Does Trump ever do any jail time? (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Optimus Prime

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,844
    Reaction score
    15,634
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Online
    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"?
     
    Last edited:
    Agree. You can’t pardon above yourself do you should only be able to pardon below your elected level.

    Since there is no elected level above President they should not be eligible. Their crimes should all be considered treasonous; as any action from the CiC that isn’t in support of the US by definition is working against and that is treason.
     
    In a column for the conservative Bulwark, longtime attorney Philip Rotner explained that, based upon recent events, the most likely reason Donald Trump might serve time in jail will be due to his "fake elector scheme."

    Noting a recent flurry of subpoenas that were issued in the past week to officials in multiple states who were part of the scheme to replace their states' actual electoral votes with their own based on fraudulent election claims, the attorney said the Department of Justice is following the correct trail if they want to indict the former president.

    As Rotner wrote, it seems like Trump has continually avoided paying for his crimes, but, if he had to put money on it, that streak will end with charges over the election theft gambit...............


     
    CoolBrees said:
    Agree. You can’t pardon above yourself do you should only be able to pardon below your elected level.

    Since there is no elected level above President they should not be eligible. Their crimes should all be considered treasonous; as any action from the CiC that isn’t in support of the US by definition is working against and that is treason.
    Click to expand...

    And furthermore a president shouldn't be able to pardon someone for crimes, if those crimes involve that president

    "Oh, they are offering you immunity if you'll testify against me? I'll just pardon you. No jail, no reason to open your big mouth."
     


    I also saw where a very conservative former prosecutor (?) who defended Trump during his first impeachment said on Fox that he thinks there’s enough to charge Trump now, after hearing Hutchinson’s sworn testimony.
     
    After another week of riveting testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee, it is natural to wonder: How many laws were broken, by whom, and will there be prosecutions?

    Some argue that former president Donald Trump is undoubtedly guilty of serious crimes and must be tried.

    Others insist that the criminal case against Mr. Trump still is not airtight, and that prosecuting a former president would tear apart the country.

    What is beyond doubt is that an intensive criminal investigation must proceed…….

    And, yes, the department should conduct a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump himself. Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be treating this prospect with a high degree of care, and appropriately so.

    A new administration prosecuting a former president of the opposite party would set a perilous precedent; one need only look at the long record of failed democracies abroad, in which new leaders tried those they deposed, to see the danger.

    Prosecuting Mr. Trump also risks helping him politically.


    On the other hand, if Mr. Trump is clearly, unquestionably guilty of committing a serious crime — not just arguably so — the department might have little choice.

    Central to our system of justice is the principle that no one is above the law…….

     
    And the flip side
    ============
    I have long been opposed to the idea of prosecuting Donald Trump, fearing that such a step would polarize the country and set a dangerous precedent.

    I worry about the implications of having the current administration go after its predecessor and chief political opponent.

    But the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson has caused me to rethink that premise and at least consider whether prosecution may be warranted…….

    The second question is much tougher. Prosecutorial discretion is unreviewable. It is an executive branch call. The chief executive’s responsibility is to do what is in the best interest of the United States, not merely to seek a proper law enforcement outcome.


    To be sure, no one is above the law, even the president; but neither do we prosecute every provable crime.

    Other considerations often apply, such as preserving domestic tranquility and institutional integrity.

    The past eight years of politically fraught investigations — including criminal and national-security probes of Trump and Hillary Clinton, both major-party presidential nominees — should teach us that the intrusion of prosecutors into electoral politics has a corrupting effect on the democratic process and the Justice Department itself.


    The Justice Department should have a higher standard for prosecuting political cases, staying its hand unless there is an offense that is both serious and easy for the public to grasp.

    That is especially so when the department, which ultimately answers to the president, is investigating the president’s top political rival — who, in this instance, seems poised to seek the presidency again………

     
    If there's one thing former president Donald Trump knows very well, it's the fact that the Department of Justice has a hard and fast policy against indicting a sitting president.

    He heard it hundreds of times during the Mueller investigation from every TV lawyer in the country as well as his own, including the White House counsel.

    And even though the Mueller Report laid out several possible counts of obstruction of justice, clearly intended to be triggered once Trump was out of office, nothing ever happened.

