would benefit from being able to present evidence that would not be acceptable in any court. Remember the Phone Call Impeachment hearing? Most of the witnesses were just burearcrats upset that Trump was not following their foreign policy that they had developed through "robust" processes. DOJ won't be able to call anyone like that, unless they can plausibly say that they have information about Trump's guilt.

So, why not have that trial in the courts, following the rules of the courts?

That can still happen, but after the election. If he is as guilty as you say, defeat in the election after all the evidence is presented publicly should be certain, correct? Far more likely that Biden would win a majority of electors than that the prosecutors will convince all twelve jurors. But if Trump lost the election, the DOJ will lose interest and find some way to stall around and drop it. Maybe they would ask for a continuance hoping Trump will just drop dead.

As someone else has hinted at elsewhere...if a front running candidate were to pull out a weapon and murder one of their opponents during a debate, should that candidate be arrested and charged with that murder? Or should the fact that he is a front running candidate mean that we should wait until after the election before arresting and charging them if they do not win the election?

The problem with offering such an extreme example to make your point, is that it makes the answer very easy.

He should be arrested for public safety. So long as he isn't in a blue city, he will not be granted a no-bail release after killing someone. If a judge, in his or her wisdom, decides that he can be safely let out on bail, the public will have to live with that danger of a murderer on the loose, but that is not unique to political candidates. If he is not released on bail, he will have to campaign from jail. Others have successfully done that.

Trump would have a field day, living like a Mafia Boss while his supporters maintain a vigil outside.

The defense should ask for a continuance until the election is over and the judge should grant it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

They are still discovering evidence all along. And Smith is taking pains to ward off possible reasons for delay, and it seems the Judge is on board. I believe this case goes to trial much much sooner than you think.

How could Smith ethically ward off reasons for delay, if they are still discovering evidence? What is he doing to accomplish that?

By "discovery" I mean the process of the prosecution handing over both incriminating and exculpatory evidence the defense. If you mean the process of finding new evidence, that is a valid definition also. Either way, a rush to get to trial before the pre-trial processes are finished would be highly unethical.

BTW, FullMonte: You know a lot about the law, in federal criminal cases, does the defense have to provide discovery to the prosecution? Because, if so, that is even more time that I had not even considered.

 

[FullMonte]

Great question! Thank you!

Let the DOJ/FBI bring their evidence publicly to the voter's representatives in Congress, to be examined and cross examined by what is a near even split in the House and a near even split in the Senate with Dems having the Senate and Reps having the House.

Yes, Congress in my above scenario would certainly give Trump a chance to request that witnesses be called, including himself if he so chooses. The DOJ also would benefit from being able to present evidence that would not be acceptable in any court. Remember the Phone Call Impeachment hearing? Most of the witnesses were just burearcrats upset that Trump was not following their foreign policy that they had developed through "robust" processes. DOJ won't be able to call anyone like that, unless they can plausibly say that they have information about Trump's guilt.

That can still happen, but after the election. If he is as guilty as you say, defeat in the election after all the evidence is presented publicly should be certain, correct? Far more likely that Biden would win a majority of electors than that the prosecutors will convince all twelve jurors. But if Trump lost the election, the DOJ will lose interest and find some way to stall around and drop it. Maybe they would ask for a continuance hoping Trump will just drop dead.

So, if there is credible evidence that a person running for office has committed a crime, it will be up to congress to hear the evidence against them? I would think that would just add more burden on Congress. I assume the goal here would be for Congress to make the determination of whether or not the candidate should be removed from the ballot, and then open them up to prosecution? What is the standard here? Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the candidate is guilty? If so, isn't that exactly what a court trial would do? What is the requirement for the candidate to be removed? Does it have to be unanimous, or 2/3 majority? 51/49? What if the evidence is clearly credible, but a partisan member of congress votes along party lines in the face of credible evidence?

The problem with offering such an extreme example to make your point, is that it makes the answer very easy.

He should be arrested for public safety. So long as he isn't in a blue city, he will not be granted a no-bail release after killing someone. If a judge, in his or her wisdom, decides that he can be safely let out on bail, the public will have to live with that danger of a murderer on the loose, but that is not unique to political candidates. If he is not released on bail, he will have to campaign from jail. Others have successfully done that.

