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"?

 

[SFIDC3]

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.

Precisely what I was hoping would happen.....

 

[UriUT]

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.

Unless you are George costanza and view lies aren't lies if you believe it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

It could possibly damage any attempts to prosecute this particular individual. It would not necessarily do that. But it absolutely would not be pointless. It would address this concern:

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

If the evidence is strong, the prosecution should be confident in presenting it without worrying about whether the jury would be surprised or not. It is a myth that juries have to not know the evidence, or not know all the evidence. Juries are not required to be ignorant, they are required to agree to hear the evidence presented and base their decision on what they heard in court, not what they read in the newspapers, or saw on TV

If exposure of evidence in the case disqualifies a person from being convicted, that really would put politicians above the law.

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.

Yes, all of those details would have to be worked out. Every time something brand new comes up, such details have to be worked out. All part of our evolving political system.

Yes, there are a lot of Gray areas. But the front runner presidential candidate of a major political party being prosecuted by the administration of the incumbent from the other party who is almost certain to run against him in the general election is not a gray area. That's a time to ask ourselves 'Whoa! What are we doing here?'

I know there are many, not meaning you, who will say "Winning an election and putting a butt crevise in jail, that's what we're doin'!" Great for 2024, but then they will have to live with the blowback the next time that Republicans are in power.

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

Which is far away from Trump should be above the law. Trump has been successfully sued, and I am fine with that. Trump is indicted and I'm fine with that. The prosecution can wait until after the election, because canceling democracy for the year is something I'm not fine with.

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.

I don't. I think it is foolish prosecute the front runner of the opposing party instead of just waiting for the election to be over with.

Why is that a problem?

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?

None that I know of, which is the reason that I never said that they did.

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.

"The FBI determined" is not enough to convict. If they FBI and the DOJ can prove that, Trump will be found guilty. That can happen before or after the election.

 

[MT15]

Nobody, I repeat, nobody except the Trump cult thinks this prosecution isn’t warranted. This is all just a big old deflection of what is actually happening right now, and serves no purpose. Look at the polls for a clue about who thinks this is an issue and who doesn’t. And yes, I realize that polls are very suspect, but Sack keeps hammering his idea about a “frontrunner” and at this point in time the only way anyone can identify a front runner is with polls.

I found this poll interesting. I wonder if we will see some more R politicians reading these tea leaves and allowing themselves to criticize Trump?

 

[DaveXA]

It could possibly damage any attempts to prosecute this particular individual. It would not necessarily do that. But it absolutely would not be pointless. It would address this concern:

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

Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. The primary concern is whether he's found innocent or guilty in a court of law first. Whether he's the front runner or candidate pulling <1% is irrelevant. Any candidate whether R or D or other has to be held accountable, first legally, then by voters, not the other way around.

If the evidence is strong, the prosecution should be confident in presenting it without worrying about whether the jury would be surprised or not. It is a myth that juries have to not know the evidence, or not know all the evidence. Juries are not required to be ignorant, they are required to agree to hear the evidence presented and base their decision on what they heard in court, not what they read in the newspapers, or saw on TV

If exposure of evidence in the case disqualifies a person from being convicted, that really would put politicians above the law.


Yes, all of those details would have to be worked out. Every time something brand new comes up, such details have to be worked out. All part of our evolving political system.

Yes, there are a lot of Gray areas. But the front runner presidential candidate of a major political party being prosecuted by the administration of the incumbent from the other party who is almost certain to run against him in the general election is not a gray area. That's a time to ask ourselves 'Whoa! What are we doing here?'

We've already discussed this. Biden isn't the one prosecuting this case, the DOJ is. And again, being front runner is irrelevant. The DOJ didn't sit around debating whether to bring a case based on the target being the front runner. He'd be charged if he was sitting at 1% or 90%.

I know there are many, not meaning you, who will say "Winning an election and putting a butt crevise in jail, that's what we're doin'!" Great for 2024, but then they will have to live with the blowback the next time that Republicans are in power.

Not sure what blowback you think is going to happen.

Which is far away from Trump should be above the law. Trump has been successfully sued, and I am fine with that. Trump is indicted and I'm fine with that. The prosecution can wait until after the election, because canceling democracy for the year is something I'm not fine with.

Indicting and charging a presidential candidate isn't canceling democracy. That's just an absurd notion. Trump has already been found guilty of sexual abuse and he's being charged with crimes that by definition are a byproduct of his being President. The crimes he's being accused of should disqualify him from holding public office if he's found guilty, which I suspect is what will happen. The DOJ doesn't just willy nilly charge people. They have a 95% conviction rate for good reason.