    It's pretty clear that Trump understands the presidency to be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Right now he probably could use one............

    But Trump doesn't care about that. His personal needs are far more urgent. The Guardian, reports that "Trump has reportedly told advisers that declaring a run for the White House now would allow him to strengthen his argument that other criminal investigations against him in New York and Georgia are politically motivated."

    It's also possible that he believes that the DOJ, being burned by the scandal with James Comey and the Hillary Clinton email debacle of 2016, simply cannot indict a former president, presidential candidate and front runner for the nomination before an election, even if it's years in advance.

    He would certainly make hay out of it if they tried. The sooner he announces the safer he believes he will be. Sadly, he may be right.............

    MSN

    www.msn.com
     
    Last edited:
    Optimus Prime said:
    If there's one thing former president Donald Trump knows very well, it's the fact that the Department of Justice has a hard and fast policy against indicting a sitting president.

    He heard it hundreds of times during the Mueller investigation from every TV lawyer in the country as well as his own, including the White House counsel.

    And even though the Mueller Report laid out several possible counts of obstruction of justice, clearly intended to be triggered once Trump was out of office, nothing ever happened.

    It's pretty clear that Trump understands the presidency to be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Right now he probably could use one............

    But Trump doesn't care about that. His personal needs are far more urgent. The Guardian, reports that "Trump has reportedly told advisers that declaring a run for the White House now would allow him to strengthen his argument that other criminal investigations against him in New York and Georgia are politically motivated."

    It's also possible that he believes that the DOJ, being burned by the scandal with James Comey and the Hillary Clinton email debacle of 2016, simply cannot indict a former president, presidential candidate and front runner for the nomination before an election, even if it's years in advance.

    He would certainly make hay out of it if they tried. The sooner he announces the safer he believes he will be. Sadly, he may be right.............

    MSN

    www.msn.com
    Click to expand...
    IMO, the trump administration's actions amount to political terrorism and it is banking on the possibility of violence should trump be prosecuted as a deterrence for holding him accountable. Essentially, the DOJ would be succumbing to terroristic threats by not prosecuting. Not prosecuting would ensure and hasten the demise of this country.

    If the DOJ refuses to bring charges against trump then we should just find every remaining copy of the constitution and burn them because the words in them would have no real meaning. There will no longer be a believable concept of no one being above the law. It would be no one is above the law unless prosecuting that person could lead to violence.

    If a murderer knows he won't be prosecuted, what stops him from murdering again?
     
    Saintamaniac said:
    IMO, the trump administration's actions amount to political terrorism and it is banking on the possibility of violence should trump be prosecuted as a deterrence for holding him accountable. Essentially, the DOJ would be succumbing to terroristic threats by not prosecuting. Not prosecuting would ensure and hasten the demise of this country.

    If the DOJ refuses to bring charges against trump then we should just find every remaining copy of the constitution and burn them because the words in them would have no real meaning. There will no longer be a believable concept of no one being above the law. It would be no one is above the law unless prosecuting that person could lead to violence.

    If a murderer knows he won't be prosecuted, what stops him from murdering again?
    Click to expand...
    Optimus Prime said:
    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"?

    Click to expand...
     
    NBC News host Chuck Todd asked Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Sunday: “Do you think the country can handle prosecuting a former president?”


    The implication seemed to be that Americans should be afraid to hold Donald Trump responsible for the worst betrayal of the public ever committed by a president. Why? Might his supporters start (another) riot? Will Republicans later bring spurious charges against an innocent former president?


    Hogan’s answer started badly. “I’m not sure they can,” he said, apparently meaning some subset of Americans could not tolerate the proper functioning of the judicial system.

    But he swiftly recovered: “I think, you know, no man is above the law,” Hogan said solemnly. “So if that’s where the facts lead, that’s what has to happen.”…….

    The question the media, politicians and voters should be asking is this: After seeing the compelling evidence that the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection already has presented (with more coming on Tuesday and Thursday), how could we afford not to press charges against Trump?

    One of the committee’s major accomplishments has been to demonstrate that virtually all the compelling evidence against Trump has comes from his closest associates, demolishing the argument that the investigation is a partisan witch hunt.


    Put differently, the Jan. 6 committee presents a case almost entirely dependent on Republican witnesses who had the courage to step forward.

