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"?

 

[Optimus Prime]

The radical left!!!!!

I thought the term was now alt-left

 

[Farb]

I thought the term was now alt-left

You can really substitute a lot of different words for the radical left.
'Groomers' is one that is catching steam.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You can really substitute a lot of different words for the radical left.
'Groomers' is one that is catching steam.

I don't know, I've seen a lot of people on the left that could use a shave and a haircut.

 

[Optimus Prime]

What’s Mueller up to these days
=========================


The time has come for Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump.

That step offers the best way to reassure the country that no one is above the law, justice is nonpartisan and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges.


Several recent developments have brought us to this moment. On March 2, the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege alleged in a federal court filing that it had amassed evidence that Trump illegally schemed to stop the lawful transfer of power to Joe Biden.


The next day, we learned that Oath Keepers member Joshua James was cooperating with prosecutors as part of a guilty plea for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and for seditious conspiracy culminating in the Jan. 6 attack.


And last month, a federal district court ruled that two Capitol police officers and 11 members of Congress had alleged facts in a civil suit against Trump that, if proven, would support holding him civilly liable for inciting the Jan. 6 siege.
These events raise public expectations and heighten the political pressure on the Justice Department.

On one side are those counseling Garland to refrain from acting against Trump lest the attorney general be accused of engaging in a partisan vendetta.

On the other are those, including us, who believe that Trump’s alleged role in a conspiracy intended to interfere with congressional duty is so unprecedented that ordinarily close legal questions bend in favor of taking action to protect the rule of law……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/09/garland-special-counsel-trump/

 

[wardorican]

To Bush and Clinton maybe, but not to the lefts orange man, that is just the standard left's screetch of projection.
Why can we not discuss Biden and Hunter Biden, the sitting president and his son who was receiving money from Ukraine without saying "well, that is not as bad as TRUMP!" It is just silly partisan politics.

It was already brought up. I literally replied to this exchange.

I never said you couldn't discuss any others you feel are corrupt. I even asked you to define corrupt. I mean seriously. Stop just retorting to the post in isolation. Follow the point man.

 

[Farb]

It was already brought up. I literally replied to this exchange.

I never said you couldn't discuss any others you feel are corrupt. I even asked you to define corrupt. I mean seriously. Stop just retorting to the post in isolation. Follow the point man.

Sorry man, do you need me to post the definition of 'corrupt' for you, I figured you could handle that yourself. I am willing to help if needed, just let me know.

 

[Farb]

I don't know, I've seen a lot of people on the left that could use a shave and a haircut.

Especially the 'women' on the left!

 

[brandon]

Especially the 'women' on the left!

This is transphobic.

 

[SamAndreas]

You can really substitute a lot of different words for the radical left.
'Groomers' is one that is catching steam.

Oh' really now.

I'm pretty sure groomers catch fleas, not a head of steam.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[wardorican]

Sorry man, do you need me to post the definition of 'corrupt' for you, I figured you could handle that yourself. I am willing to help if needed, just let me know.

No, but I do need you to read the entirety of a post, instead of just retorting in a circle.

Also, don't be a tool.

I thought you were a smart guy. I was pushing back. And you resort to little games. Whatever entertains you, I guess. If politics is your entertainment, that's sad.

 

[FullMonte]

What’s Mueller up to these days
=========================


The time has come for Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump.

That step offers the best way to reassure the country that no one is above the law, justice is nonpartisan and fears of political fallout will not determine the decision on whether to bring charges.


Several recent developments have brought us to this moment. On March 2, the House select committee investigating the Capitol siege alleged in a federal court filing that it had amassed evidence that Trump illegally schemed to stop the lawful transfer of power to Joe Biden.


The next day, we learned that Oath Keepers member Joshua James was cooperating with prosecutors as part of a guilty plea for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and for seditious conspiracy culminating in the Jan. 6 attack.


And last month, a federal district court ruled that two Capitol police officers and 11 members of Congress had alleged facts in a civil suit against Trump that, if proven, would support holding him civilly liable for inciting the Jan. 6 siege.
These events raise public expectations and heighten the political pressure on the Justice Department.

On one side are those counseling Garland to refrain from acting against Trump lest the attorney general be accused of engaging in a partisan vendetta.

