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"?

 

[MT15]

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.

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.

I never said that. Please stop.

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.

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?

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

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.

No, no, no, no. You keep saying things that are simply not true, even after having been shown proof. It’s just your feelings that you are stating as facts, in direct contradiction to the actual facts.

Actually, at this point you are just lying. It’s tiresome and boring to keep reading the same lies over and over again.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, no, no, no. You keep saying things that are simply not true, even after having been shown proof. It’s just your feelings that your are stating as facts, in direct contradiction to the actual facts.

Actually, at this point you are just lying. It’s tiresome and boring to keep reading the same lies over and over again.

I strongly recommend that you stop reading my posts, then.

 

[MT15]

I strongly recommend that you stop reading my posts, then.

Nope. You do an insult to the truth every time you post here. So I will be commenting whenever I feel like it to draw attention to your lies.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Nope. You do an insult to the truth every time you post here. So I will be commenting whenever I feel like it to draw attention to your lies.

Your choice, of course.

Enjoy!

 

[DaveXA]

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's not going to be litigated in Congress. You're talking about turning a court case into a political circus. Just...no.

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.

They'll seat a jury in the current case. It's going to be a challenge, but it will get done as it has with many other well known figures going through jury trials. Just trying to create a problem that in all likelihood will just be another step in the case.

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.

None of us know when the case will conclude. Let's cross that bridge when we get there. My hunch is much of this discussion will ultimately be moot.

I never said that. Please stop.

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.

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

That's just a bald faced lie.

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.

This contradicts your previous statement. Either she cooperated or she didn't.

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?

They wouldn't have done that if they were negotiating. You're asking something that isn't protocol, so it's a pointless question.

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

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.

Prosecutors should follow the law. Precedent is sparse in this case. As much as you want to tie the Clinton situation to this case, there's ultimately few parallels. She was Secretary of State, followed protocol established by previous Secretaries. She cooperated with authorities and returned what was requested and destroyed what was left as per protocol.

Had she clearly violated any laws, she would have been charged and prosecuted.

Trump is accused of more than simply having classified documents he wasn't supposed to have. He's also accused sharing classified documents with people not cleared to view them.

They're entirely different cases, and Trump absolutely should be worried. If he's found guilty, he's facing serious prison time.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's not going to be litigated in Congress.

I know that it's not going to happen. I was asked how the people could know the evidence and I gave a hypothetical way that it could.

You're talking about turning a court case into a political circus. Just...no.

It is a political case from start to present.

They'll seat a jury in the current case. It's going to be a challenge, but it will get done as it has with many other well known figures going through jury trials. Just trying to create a problem that in all likelihood will just be another step in the case.

I only talked about the difficulty seating a jury because another poster brought it up. Seating a jury in a well-publicized case is always problematic is the point, not that they wouldn't be able to, which I never said.

None of us know when the case will conclude. Let's cross that bridge when we get there. My hunch is much of this discussion will ultimately be moot.

Interesting. I think so also. Why do you think so?

That's just a bald faced lie.

Then stop reading my posts. Or should I stop seeing yours? I'm a patient man, but I would only choose to be called a liar so many times.

This contradicts your previous statement. Either she cooperated or she didn't.

She did not.

They wouldn't have done that if they were negotiating. You're asking something that isn't protocol, so it's a pointless question.

They executed the warrant on Trump when they were negotiating.

Prosecutors should follow the law. Precedent is sparse in this case. As much as you want to tie the Clinton situation to this case, there's ultimately few parallels. She was Secretary of State, followed protocol established by previous Secretaries. She cooperated with authorities and returned what was requested and destroyed what was left as per protocol.

Factually wrong.

Had she clearly violated any laws, she would have been charged and prosecuted.

So, it was legal for her to have thousands of classified documents in her home?

Trump is accused of more than simply having classified documents he wasn't supposed to have. He's also accused sharing classified documents with people not cleared to view them.

Let's see them prove it.

They're entirely different cases, and Trump absolutely should be worried. If he's found guilty, he's facing serious prison time.

Never will happen. Not just because Trump is too old to serve "serious prison time," either.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Never will happen. Not just because Trump is too old to serve "serious prison time," either.

Let me expand on that.

Trump never goes to prison, if for no other reason than that his supporters would lose their confidence in our Democratic Republic.