    To ignore their conscientious effort would tell witnesses in future investigations not to fulfill their obligation to tell the truth and defend the Constitution.

    Is there anything that could undermine the sanctity of oaths and promote spineless obedience to a lawless president than that?…..

     
    Let’s take Attorney General Merrick Garland at his word that he is vigorously investigating Donald Trump and the apparent conspiracy that led to the violent coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol 18 months ago.


    My guess is that Garland should be able to make the decision on whether there is enough evidence to indict the former president for the crime of conspiracy to defraud the United States and/or related felonies in six months’ time.

    That decision should be based solely on whether the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Trump’s guilt — not on political considerations.

    He will have to be about his work. The Jan. 6 select committee will hold what might be its last public hearing on Thursday evening.

    The committee, led by its steadfast chair, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), and its implacable vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), has demonstrated a unity of purpose and willingness to put the nation’s interests above personal attention and reward, and produced a factual record that lays the foundational predicate for charging those responsible for organizing the assault on the Capitol.


    Understandably, some have called on Garland to produce immediate indictments and prosecutions of individuals. I believe a more patient approach will better serve the interests of justice…….

     
    Former president Donald Trump was spotted using the presidential seal on multiple items during the LIV Golf tournament at his Bedminster, N.J., golf course.


    The seal was plastered on towels, golf carts and other items as the former president participated in the pro-am of the Saudi-sponsored tournament Thursday.

    It is against federal law to use the presidential and vice-presidential seals in ways that could convey “a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

    While violating this law could result in imprisonment of “not more than six months,” a fine, or both, these punishments are rarely doled out…….

     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Former president Donald Trump was spotted using the presidential seal on multiple items during the LIV Golf tournament at his Bedminster, N.J., golf course.


    The seal was plastered on towels, golf carts and other items as the former president participated in the pro-am of the Saudi-sponsored tournament Thursday.

    It is against federal law to use the presidential and vice-presidential seals in ways that could convey “a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

    While violating this law could result in imprisonment of “not more than six months,” a fine, or both, these punishments are rarely doled out…….

    Click to expand...
    Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!
     
    Nervous pundits warn that for the good of the country, the Justice Department ought not to indict Donald Trump, since prosecuting a former president is the sort of thing “banana republics” do. That’s wrong on two grounds.

    First, it is not up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to decide what’s in the country’s long-term democratic interests. The decision whether to “spare the country” the turmoil surrounding a past president’s criminal trial rests with the chief executive, as was the case under President Gerald Ford.

    The closest the Justice Department’s prosecutorial guidelines come to that concept is the requirement that a prosecution serve a “substantial federal interest.” But that factor, as properly understood, weighs in favor of prosecution. As the guidelines note:

    In determining whether a substantial federal interest exists that requires prosecution, the attorney for the government should consider the nature and seriousness of the offense involved. A number of factors may be relevant to this consideration. One factor that is obviously of primary importance is the actual or potential impact of the offense on the community and on the victim(s). The nature and seriousness of the offense may also include a consideration of national security interests.
    Click to expand...

    Well, there could hardly be a more substantial interest than punishing the leader of an attempt to overthrow a democratic election in order to deter future coups.

    Fortunately, Garland made clear in a recent interview with NBC News’s Lester Holt that his department intends to “hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable.” The attorney general seemed to reject the idea of excluding a prosecution simply because Trump was president.

    Second, prosecuting a former political leader is not what will turn the United States into a “banana republic.” Indeed, I have some unfortunate news for the nervous Nellies: Our country is already on its way to becoming a failed democracy. The question is now what we intend to do about it.

    How do you know democracy is unraveling? It is when an incumbent does these sorts of things:

    • Refuses to acknowledge he lost an election.
    • Uses captive media outlets to undermine the sanctity of elections and lie about election “fraud.”
    • Ignores mounds of evidence showing the election was legitimate.
    • Attempts to use the Justice Department to throw doubt on the legitimacy of an election.
    • Pressures state officials to “find” just enough votes to change the result of a key state.
    • Pressures state officials to retract voting certificates and create fraudulent documents to override the will of the people.
    • Cooks up a scheme to retain power that his own counsel understands would be illegal..............
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom