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"?

 

[RobF]

Hmm.. not really RobF. The article takes various tweets out of context of the twitter sequence, and 'analysis' them in isolation. Trump may indeed have used 'unpolitical' language, but I don't see any call for violence in them, other than the 'violence' inherent in police actions ?

Yes, really, The article places tweets and comments by Trump in context. By contrast, all you've done here - and pretty much all you ever do - is simply assert that it hasn't, simply assert that "you don't see it" which is worthless without substantiation, and imply that Trump calling for police to "not be too nice" when handling suspects is calling for something "inherent in police actions", which is just plain weird.

So you're offering nothing here. No-one is going to go, "Oh, well, I thought 'knock the crap out of them' sounded pretty darn violent, offering to pay people's legal fees and defend them in court if they hurt people protesting against Trump seems pretty blatant, and that whole storming the Capitol thing that occurred after Trump spent weeks insisting the election had been stolen and repeatedly told his supporters to fight or face their country being destroyed and their children being indoctrinated was pretty damning... but this anonymous guy on a forum said 'nuh uh, it's just 'unpolitical' language and the violence you can see just isn't there!' That's me told!"

The bottom line is you can put on blinkers and pretend you don't see it all you like, but that's never going to put blinkers on anyone else, no matter how much you just blindly deny reality over and over again. You can't Jedi mind-trick a forum. Repeatedly trying to do so just makes you look daft and loses you all credibility.

 

[Roofgardener]

Yes, really, The article places tweets and comments by Trump in context. By contrast, all you've done here - and pretty much all you ever do - is simply assert that it hasn't, simply assert that "you don't see it" which is worthless without substantiation, and imply that Trump calling for police to "not be too nice" when handling suspects is calling for something "inherent in police actions", which is just plain weird.

So you're offering nothing here. No-one is going to go, "Oh, well, I thought 'knock the crap out of them' sounded pretty darn violent, offering to pay people's legal fees and defend them in court if they hurt people protesting against Trump seems pretty blatant, and that whole storming the Capitol thing that occurred after Trump spent weeks insisting the election had been stolen and repeatedly told his supporters to fight or face their country being destroyed and their children being indoctrinated was pretty damning... but this anonymous guy on a forum said 'nuh uh, it's just 'unpolitical' language and the violence you can see just isn't there!' That's me told!"

The bottom line is you can put on blinkers and pretend you don't see it all you like, but that's never going to put blinkers on anyone else, no matter how much you just blindly deny reality over and over again. You can't Jedi mind-trick a forum. Repeatedly trying to do so just makes you look daft and loses you all credibility.

These are NOT the droids you are looking for !

 

[DaveXA]

Umm.. I don't know anything about Portman, but I don't believe that McConnel stated that Trump should be criminally prosecuted ?

I could be wrong... do you have a link to where McConnell said that Trump should be criminally prosecuted ?

He didn't directly say that in his speech, but McConnell made it clear that Trump could be held criminally and civilly liable.

“But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.

“Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.

“Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were ‘still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice’.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."

 

[MT15]

Mitch said in his speech that because Trump is no longer in office he is now subject to the criminal justice system, and that means he hadn’t got away with anything, yet. He put great emphasis on the word yet.

I don’t honestly know why we bother, because Rob is right. We showed you days ago where Trump had said at a rally to “knock the crap” out of a protestor. Yet, you still repeat your delusion that Trump has never incited violence. He does quite a lot.

 

[Roofgardener]

He didn't directly say that in his speech, but McConnell made it clear that Trump could be held criminally and civilly liable.

AOK.. thanks for that DaveXA

 

[Roofgardener]

I don’t honestly know why we bother, because Rob is right. We showed you days ago where Trump had said at a rally to “knock the crap” out of a protestor. Yet, you still repeat your delusion that Trump has never incited violence. He does quite a lot.

That was a casual quote at a rally, and wasn't meant seriously; he hasn't incited large-scale 'political' violence any more so than any other politician, Democrat or Republican.

So then... when we will be getting criminal/civil charges levied against him ?

 

[SFIDC3]

That was a casual quote at a rally, and wasn't meant seriously; he hasn't incited large-scale 'political' violence any more so than any other politician, Democrat or Republican.

So then... when we will be getting criminal/civil charges levied against him ?

Stop feeding the troll guys....

 

[Roofgardener]

So challenging a narrative on this forum is "trolling" ? Most interesting.

