Does Trump ever do any jail time? (2 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"?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Criminals are allowed to go free all the time for various reasons. Sometimes it's because the cost of prosecuting them isn't worth it. Sometimes it's because there are bigger fish to fry. Sometimes it's because there isn't enough evidence, even though everyone knows they are guilty.

And sometimes it's for the good of the country. It's not a radical new idea. Once again, we are talking about financial crimes. That's all that we'd have sufficient evidence of. The idea that allowing a plea on that and some fines to keep the country from being torn asunder is not only valid, but it's also humane.

I know everyone wants their pound of flesh, but that pound would likely cost 1,00's of pounds of other people's flesh, more if the violence is down south where we have an obesity problem.

I'm not willing to sacrifice the life of even a single American just to get the emotional satisfaction of seeing him punished and let's be honest, that's really what the desire to see him in jail is about. We can play the justice and Constitution card all we want but all any of us really want is to see him get his comeuppance.

 

[DaveXA]

so basically allow a criminal to go free because he has a following that threaten civil war there by rendering the fundamental principles of the constitution null and void....? That's not what people who have died fighting for this country have given their lives for. If we are faced with a second civil war to protect and maintain the principles enshrined in the constitution, then we shall fight that war because not doing so means the constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on. This country does not give in to the demands of enemies of the constitution.

But that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is people getting their political payback for alleged crimes that were insufficient for an actual impeachment conviction. It's possible that SDNY has the goods and they can litigate that when he leaves office. He'll either leave or forcibly be removed if he refuses. There are protocols for something like that happening.

I never wanted Trump elected to begin with and I think he's terrible, but he's not worth wasting an ounce on. He'll be out of office in a few months and we can try and figure out a way forward at that point.

 

[Yggdrasill]

But that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is people getting their political payback for alleged crimes that were insufficient for an actual impeachment conviction. It's possible that SDNY has the goods and they can litigate that when he leaves office. He'll either leave or forcibly be removed if he refuses. There are protocols for something like that happening.

I never wanted Trump elected to begin with and I think he's terrible, but he's not worth wasting an ounce on. He'll be out of office in a few months and we can try and figure out a way forward at that point.

At the risk of hair-splitting, I disagree with your wording. It's not that the obstruction charges were insufficient in a legal sense but rather that impeachment is a political rather than judicial proceeding. Had it been in the courts, numerous witnesses who were not subpoenaed would have been including Bolton and McGann, and all the charges would have been pursued.

If we're feeling like retribution, we don't need to send Trump to jail. In Trump's mind, the measure of someone's importance and success is their wealth. SDNY will present a lot of financial charges against Trump; with fines and penalties and the $400 million in loans coming due, Trump may well find himself in the poor house, with his treasured buildings and golf courses taken by creditors. Poverty is the ultimate humiliation for him, worse than imprisonment. On the other hand, he's may well be able to parlay his popularity into a Trump network or something and remain in the limelight, with a mouthpiece and revenues coming in to pay debts and keep the mirage of wealth afloat. He cares less about being rich than he does about people thinking that he is rich.

 

[DaveXA]

At the risk of hair-splitting, I disagree with your wording. It's not that the obstruction charges were insufficient in a legal sense but rather that impeachment is a political rather than judicial proceeding. Had it been in the courts, numerous witnesses who were not subpoenaed would have been including Bolton and McGann, and all the charges would have been pursued.

If we're feeling like retribution, we don't need to send Trump to jail. In Trump's mind, the measure of someone's importance and success is their wealth. SDNY will present a lot of financial charges against Trump; with fines and penalties and the $400 million in loans coming due, Trump may well find himself in the poor house, with his treasured buildings and golf courses taken by creditors. Poverty is the ultimate humiliation for him, worse than imprisonment. On the other hand, he's may well be able to parlay his popularity into a Trump network or something and remain in the limelight, with a mouthpiece and revenues coming in to pay debts and keep the mirage of wealth afloat. He cares less about being rich than he does about people thinking that he is rich.

Well stated. I can agree with that. And I hope he gets what I feel is coming his way after he leaves office. But of course none of that is worth spilling people's blood over. I'd argue to let the election officials do their normal responsibilities and let the courts determine the veracity of Trump's claims, then when they're debunked in the courts, we can all move on.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Well stated. I can agree with that. And I hope he gets what I feel is coming his way after he leaves office. But of course none of that is worth spilling people's blood over. I'd argue to let the election officials do their normal responsibilities and let the courts determine the veracity of Trump's claims, then when they're debunked in the courts, we can all move on.

Agreed. No blood should be spilt for Trump.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump has to go to jail. If his supporters are willing to go to war over the prosecution of an amoral criminal, then it will be them, not the prosecution that caused the bloodshed.

Trump free to tweet and rally, would remain the greatest threat to our national security even after he leaves office.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Trump has to go to jail. If his supporters are willing to go to war over the prosecution of an amoral criminal, then it will be them, not the prosecution that caused the bloodshed.

Trump free to tweet and rally, would remain the greatest threat to our national security even after he leaves office.