I don't. I think it is foolish prosecute the front runner of the opposing party instead of just waiting for the election to be over with.

Why is that a problem?

None that I know of, which is the reason that I never said that they did.

"The FBI determined" is not enough to convict. If they FBI and the DOJ can prove that, Trump will be found guilty. That can happen before or after the election.

 

[DaveXA]

Nobody, I repeat, nobody except the Trump cult thinks this prosecution isn’t warranted. This is all just a big old deflection of what is actually happening right now, and serves no purpose. Look at the polls for a clue about who thinks this is an issue and who doesn’t. And yes, I realize that polls are very suspect, but Sack keeps hammering his idea about a “frontrunner” and at this point in time the only way anyone can identify a front runner is with polls.

Yep, Trump being front runner is just a nonsensical angle. The same criteria should apply for all candidates.

 

[FullMonte]

If the evidence is strong, the prosecution should be confident in presenting it without worrying about whether the jury would be surprised or not. It is a myth that juries have to not know the evidence, or not know all the evidence. Juries are not required to be ignorant, they are required to agree to hear the evidence presented and base their decision on what they heard in court, not what they read in the newspapers, or saw on TV

The problem here comes with this. When all of the evidence is presented publicly, the public learns all of that evidence. The public will then know all of the evidence that exists. So, the election is over, the person is prosecuted, and goes to trial. The prosecution begins to introduce evidence in the form of a phone call that was recorded where the defendant clearly admits his guilt. The defense moves to block the evidence, arguing that it is not admissible for some reason (say there was a question with the warrant that authorized the recording), and the judge grants the defense motion and prevents the prosecution from releasing the evidence. As you have stated, jurors (regardless of their instructions) will use their personal biases and the information they have to make a determination. Those jurors have heard that phone call recording when it was released publicly, so they know, for a fact that the defendant admits their guilt. It's folly to think that jurors won't rule to convict since they have heard evidence that is not presented in trial. There have been mistrials granted simply because an attorney discussed evidence that should not have been admitted.

Yes, there are a lot of Gray areas. But the front runner presidential candidate of a major political party being prosecuted by the administration of the incumbent from the other party who is almost certain to run against him in the general election is not a gray area. That's a time to ask ourselves 'Whoa! What are we doing here?'

That would definitely be an issue if there was ANYTHING to support the claim that the incumbent candidate had anything to do with the prosecution. Is there any evidence that Biden had anything to do with the investigation and/or prosecution beyond appointing someone as attorney general who was confirmed by congress, and who appointed someone as a special counsel?

Continuing with the "what ifs".....So, if it's your opinion that Trump should not be prosecuted as the front runner for the election, and that the DOJ should wait until after the election...ok, let's do that. We'll wait until after the election. On, say, 9 November 2024, the election results are official and Joe Biden is announced as the winner of the election. On 10 November, Trump announces his candidacy for the 2028 election. In your opinion, should the fact that he's the front runner for the republican party in the next election, should the prosecution have to wait?

I know there are many, not meaning you, who will say "Winning an election and putting a butt crevise in jail, that's what we're doin'!" Great for 2024, but then they will have to live with the blowback the next time that Republicans are in power.

I'm sure there are people who are saying that. What I'm saying is that the DOJ, who has a very high percentage of convictions, is moving forward with the prosecution of a US citizen who they have credible evidence against. Our legal system is based on a simple concept, that no one is above the law. Refusing to prosecute someone simply because they are running for president would directly oppose that concept.

That's fine, I'll say it right here. The next time Republicans are in power, if they want to prosecute a leading democratic candidate that they have credible evidence against, go for it. It seems a pretty much standard statement from Trump supporters that prosecuting Trump means that republicans can prosecute democrats when they get in charge. I have yet to see ANY democrats saying that a democrat should not be prosecuted if there is evidence that a crime was committed.

Which is far away from Trump should be above the law. Trump has been successfully sued, and I am fine with that. Trump is indicted and I'm fine with that.

Saying that a person's prosecution should be delayed strictly for political reasons is saying that the law should not be applied the same to him as it would be to someone else. That is, in my opinion, saying he is above the law.

None that I know of, which is the reason that I never said that they did.

Yes, you did. You said "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." You said that she "witheld" and "destroyed" the rest of the documents that she did not want to turn over. There is no possible way to interpret that sentence in the english language in any way other than claiming that Hillary was requested to return documents, refused to return them all, and destroyed some of them. Comey's statement directly said that there was no evidence that she destroyed any documents after being subpoenaed by congress. How was she negotiating to return documents if there was no request to return them?