Imprisoning the front runner of the opposing political party in a time of sharp inflation, global humiliation for the U.S., and a border crises that has caused even former sanctuary cities to cry uncle, would amount to the DOJ, FBI and the courts telling voters in so many words that they must mind their own business as to who will lead the nation.

Whatever else they may do, the Deepstate is not yet so well-armed, nor the populace so disarmed, that they would try putting Trump in prison.

 

[DaveXA]

I know that it's not going to happen. I was asked how the people could know the evidence and I gave a hypothertical way.

Ok.

It is a political case from start to present.

It's a criminal case. You can yada yada political case all you want. That doesn't make it true.

I only talked about the difficulty seating a jury because another poster brought it up. Seating a jury in a well-publicized case is always problematic is the point, not that they wouldn't be able to, which I never said.

Ok.

Interesting. I think so also. Why do you think so?

Because, ultimately, i believe the court and judge are well aware of the timeline of the election and will expedite decisions to the extent possible to get this resolved before the primaries are completed.

Then stop reading my posts. Or should I stop seeing yours? I'm a patient man, but I would only choose to be called a liar so many times.

Not calling you a liar. I'm saying you're peddling a common talking point that is clearly not true, ergo a lie.

She did not.

Show the evidence.

They executed the warrant on Trump when they were negotiating.

That's simply not true. I'm not trusting a thing Trump says. He's a known habitual liar and I tend to believe the prosecutors aren't just making stuff up out of thin air.

Factually wrong.

What about it was wrong?

So, it was legal for her to have thousands of classified documents in her home?

They weren't thousands of classified documents in her home. They were stored on her private server. And there were just over 100 documents that were not marked classified and were classified after the fact. Iirc, there were 3 that were marked classified and they were supposedly "call sheets" that were used to guide discussions with foreign leaders. The whole buttery males thing is just ridiculously overblown.

Let's see them prove it.

We'll see in court.

Never will happen. Not just because Trump is too old to server "serious prison time," either.

So, you're saying Trump is above the law?

 

[DaveXA]

Let me expand on that.

Trump never goes to prison, if for no other reason than that his supporters would lose their confidence in our Democratic Republic.

What makes you think they have any confidence? They already led an insurrection on the Capitol on 1/6. You think that's changed since then?

Imprisoning the front runner of the opposing political party in a time of sharp inflation, global humiliation for the U.S., and a border crises that has caused even former sanctuary cities to cry uncle, would amount to the DOJ, FBI and the courts telling voters in so many words that they must mind their own business as to who will lead the nation.

So, we can't hold our leaders accountable? If that's the case, we're truly a banana republic at that point.

Whatever else they may do, the Deepstate is not yet so well-armed, nor the populace so disarmed, that they would try putting Trump in prison.

The deepstate has precisely zero to do with the case. This is a case that can be laid entirely at Trump's feet. His own words betray him. He's ultimately going to be toast imo. But the case has to play out, so ultimately time will tell.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Because, ultimately, i believe the court and judge are well aware of the timeline of the election and will expedite decisions to the extent possible to get this resolved before the primaries are completed.

Regardless of how the courts and judge might like to time the progress of the case to the calendar of the election, Defendant Trump is entitled to discovery, pre-trial motions, and numerous other pre-trial procedures to which every other defendant is entitled.

Any hint of being influenced by the upcoming election would make the politicization of the criminal court far too obvious.

Curiosity, what would Aileen Cannon's motivation be to time the trial to the election?

Not calling you a liar. I'm saying you're peddling a common talking point that is clearly not true, ergo a lie.

I guess I'm a little sensitive them. I prefer not to be called a liar, either directly or indirectly. Keep that in mind, if you want me to see your posts in the future.

That's simply not true. I'm not trusting a thing Trump says. He's a known habitual liar and I tend to believe the prosecutors aren't just making stuff up out of thin air.

Let them prove it then. Calling Trump a liar is a far different thing than calling me a liar.

What about it was wrong?

There was no precedent that a SecState could keep classified documents on a home-made server. There was no precedent that when asked to return the documents to the government, she could pick and choose what to surrender and destroy the rest.

Unless you can name some other Secretaries of State who have done that.

They weren't thousands of classified documents in her home. They were stored on her private server. And there were just over 100 documents that were not marked classified and were classified after the fact. Iirc, there were 3 that were marked classified and they were supposedly "call sheets" that were used to guide discussions with foreign leaders. The whole buttery males thing is just ridiculously overblown.

Quote from James Comey:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

We'll see in court.

So, you're saying Trump is above the law?

When did I say that? Quote me exactly.

That's another thing I find myself sensitive about on this board: having words put into my mouth. Make your own decision about whether to do it again, I'm happy either way.

 

[MT15]

The truth about the Clinton case: Clinton did not pick what emails she wanted to turn over. No, her lawyers did that as officers of the court and as required in these cases. They excluded personal emails, and the FBI said they did that correctly with no evidence of them trying to hide anything.

The emails that were considered classified were email chains that had classified markings earlier in the email chain and it’s extremely likely that Clinton didn’t see the markings when she saw the current parts of the chains on her home server. The FBI said that Clinton made obvious efforts to keep classified emails off of her home server.

There were just over 100 emails in question, just like Dave said. Almost all of those that had classified markings were on email chains where the markings appeared earlier in the chains, and did not appear unless you followed the email chains to earlier emails. The DOJ judged that it was unlikely she saw the markings when she looked at them on her home server. The statute required intentional mishandling of classified material and would have been a misdemeanor at that time.

Any sort of statement that she knew she had all of them is false. Any sort of statement that she picked over her emails, that she tried to not turn anything over is false. Any sort of statement that Clinton had “thousands” of classified emails on her server is false.

The attempt to say that what Clinton did is the same as what Trump did is intellectually dishonest. The first time it happened it could be considered as ignorance. That time is done. Attempts to draw an equivalency now has to be considered as willful attempts to mislead.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Who would think that people who lie and ignore the truth don't like being called liars? Maybe reporters and news people should call more politicians liars as soon as they say something that is patently false. Maybe those lying politicians will get so mad that they are being called what they are that they will simply ignore everyone and remove themselves from public life. If someone lies, they are a liar much the same way that someone who kills is a killer. If a liar doesn't like being called a liar, maybe they should consider cutting back on the number of lies they are telling.

 

[DaveXA]

Regardless of how the courts and judge might like to time the progress of the case to the calendar of the election, Defendant Trump is entitled to discovery, pre-trial motions, and numerous other pre-trial procedures to which every other defendant is entitled.

He can do all of that, and the court will rule on the merits then move on to the next thing. What I mean by expediting is moving the case up on the docket so that this case can proceed in a more timely manner. I don't know how much time could be saved, if any at all, by expediting. I'm suggesting it might be an option for the judge. Judges do expedite trials and decisions from time to time.

Any hint of being influenced by the upcoming election would make the politicization of the criminal court far too obvious.

Sure, but expediting doesn't mean politicization. It means there's a national interest in resolving this as soon as possible.

Curiosity, what would Aileen Cannon's motivation be to time the trial to the election?

Idk, she's a Trump appointee. I have no idea what she thinks about it and she hasn't given any hint of how she'll handle the case. At least not regarding "time the trial" issues.

I guess I'm a little sensitive them. I prefer not to be called a liar, either directly or indirectly. Keep that in mind, if you want me to see your posts in the future.

It's simple, don't continue to post things proven to be false. Do your research before posting nonsensical talking points.

Let them prove it then. Calling Trump a liar is a far different thing than calling me a liar.

Sure.

There was no precedent that a SecState could keep classified documents on a home-made server. There was no precedent that when asked to return the documents to the government, she could pick and choose what to surrender and destroy the rest.

Unless you can name some other Secretaries of State who have done that.

Colin Powell

Quote from James Comey:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

That doesn't necessarily contradict what I posted. The 2k emails "up-classified" are a non-issue. There was no indication they were classified and Clinton couldn't have known those were classified because it was after the fact. MT15 rebutted this well in her post above.

When did I say that? Quote me exactly.

You stated that Trump would never go to prison, which presumably includes even if he's found guilty. By definition he'd be above the law if he's found guilty and doesn't get prison time for the crimes he's accused of.

That's another thing I find myself sensitive about on this board: having words put into my mouth. Make your own decision about whether to do it again, I'm happy either way.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you a question.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

So, the whole point is simply to publicly release all of the evidence. Seems, to me, like a pointless exercise that would simply damage any attempts to prosecute an individual.

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.

Finding a jury of people who have not seen all of the evidence will be a fairly simple matter.

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.

I disagree. I think that saying "we won't prosecute this individual because he is the current front runner in an election" is a far larger downside. It shows that the laws don't apply to everyone. Also, it raises some questions:
--Is it only the frontrunner in the election campaign who should not be prosecuted?
--What determines who is the frontrunner?
--If there are 4 declared candidates who are polling at 26%, 25%, 25%, and 24%...does that mean that the person polling at 26% should be immune from prosecution, but the others who are just 1 or 2 points behind (but within the margin of error of the polls) can be prosecuted?
--If an individual polling at 15% while the front runner is polling at 45% is being prosecuted and a new poll comes out showing that individual polling at 30%, ahead of everyone else, does that prosecution have to stop?
--If an individual is about to be prosecuted tomorrow, and post on their website, "I announce my candidacy for the 2032 presidential election, click below and let me know if you would vote for me" and that poll on his website shows that 2% of the respondents would vote for him, does that make him the front runner for the 2032 election? Does that mean he should not be prosecuted until 2023? If not, how do we determine who is to be prosecuted? What if he declares his candidacy for 2028 on Nov 6, 2024? That would be the next election.

I never said that. Please stop.

This entire discussion is predicated on your statement that the frontrunner for an election should not be prosecuted.

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.

And, I am trying to understand why you think it's foolish to prosecute someone when there is credible evidence that individual committed a crime.

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

You keep mentioning Comey's statement. That statement clearly said that the directive to delete the information on her server was issued more than a year before the congressional subpoena was issued, and that the individual who deleted the files was believable. What evidence is there that she refused to return documents that she knew she had AFTER they were requested to be returned? For that matter, what evidence is there that NARA ever asked her to return government records?

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?

If the FBI determined that Hillary Clinton was lying about having documents, and was hiding them from investigators and her own lawyers, and executed a search warrant and found such documents, then she should have been prosecuted for that obstruction and that refusal to return the documents.

By the same token, if the FBI had determined that Trump was unaware that he had classified documents, and that when they interviewed individuals surrounding Trump determined that they were all unaware that those documents were there, Trump should not (and likely would not) be prosecuted.

 

[coldseat]

If Trump went to jail, either being the GOP frontrunner, having won the nomination, or having won the presidency, many Trump supporters would conclude that the United States is no longer a republic. Therefore, they would reason, why follow the rules of the Republic.

I doubt that he could be convicted before the 2024 general election, and if he swears in for his second term, he will pardon himself loudly as soon as he has finished to oath of office.

So the danger would be that they would contrive some reason to jail him pre-trial. Another possibility is that he win the election, and they decide to bring him in before the inauguration. Either of those were to happen, the phrase "all bets are off" comes to mind.

But that is a wild hypothetical. They will not take Trump on the perp walk, however satisfying that might be to many.

So be it. If Trump is legitimately convicted by a jury and a portion of the citizens country revolt against the Republic, then we'll fight that battle when it comes (if it ever does). We're not going to acquiesce to an autocrats (and his followers) demands because of threats of revolt. If we ever do, then we don't have a Republic on solid footing to stand on.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

If he is convicted, couldn't the Republican National Commitee just drop him? Trump would run as an Independant and it would kill their chances this election, but as bad as the Republican party is, I think they would be willing to take that loss.

 

[DaveXA]

So be it. If Trump is legitimately convicted by a jury and a portion of the citizens country revolt against the Republic, then we'll fight that battle when it comes (if it ever does). We not going to acquiesce to an autocrats (and his followers) demands because of threats of revolt. If we ever do, then we don't have a Republic on solid footing to stand on.

Indeed. At that point, it's irreconcilable, and either they give it up, or we do. There's no room for compromise on what our government is. I have zero interest in a fascist dictatorship, which is what it would be with Trump in the WH. Fwiw, if the idiots win the WH and both houses of congress, I'm moving to Korea with my family.

 

[DaveXA]

If he is convicted, couldn't the Republican National Commitee just drop him? Trump would run as an Independant and it would kill their chances this election, but as bad as the Republican party is, I think they would be willing to take that loss.

Yep, I was a Republican until Trump became the nominee in 2015. Until they cut bait, I'll never give the party an inch.