Perhaps, but there is also a benefit to offering such an extreme example and giving the very easy answer. So, in my extreme case, the candidate should be arrested and held. Now you have to draw the line about what crimes require arrest and what crimes do not. Let's say instead of murdering his opponent, he commits some other crime? What if he steals something of great value on live television? What if he admits to rape or sexual assault? Once you have admitted that a candidate should be arrested in one example of committing a crime while they are a candidate, you either have to spell out specifically what crimes would allow for the arrest of a candidate, or you have to agree that a candidate who commits ANY crime should face the appropriate legal actions for that crime.

The defense should ask for a continuance until the election is over and the judge should grant it.

Under what law or rule of criminal procedure is "I am running for election" an appropriate reason to grant a continuance for a criminal defendant?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, if there is credible evidence that a person running for office has committed a crime, it will be up to congress to hear the evidence against them? I would think that would just add more burden on Congress. I assume the goal here would be for Congress to make the determination of whether or not the candidate should be removed from the ballot, and then open them up to prosecution?

Yikes! No!

If I said that I'll go delete it right away! I said that congress should hear the case against them so that the people can hear the case against them, which was what you asked about. They could also have a ready made case for impeachment if the criminal should win office.

What is the standard here? Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the candidate is guilty? If so, isn't that exactly what a court trial would do? What is the requirement for the candidate to be removed? Does it have to be unanimous, or 2/3 majority? 51/49? What if the evidence is clearly credible, but a partisan member of congress votes along party lines in the face of credible evidence?

I would have it treated as a pre-impeachment hearing, as well as a way to get the information to the voters. The constitution envisions the voters picking the president, and congress determining whether impeachment/removal is warranted. You know better than I, I am sure, the majorities required for that.

If Trump is so guilty, could the congress could indeed impeach him and remove him before he takes office? If not, they can do it on inauguration day.

Perhaps, but there is also a benefit to offering such an extreme example and giving the very easy answer. So, in my extreme case, the candidate should be arrested and held. Now you have to draw the line about what crimes require arrest and what crimes do not. Let's say instead of murdering his opponent, he commits some other crime? What if he steals something of great value on live television? What if he admits to rape or sexual assault?

Law enforcement decides about arrests in some cases, and judges issue warrants in some cases. I've said several times that I don't think that arrest and even pre-trial confinement necessarily prevent a candidate from winning an election. Though with a prosecution agency as politically lopsided as the DOJ, I would have to assume that it the goal.

Once you have admitted that a candidate should be arrested in one example of committing a crime while they are a candidate, you either have to spell out specifically what crimes would allow for the arrest of a candidate, or you have to agree that a candidate who commits ANY crime should face the appropriate legal actions for that crime.

Yes, I'm only talking about the time. Remember the Comey Doctrine, though. The stated reason that Clinton was not charged after keeping thousands of highly classified documents in her home, and negotiating instead of handing them over as Biden and Pence did was that

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.

So, there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion.

Note that he did not say that he doesn't recommend prosecuting because Clinton did not break the law or that there was not enough evidence that she broke the law. If she did not break the law, that would have been a one sentence announcement.

Under what law or rule of criminal procedure is "I am running for election" an appropriate reason to grant a continuance for a criminal defendant?

Are there specific rules that judges must in X kind of cases grant a continuance, but in Y kinds of cases may not? My assumption has been that judges have discretion for that, but I'm open to learn.

 

[FullMonte]

Yikes! No!

If I said that I'll go delete it right away! I said that congress should hear the case against them so that the people can hear the case against them, which was what you asked about. They could also have a ready made case for impeachment if the criminal should win office.

Oh, I misunderstood. You were saying that the prosecutors should present their evidence publicly in front of congress? Well, then there goes any chance of prosecuting the individual if congress agrees that the individual committed the crimes. It would be essentially impossible to find a jury that has not heard all of the evidence prior to the trial starting, so it would be basically impossible to find a jury that does not already have an opinion on the case.

Law enforcement decides about arrests in some cases, and judges issue warrants in some cases. I've said several times that I don't think that arrest and even pre-trial confinement necessarily prevent a candidate from winning an election. Though with a prosecution agency as politically lopsided as the DOJ, I would have to assume that it the goal.