"The FBI determined" is not enough to convict. If they FBI and the DOJ can prove that, Trump will be found guilty. That can happen before or after the election.

Ooooh...my turn...my turn....WHY ARE YOU PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH? I NEVER SAID THAT "THE FBI DETERMINED" WAS ENOUGH TO CONVICT. You have a knack for quoting parts of posts and pointing out issues that don't exist in the entire portion. I said that if the FBI determined that Trump was unaware of having the documents, and that there was no credible evidence to support that he was intentionally withholding them, that "Trump should not (and likely would not) be prosecuted." The FBI determining that evidence is credible is more than enough to move forward with prosecution.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. The primary concern is whether he's found innocent or guilty in a court of law first. Whether he's the front runner or candidate pulling <1% is irrelevant. Any candidate whether R or D or other has to be held accountable, first legally, then by voters, not the other way around.

Disagree. Any one presidential election is vital to Democracy, that it be conducted fairly and impartially. Letting criminal defendants have their trials delayed happens thousands of time per year and Democracy does not suffer. A presidential election cannot be impartial if one of the two leading candidates has a criminal trial in progress.

We've already discussed this. Biden isn't the one prosecuting this case, the DOJ is. And again, being front runner is irrelevant. The DOJ didn't sit around debating whether to bring a case based on the target being the front runner.

Sure they did. You seriously think no one brought that up? That it was the elephant in the room?

He'd be charged if he was sitting at 1% or 90%.

Not sure what blowback you think is going to happen.

Do you think that Republicans are so ethical that they would never do to the next Democrat candidate what The Democratic-run DOJ is doing to Trump?

Indicting and charging a presidential candidate isn't canceling democracy. That's just an absurd notion. Trump has already been found guilty of sexual abuse and he's being charged with crimes that by definition are a byproduct of his being President.

He has not been "found guilty" of sexual abuse, a woman won a civil case against him.

The crimes he's being accused of should disqualify him from holding public office if he's found guilty, which I suspect is what will happen. The DOJ doesn't just willy nilly charge people. They have a 95% conviction rate for good reason.

Did they willy nilly charge the one out of twenty that they did not convict? Can I see the source of that figure, please?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Do you think that Republicans are so ethical that they would never do to the next Democrat candidate what The Democratic-run DOJ is doing to Trump?

Hmm, let's see:

Obama: Birth Certificate
Clinton: Butter Emails
Biden: Crime Family

Nah, they've got a lock on unethical practices. From propping up diversionary candidates like Jill Stein, Kanye West and now RFK Jr. to creating false narrative about Biden. Nothing is beneath them.

 

[DaveXA]

Disagree. Any one presidential election is vital to Democracy, that it be conducted fairly and impartially. Letting criminal defendants have their trials delayed happens thousands of time per year and Democracy does not suffer. A presidential election cannot be impartial if one of the two leading candidates has a criminal trial in progress.

I'm saying it's possible the trial will be completed prior to the primaries. If that's the case, there's no issue here. If it drags out beyond the primaries and into the general, I'd agree that's problematic, but we'll have to wait and see. Again, the leading candidate thing is irrelevant. The same issue applies whether you're the leading candidate or the last place one. Or does equal justice under law not mean anything?

Sure they did. You seriously think no one brought that up? That it was the elephant in the room?

I'm sure it was brought up. Probably spent a few minutes on it and determined that if the trail can be completed before the election, then go ahead with the indictment. Was it considered? Sure. Did they spend a lot of time wringing their hands over it? Highly unlikely.

Do you think that Republicans are so ethical that they would never do to the next Democrat candidate what The Democratic-run DOJ is doing to Trump?

They'll do what they do. That said, the DOJ can't or rather, shouldn't make their decisions based on what a future DOJ might do. That seems absurd to me.

He has not been "found guilty" of sexual abuse, a woman won a civil case against him.

Splitting hairs imo. He was found liable, ergo "guilty". Sure, it was a civil rather than criminal case.

Did they willy nilly charge the one out of twenty that they did not convict? Can I see the source of that figure, please?

Another poster stated the 95%. I'm not sure of their source though.

Below is another source. Not 95% but 83% of cases that go to trial result in a conviction. That said, it's interesting to see that 90% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty before going to trial, 8% are dismissed and 2% go to trial. There's a good reason 90% plead guilty rather than go to trial, and a big part of that is due to the very high conviction rate.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

 

[brandon]

I know there are many, not meaning you, who will say "Winning an election and putting a butt crevise in jail, that's what we're doin'!" Great for 2024, but then they will have to live with the blowback the next time that Republicans are in power.