 

[Dragon]

So challenging a narrative on this forum is "trolling" ? Most interesting.

Maybe if you could back up this statement instead ?

"he hasn't incited large-scale 'political' violence any more so than any other politician, Democrat or Republican."

Trump has repeatedly called for violence against people he doesn't like so the statement about "he didnt mean it" is getting really old..

https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

 

[Roofgardener]

Maybe if you could back up this statement instead ?

Trump has repeatedly called for violence against people he doesn't like so the statement about "he didnt mean it" is getting really old..

https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

And that link is your response ? Really ?

Do you ACTUALLY want me to go through it line-by-line highlighting the editorialising ? Because I can if you want it.

 

[Dragon]

And that link is your response ? Really ?

Do you ACTUALLY want me to go through it line-by-line highlighting the editorialising ? Because I can if you want it.

It is a LOT of examples of Trump inciting violence. And no - if your only reply to all of those is "he really did not mean it" - then you dont need to go through it all because 20+ identical replies would have no value in this discussion but just show where you stand

 

[Roofgardener]

It is a LOT of examples of Trump inciting violence. And no - if your only reply to all of those is "he really did not mean it" - then you dont need to go through it all because 20+ identical replies would have no value in this discussion but just show where you stand

If the vox article cites "20+" cases of violence speech, and 20+ of them are actually wrong, then that says a LOT about the editorial slant and overall veracity of the Vox article.

I'll go through it claim-by-claim, but it will take some time, so be patient.

 

[brandon]

Mitch said in his speech that because Trump is no longer in office he is now subject to the criminal justice system,

I do want to point out that this is bait from McConnell and I hope the Dems don’t take it, at least at the federal level.

If he goes to court, they’ll immediately switch to “this happened while he was president, and the DOJ has already said you can’t indict a sitting president for actions taken in office. You have to impeach him, and the house did that, and failed.”

 

[SFIDC3]

So challenging a narrative on this forum is "trolling" ? Most interesting.

If you call your responses "challenging" a narrative, then yes....

 

[DaveXA]

I do want to point out that this is bait from McConnell and I hope the Dems don’t take it, at least at the federal level.

If he goes to court, they’ll immediately switch to “this happened while he was president, and the DOJ has already said you can’t indict a sitting president for actions taken in office. You have to impeach him, and the house did that, and failed.”

Actually, a crime committed by a President is still a crime, and he's subject to the court's jurisdiction once he's a private citizen. His attorneys won't have a leg to stand on since he's not a sitting President. It's already been made clear that since he couldn't be held accountable with impeachment, he's still subject to other criminal and civil penalties as a private citizen.

Just go ahead and file criminal charges and worst comes to worst, SCOTUS can rule on the validity of charging a former President for crimes committed during his term. I would simply argue that impeachment is a political process and does not preclude a President from facing criminal charges whether during or after his term.

He's not gonna be able to run for President from a jail cell.

 

[brandon]

Actually, a crime committed by a President is still a crime, and he's subject to the court's jurisdiction once he's a private citizen. His attorneys won't have a leg to stand on since he's not a sitting President. It's already been made clear that since he couldn't be held accountable with impeachment, he's still subject to other criminal and civil penalties as a private citizen.

Just go ahead and file criminal charges and worst comes to worst, SCOTUS can rule on the validity of charging a former President for crimes committed during his term. I would simply argue that impeachment is a political process and does not preclude a President from facing criminal charges whether during or after his term.

I’ll take this bet. Don’t get mad when I bump this post three years from now.

 

[DaveXA]

I’ll take this bet. Don’t get mad when I bump this post three years from now.

I'm not taking the bet because the odds are pretty long. But that will be more to a lack of guts than anything else.

 

[Lapaz]

I do want to point out that this is bait from McConnell and I hope the Dems don’t take it, at least at the federal level.

If he goes to court, they’ll immediately switch to “this happened while he was president, and the DOJ has already said you can’t indict a sitting president for actions taken in office. You have to impeach him, and the house did that, and failed.”

I don't think the DoJ has stated that you can't indict a sitting president for actions taken while in office. I think the DoJ stated that you can indict a sitting president while he is in office, because it would take too much of his time. I believe they believe that he can be indicted for actions taken while in office, once he is no longer in office. That's why he was an unnamed co-conspirator in the Cohen bribery case. I think Trump can now be named.