But, law enforcement also decides when to bring cases to trial, but you are saying that they should not be able to make that decision on their own here. I'm simply trying to find out where the lines are on what law enforcement is and is not allowed to do.

Yes, I'm only talking about the time. Remember the Comey Doctrine, though. The stated reason that Clinton was not charged after keeping thousands of highly classified documents in her home, and negotiating instead of handing them over as Biden and Pence did was that

Actually, the stated reason was that they found no evidence of criminal intent. In the case of Trump, criminal intent is obvious, as his own public statements, and the actions he has taken show that he was aware that he had the documents, and that he thought he could keep them, and that he refused to return them.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.

How far did you look back? You could have looked back...say...one page in this very thread and found an article about Harold Martin. That individual had classified documents found in his home. He negotiated a plea deal for ONE COUNT of willful retention of national defense information and stated that his actions were “wrong, illegal and highly questionable.” If we are looking for precedent here, his guilty plea and statements of contrition earned him a 9 year prison sentence. I wonder what it would have been if he were facing 31 counts of that same charge, refused to admit guilt, and stated that he had every right to have the documents. Trump's own DOJ repeatedly prosecuted individuals for this same charge, and courts issued harsh sentences.

Are there specific rules that judges must in X kind of cases grant a continuance, but in Y kinds of cases may not? My assumption has been that judges have discretion for that, but I'm open to learn.

I would assume that judges do have some discretion, but I also assume that there are actual guidelines that courts follow, as well as precedent.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Oh, I misunderstood. You were saying that the prosecutors should present their evidence publicly in front of congress? Well, then there goes any chance of prosecuting the individual if congress agrees that the individual committed the crimes.

Having congress decide whether the individual is guilty is also not part of my plan. Such a vote would of course be along party lines.

It would be essentially impossible to find a jury that has not heard all of the evidence prior to the trial starting, so it would be basically impossible to find a jury that does not already have an opinion on the case.

Seating a jury will be a yuge problem anyway, with such a famous case. Someone has certainly not been worrying about that with all the leaks going on the last seven years.

You asked how the public could find out the evidence against Trump without a trial, and I gave a way. There are downsides to every idea, but not many ideas are as downside-y as prosecuting the front runner in the middle of a presidential campaign.

How's this for a potential downside: The prosecution presents its case and it takes them until the day before voting to do it. Now the voters will vote having only heard one side of the case.

But, law enforcement also decides when to bring cases to trial, but you are saying that they should not be able to make that decision on their own here.

I never said that. Please stop.

I'm simply trying to find out where the lines are on what law enforcement is and is not allowed to do.

They are allowed to prosecute whatever cases that they deem appropriate. I am allowed to say that it is foolish to push this case at this time.

Actually, the stated reason was that they found no evidence of criminal intent. In the case of Trump, criminal intent is obvious, as his own public statements, and the actions he has taken show that he was aware that he had the documents, and that he thought he could keep them, and that he refused to return them.

Clinton was fully aware she had the documents, she thought she could keep them, and she refused to return them.

What she did was what Trump did in this respect: She negotiated and turned over documents that she felt complied with the demands, and she withheld/destroyed the rest.

Question: If, in the middle of those negotiations, the FBI obtained a search warrant and found classified material that Clinton had not *yet* turned over, should she have been prosecuted?

How far did you look back? You could have looked back...say...one page in this very thread and found an article about Harold Martin. That individual had classified documents found in his home. He negotiated a plea deal for ONE COUNT of willful retention of national defense information and stated that his actions were “wrong, illegal and highly questionable.” If we are looking for precedent here, his guilty plea and statements of contrition earned him a 9 year prison sentence. I wonder what it would have been if he were facing 31 counts of that same charge, refused to admit guilt, and stated that he had every right to have the documents. Trump's own DOJ repeatedly prosecuted individuals for this same charge, and courts issued harsh sentences.

That quote about looking back was from James Comey, not from me, so you would have to ask him how far he looked back.

I would assume that judges do have some discretion, but I also assume that there are actual guidelines that courts follow, as well as precedent.

If we're both making assumptions, I'll assume my assumptions until I learn otherwise.

Prosecutors should follow precedent also, and the Clinton email case is a good one.