If charges can be brought that involve jail time, I'm all for it, as I said in earlier. However, it is dictatorial to put someone in jail because of what you think they might do or encourage others to do. In our legal system, we can't prosecute proactively.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

But that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is people getting their political payback for alleged crimes that were insufficient for an actual impeachment conviction. It's possible that SDNY has the goods and they can litigate that when he leaves office. He'll either leave or forcibly be removed if he refuses. There are protocols for something like that happening.

I never wanted Trump elected to begin with and I think he's terrible, but he's not worth wasting an ounce on. He'll be out of office in a few months and we can try and figure out a way forward at that point.

the 'worth' is making sure we don't have Nixon2 - Nixonians should never have been allowed anywhere near Reagan's white house
Stephen Miller and all the others should never be anywhere close to policy ever again

 

[Farb]

All this 'unity' and 'healing' that Joe was just talking is alive and well I see.

This thread is terrifying, and I am not just being hyperbolic, but perfectly predictable.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

All this 'unity' and 'healing' that Joe was just talking is alive and well I see.

This thread is terrifying, and I am not just being hyperbolic, but perfectly predictable.

cool, cool - amnesia of the last 4 years has already set in
obvious and predictable

 

[samiam5211]

If charges can be brought that involve jail time, I'm all for it, as I said in earlier. However, it is dictatorial to put someone in jail because of what you think they might do or encourage others to do. In our legal system, we can't prosecute proactively.

Yea, well, we know for sure he should face jail time for being a co conspirator in the crime that Michael Cohen served time for.

I'm not sure why anyone would question whether or not Trump has committed crimes that should warrant jailtime. There isn't any doubt that there are plenty of non political reasons to prosecute Trump.

 

[DaveXA]

the 'worth' is making sure we don't have Nixon2 - Nixonians should never have been allowed anywhere near Reagan's white house
Stephen Miller and all the others should never be anywhere close to policy ever again

Agreed. And hopefully that's what follows. That said, I don't know if there was some sort of formal agreement with Nixon that he couldn't be involved in government, and if there was, would something similar be applicable in this case. Seems like that would be a complicated thing to pull off. Idk.

 

[bdb13]

All this 'unity' and 'healing' that Joe was just talking is alive and well I see.

This thread is terrifying, and I am not just being hyperbolic, but perfectly predictable.

I don't want Trump or anyone arrested or imprisoned unless there are legitimate reasons to do so, so in that way I think you can probably appreciate why the President's calls to arrest political opponents has given some of us that same "terrified" feeling that you have reading this thread.

 

[Yggdrasill]

All this 'unity' and 'healing' that Joe was just talking is alive and well I see.

This thread is terrifying, and I am not just being hyperbolic, but perfectly predictable.

Elaborate please. Are you saying that if the President appears to have broken the law that he should not be prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished with jail time if that is the appropriate sentence?

 

[Yggdrasill]

I'm not sure why anyone would question whether or not Trump has committed crimes that should warrant jailtime. There isn't any doubt that there are plenty of non political reasons to prosecute Trump.

Because the legal system requires that someone first be tried. I am certain that Trump has committed multiple crimes, but I will not say that he is guilty until he is tried in a court of law. Yes, there are plenty of non-political reasons to prosecute him. I honestly think that the best thing that Trump opponents can do to start cleaning away the four years of anti-democratic norm breaking is to act like tight-arse, by the book, just the facts ma'am, rule followers. Be as unTrump as possible. Work through the system to strengthen and protect the system.

 

[insidejob]

Had this same discussion with a family member who thinks they won't actually imprison him simply because it'd be a bad precedent to lock up a former president. My response: If that's bad precedent, what the hell does that say to people who decide to run for president in the future?

He will be tried by the SDNY, NY state and at least the state of MD. How much time he gets, where he has the luxury to serve it, etc. are all yet to be seen. But there is absolutely no way he gets off "Scott Free" unless he literally sneaks off to a country like Russia where there's no extradition treaty (which would not surprise me in the least). He could run Trump TV from there and broadcast all over America just like David Duke did with his radio show (that had/has more listeners than make me comfortable.

ETA: Didn't have time to read all 4 pages. Got shirt to do before lunch.

 

[samiam5211]

Because the legal system requires that someone first be tried. I am certain that Trump has committed multiple crimes, but I will not say that he is guilty until he is tried in a court of law. Yes, there are plenty of non-political reasons to prosecute him. I honestly think that the best thing that Trump opponents can do to start cleaning away the four years of anti-democratic norm breaking is to act like tight-arse, by the book, just the facts ma'am, rule followers. Be as unTrump as possible. Work through the system to strengthen and protect the system.

I didn't know anyone was suggesting that he doesn't get a trial.

He should not be put in prison until he is found guilty in court, but i do not need a trail to be ok with saying he is guilty of breaking the law and deserves to be in prison.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is kind of like an old Western movie

Small town ruled by a local gang leader - Big Donnie

Everyone wants him gone but are scared to death of him and his gang and decides it best to leave well enough alone

A new sheriff comes to town and decides enough is enough and bring him to justice

No one wants him to do it because the wrath could be painful, but the sheriff does it, the town rallies and justice prevails

The line has to be drawn somewhere

During 2016 Trump famously said "I can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any voters"

are we okay with that turning that into "I can shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not get arrested"?