On the other are those, including us, who believe that Trump’s alleged role in a conspiracy intended to interfere with congressional duty is so unprecedented that ordinarily close legal questions bend in favor of taking action to protect the rule of law……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/09/garland-special-counsel-trump/

I recently read something that made sense. The person speculated that Garland saw what happened with the Mueller investigation, and saw that aggressively going after Trump's inner circle to get them to flip wasn't the right move. It resulted in them not flipping, and simply running back to Trump to inform him of what was being asked, and what they were looking at. This allowed for Trump and his legal team to plan their defense.

So, Garland is trying a much different tactic. Instead, he is quietly building a case, waiting until he has a rock solid base for it before moving in.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm back and forth on if we'll ever see any criminal charges
======================================

On 8 March, a jury took three hours to render a guilty verdict against Guy Reffitt, a January 6 insurrectionist. Donald Trump could not have been pleased. DC is where Trump would be tried for any crimes relating to his admitted campaign to overturn the election.

Jurors there would have no trouble finding that the evidence satisfies all statutory elements required to convict Trump, including his criminal intent, the most challenging to prove. That is our focus here.

A 3 March New York Times story asserted that “Building a criminal case against Mr Trump is very difficult for federal prosecutors ... given the high burden of proof ... [and] questions about Mr Trump’s mental state”.

The clear implication is that justice department leaders may simply be following the path of prudence in hesitating to indict, or even to robustly investigate, Mr Trump. But based on the already public evidence – and there’s undoubtedly lots more that’s not yet public – no vigilant prosecutor would be deterred by the difficulty of convincing a jury about Trump’s state of mind. Full speed ahead is now the only proper course.

The former president is vulnerable to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 USC §371, and obstructing a congressional proceeding, 18 USC §1512(c)(2).

Regarding §371’s intent requirement, the US supreme court has ruled that conspiracies to defraud the United States include plots entered “for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” using “deceit, craft or trickery, or ... means that are dishonest”.

The mountain of public evidence would surely lead a jury to reject Trump’s defense that that he honestly believed his own ‘big lie’

The mental state required for §1512 is a “corrupt” intent to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. In Arthur Andersen v United States, the supreme court said “corrupt” meant “dishonest” or “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil”.

The mountain of already public evidence would surely lead a DC jury to reject Trump’s defense that that he honestly believed his own “big lie” that widespread ballot fraud had deprived him of victory, and therefore that his intent was innocent.

First, Trump knew that the 60-plus court cases seeking to overturn the votes in contested states had failed.

Second, as the former Michigan US attorney Barbara McQuade has compellingly shown, five of Trump’s top officials told him unequivocally that all the fraud claims were false.

Third, Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, told Trump the same thing during the infamous recorded call in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes, exactly one more than needed to overturn the state’s election.

That call alone screams “corrupt” intent. And the barely veiled way Trump threatened Raffensperger in that call reinforces Trump’s “evil” state of mind.

Fourth, Trump’s speech immediately preceding the Capitol attack included a provable, telling lie – that he would join the Capitol march with the crowd even though his pre-speech schedule showed no such plan and Trump did nothing of the sort. A properly instructed jury would likely conclude that this lie reflected Trump’s desire to remain far from the violence he had encouraged, giving him both physical safety and plausible deniability and further evidencing a “corrupt” state of mind.

Fifth, Trump’s failure for three hours to call off the siege after it began, notwithstanding violent televised images and entreaties from his children, advisers and allies – despite his undoubted duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – was manifestly “depraved”.

Sixth, when Trump belatedly asked the insurrectionists to go home, he called them “patriots” who should “remember this day for ever”. A federal judge wrote in an 18 February opinion that “a reasonable observer could read that tweet as ratifying the violence and other illegal acts that took place that day”...........

The evidence is clear: it’s time to prosecute Donald Trump

 

[Optimus Prime]

What many of us fear
================

Attorney General Merrick Garland is not going to save democracy. Nor is the attorney general of New York, Letitia James; the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg; nor the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis. As the apparent collapse of the New York district attorney’s investigation makes clear, criminal cases are hard to make. Donald Trump, despite his many seemingly criminal acts, is unlikely to ever spend a day in jail.

Observers of the Trump malignancy have an unfortunate habit of wish casting—believing that their most optimistic fantasies will become reality. They did this with the Mueller investigation—remember “It’s Mueller Time”?—and they did it with both of Trump’s impeachments. Their dream has always been that somehow, somewhere, someone would call Trump to account for his actions and, in doing so, save American democracy.