I want to parse this statement for a minute.

It seems to me, it can only mean one of two things:

1 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems who have committed crimes.

2 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems who haven't committed crimes.

Which one are you suggesting will occur? If it's the first, cool. I don't have any problem with any criminal being prosecuted for their crimes. Why do you?

On the other hand, if it's the second, you probably need to check your integrity at the door.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm saying it's possible the trial will be completed prior to the primaries. If that's the case, there's no issue here. If it drags out beyond the primaries and into the general, I'd agree that's problematic, but we'll have to wait and see. Again, the leading candidate thing is irrelevant. The same issue applies whether you're the leading candidate or the last place one. Or does equal justice under law not mean anything?

What I meant was what I said in a previous post. That there needs to be some guiding principle. Anyone can run for any office. If I'm caught coming out of a bank with a gun and bag of money, I should not be allowed to delay justice by announcing that I'm running for president if I've never shown interest in politics. On the other hand if I'm a former president who has been subjected to seven years of thus-far fruitless criminal investigations, I should not be prevented from running in a fair election because prosecutors finally decide to "go for broke."

I'm sure it was brought up. Probably spent a few minutes on it and determined that if the trail can be completed before the election, then go ahead with the indictment. Was it considered? Sure. Did they spend a lot of time wringing their hands over it? Highly unlikely.

I think that is very optimistic that the trial can be completed before the election, especially if you mean before the primary starts. Even before the general will be almost impossible.

But suppose it can be. An election in which a major party candidate is kept tied up during campaign season in a criminal trial is not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination. What is not a stretch of the imagination is that making the election so unfair is the goal.

Below is another source. Not 95% but 83% of cases that go to trial result in a conviction. That said, it's interesting to see that 90% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty before going to trial, 8% are dismissed and 2% go to trial. There's a good reason 90% plead guilty rather than go to trial, and a big part of that is due to the very high conviction rate.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

In non-politically motivated cases, I'm surprised that it is only 83% Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to try cases that they can't win. So 17% of people that they push to trial are not guilty?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I want to parse this statement for a minute.

It seems to me, it can only mean one of two things:

1 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems who have committed crimes.

2 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems who haven't committed crimes.

Which one are you suggesting will occur? If it's the first, cool. I don't have any problem with any criminal being prosecuted for their crimes. Why do you?

On the other hand, if it's the second, you probably need to check your integrity at the door.

Since what I'm talking about will take place in the United States of America, I have to answer 3 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems whose innocence or guilt of crimes will be decided in court.

I'm sure they won't complain if that happens during their election campaigns, since Republicans are supposed to be cool with that.

 

[brandon]

Since what I'm talking about will take place in the United States of America, I have to answer 3 - When the Republicans take power, they will pay the Dems back by prosecuting Dems whose innocence or guilt of crimes will be decided in court.

Ok, but is it your supposition that these cases will have merit, or will merely be frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Ok, but is it your supposition that these cases will have merit, or will merely be frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes?

There will definitely be evidence for each case. They won't just pull a case out of thin air. Maybe they will take opposition research, dress it up as evidence, and use it to get warrants to try to find more evidence. If they don't, no problem. Keep trying.

There may be some very unethical leaking of what may or may not be evidence, and will never be able to be proven as coming from the Republican DOJ.

 

[brandon]

There will definitely be evidence for each case. They won't just pull a case out of thin air. Maybe they will take opposition research, dress it up as evidence, and use it to get warrants to try to find more evidence. If they don't, no problem. Keep trying. Threaten to prosecute Democrat's sons if they don't plead guilty. That's a near sure winner.

There may be some very unethical leaking of what may or may not be evidence, and will never be able to be proven as coming from the Republican DOJ.

So you're suggesting it will largely be frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So you're suggesting it will largely be frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes?

Why would you say that? What I described above is what was done to Trump and other Republicans.

Were those things examples of largely frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes when they were done by Democrats?

 

[brandon]

Why would you say that? What I described above is what was done to Trump and other Republicans.

Were those things examples of largely frivolous accusations for retaliatory purposes when they were done by Democrats?

Ok, so we're back to option 1 - you believe Democrats have committed crimes, so Republicans will prosecute them. That's totally fine, if it turns out to be true.

That's what should happen in a strong democracy. People who commit crimes are prosecuted for them.