Today, many invest the ongoing criminal investigations of Trump in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., with the same hopes. Even my good friend George Conway has speculated that this time things might be different.

I don’t see it happening. Please don’t misunderstand; I am as convinced as anyone of the criminality of Trump’s conduct, and nothing would please me more than to see him get his deserved comeuppance. He should, and very well may, be indicted in one or more of these jurisdictions. And the civil suits against him may have legs.

But years of experience prosecuting fraught political cases (and defending others) has taught me that the criminal law is a blunt tool for achieving justice and a poor means of resolving political issues. In my judgment, the chances that Trump will be convicted of any crime are slim to none. And though I am no political analyst, my guess is that a failure to convict will only embolden him and his followers.

Why won’t the criminal law suffice?..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Investigation is still ongoing despite the resignations. i was under the impression that it was stopped

We'll see if that means anything
===========================


Former U.S. Army prosecutor Glenn Kirschner expressed frustration at former President Donald Trump's ability to "weasel out" of facing accountability for alleged crimes, saying this needs to come to an end.

Two prosecutors at the Manhattan District Attorney's office—attorneys Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne—abruptly resigned last month after the new District Attorney Alvin Bragg stopped pursuing an indictment against Trump related to his business practices. On Wednesday, The New York Times reported on Pomerantz's resignation letter, which alleged that the former president is guilty of "numerous felonies."

Kirschner discussed the news of the resignation letter during a Wednesday episode of The Dean Obeidallah Show on SiriusXM. The attorney, who now works as a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, said that he had suspected the attorneys were "deeply critical" of the new district attorney's "unjustified" decision when they resigned.

"It is an abdication of your duty as a district attorney," Kirschner argued, saying Bragg is in his position to "represent the interest of the people." He said that the district attorney should "aggressively but fairly and ethically prosecute crimes."

The former Army prosecutor explained that the team that had been investigating Trump and his business practices for years were "seasoned" and assembled specifically for the case. He pointed out that they were saying, "we have the evidence to prove that Donald Trump committed felony crimes."

"At some point, Donald Trump's ability to weasel out of being held accountable for his crimes needs to come to an end," Kirschner concluded.

Pomerantz had come out of retirement to work on the case investigating Trump. In his February 23 resignation letter reported by The New York Times, the former federal prosecutor said Bragg's decision was "contrary to the public interest."

"The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes—he did," the attorney wrote.............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MT15]

Pretty good discussion of possible signs of movement by DOJ:

The DOJ Finally Seems to Be Moving Toward a Trump Investigation

There’s no doubt where the evidence, if properly followed as Attorney General Merrick Garland has promised to do, ultimately points.

slate.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Aren't their other artists who've made similar claims against Trump?
=============================================

Reggae singer Eddy Grant may succeed where the attorney general of New York state and other powerful figures have struggled – by forcing Donald Trump to answer questions under oath in a legal proceeding.

Grant sued the former president and his campaign over the use of the song Electric Avenue in an ad in 2020.

In the ad, Grant’s song plays over an animation of Joe Biden traveling slowly in a handcar, after a Trump campaign train passes at high speed. Remarks from Biden are also heard.

According to Grant’s lawsuit: “As of 1 September 2020, the video had been viewed more than 13.7m times; the tweet containing the video had been ‘liked’ more than 350,000 times, re-tweeted more than 139,000 times, and had received nearly 50,000 comments.”

Grant claims copyright infringement and seeks $300,000 in damages. Trump has failed to have the suit dismissed.

Lawyers for the former president have claimed fair use, saying the ad was satire, exempt from copyright law, and used footage reposted without knowing its origin. They have also said Trump cannot be sued because of “presidential absolute immunity”...........

Trump may face day in court thanks to lawsuit from reggae singer Eddy Grant

 

[MT15]

I know the campaign received “cease and desist” letters from artists whose music they played at the rallies, but I don’t remember anyone filing suit before this.

I did read something the other day I hadn’t heard. I guess the WH photographer was planning to publish a book of the pictures taken during the Trump term, and Trump basically made sure they couldn’t do it. He then took the pictures and published the book himself, making several hundred thousand dollars by selling it to his cult. Effectively cutting the photographer out of any profit from their own pictures. Disclaimer: don’t know all the details and this was part of a conversation on Twitter, not an article I could link.