Does Trump ever do any jail time? (16 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"?

 

[Optimus Prime]

When it comes to the Mar-a-Lago matter, there will be no appeasing Donald Trump and his most fervent supporters.

There will be no point at which they acknowledge that any law enforcement activity related to the court-approved search of the former president’s home is legitimate.

The sooner we accept this as a fundamental fact about the situation, the better.


This is brought to mind by the news that a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce a redacted version of the affidavit undergirding the search warrant for Trump’s Florida resort. Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart says he’s “inclined” toward release.


A prediction: If this document is released, Trump and many of his supporters will seize on the redactions as “evidence” that the "real rationale" for the search is being covered up — and that the entire process is irredeemably illegitimate.

This points to a concrete real-world conundrum. Release of the affidavit probably can’t solve a key problem it appears intended to solve: It likely can’t reassure Trump supporters that the process is legitimate, because Trump and his most influential propagandists will never allow that it’s legitimate, no matter what…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/19/trump-affidavit-mar-a-lago-judge-reinhart/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former President Donald Trump hinted at legal action concerning the Mar-a-Lago raid, but lawyers say his Fourth Amendment defense will likely fail.

In a post on Truth Social, on Friday night, Trump said that a "major motion" related to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, will soon be filed.

Earlier this month, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the former president's home in Palm Beach, Florida. Legal experts determined that significant evidence must have backed up the warrant authorizing the search.

Unsealed court documents showed that the search was part of an investigation into whether Trump had violated three laws, including a significant facet of the Espionage Act, relating to the treatment of government documents.

Trump and his allies have denounced the FBI search, characterizing it as a political attack, despite it being signed off by a federal judge and approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland.........

According to the Library of Congress, the Fourth Amendment is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Though the "major motion" is yet to be filed, lawyers are already saying his Fourth Amendment defense would likely fail.

The Daily Beast reported that legal experts used Twitter to cast doubt on the motion.

"Trump promises a 'major motion pertaining to the 4th Am' re MAL search," wrote former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman. "Presumably, he means a motion to suppress evidence, which people file once charged (but not before), & he'll surely lose."...........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

As former President Donald Trump continues publicly attacking the Justice Department and the FBI following last week's unprecedented raid of his Mar-a-Lago club, people who have been close to his inner circle told Insider that they think he could be in serious legal trouble.

One lawyer familiar with the Trump team's thought process said in an interview that the ex-president "likes to run the show" and is a "big believer in the public relations assault," but that he could soon face criminal charges he can't talk his way out of.

"He should be worried about all these investigations," the lawyer added. "I think he's a target of all of them and I think he'll get indicted.".........

'I think he'll get indicted': Legal insiders warn that Trump could soon face criminal charges he can't talk his way out of

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner believes Donald Trump might be indicted for treason, he said on Friday.

Kirschner, speaking in an interview with MSNBC, said Trump launched "an armed attack on the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power," per Newsweek.

"Let's not forget about that little crime that may actually amount to treason," he said.

The Capitol riot left five people, including one police officer, dead. Members of the Proud Boys, which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, were also present.

Organizers were emboldened by former President Donald Trump's urges to protest the results of the 2020 election with him, despite Joe Biden's election victory. While members of Congress were meeting inside the Capitol to certify the results and verify Biden's electoral win, Trump supporters organized an attempted coup and stormed the Capitol.

After the riot, insurrectionists scrambled to delete photos and social-media posts proving their participation in the Capitol riot. Some broke their cellphones, scrubbed their social media accounts, and tried to wipe hard drives that might contain photos and other proof of their involvement.

But others boasted of their involvement, making it easier for the FBI to identify and later bring charges against them. So far, at least 895 people have been charged in connection with the insurrection, according to Insider's database...........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[superchuck500]

Former President Donald Trump hinted at legal action concerning the Mar-a-Lago raid, but lawyers say his Fourth Amendment defense will likely fail.

In a post on Truth Social, on Friday night, Trump said that a "major motion" related to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, will soon be filed.

Earlier this month, the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the former president's home in Palm Beach, Florida. Legal experts determined that significant evidence must have backed up the warrant authorizing the search.

Unsealed court documents showed that the search was part of an investigation into whether Trump had violated three laws, including a significant facet of the Espionage Act, relating to the treatment of government documents.

Trump and his allies have denounced the FBI search, characterizing it as a political attack, despite it being signed off by a federal judge and approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland.........

According to the Library of Congress, the Fourth Amendment is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Though the "major motion" is yet to be filed, lawyers are already saying his Fourth Amendment defense would likely fail.

The Daily Beast reported that legal experts used Twitter to cast doubt on the motion.

"Trump promises a 'major motion pertaining to the 4th Am' re MAL search," wrote former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman. "Presumably, he means a motion to suppress evidence, which people file once charged (but not before), & he'll surely lose."...........

MSN

www.msn.com

Motion for what? To suppress evidence for violating the 4th amendment? There’s no charges against him with evidence to supress.

He could file a Bivens lawsuit against the agents but the conservatives on the Supreme Court have basically gutted Bivens so thin that it likely wouldn’t apply in this case.

 

[Taurus]

Motion for what? To suppress evidence for violating the 4th amendment? There’s no charges against him with evidence to supress.

He could file a Bivens lawsuit against the agents but the conservatives on the Supreme Court have basically gutted Bivens so thin that it likely wouldn’t apply in this case.

My bet is he believes any case, no matter how weak, spurious or incoherent, that he can get in front of this SCOTUS will be decided in his favor. Law, precedent or sane reason be damned.

 

[efil4]

Motion for what? To suppress evidence for violating the 4th amendment? There’s no charges against him with evidence to supress.

He could file a Bivens lawsuit against the agents but the conservatives on the Supreme Court have basically gutted Bivens so thin that it likely wouldn’t apply in this case.

I just read his attorneys will argue the scope of warrant and the language in it. Basically saying that the warrant has to be specific and narrow, and some evidence was taken (warrant said something like "classified docs and those around it") that should not have been.

 

[FullMonte]

This is so true.....and then you see the date at the bottom of the tweet...

 

[SaintForLife]

She was allowed to delete personal emails under court supervision. Quit lying, I know it’s hard for you because you read and swallow all the lies told by your weird Twitter feed.

• The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.

The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

The FBI's summary of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contradicted some of her past statements about her use of a private email system for government business.

www.factcheck.org

It's funny you mention my Twitter feed considering the people's tweets you post. You just love all the former Bush/McCain neocons like David Saddam had WMD Frum & Bill I Never Met a War I didn't Like Krystol.

Andrew Enron Weissman(who wiped his government phones twice as part of the Mueller team)

CNN's Asha Rangappa Asha Rangappa may be the least qualified self-professed "expert" on federal law enforcement or national security. She spent less than 3 years as and FBI agent.

Tom Nichols who is one of the more well known neocon anti Trump grifters.

Leave Joe Biden Alone

Biden’s been a good president, but Republicans want to impeach him and some Democrats want to replace him.

www.theatlantic.com

Ron Filipkowski who still has a tweet pinned to his profile defending Rebekah Jones lol.

IG report finds Rebekah Jones' claims of COVID-19 manipulation to be unfounded

A state investigation into allegations that the Florida Department of Health fudged COVID-19 case numbers to support Gov. Ron DeSantis’ effort to reopen the state after a shutdown in April 2020, has found no evidence of wrongdoing.

wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu

Democrat who ran Florida’s pandemic response blasts Rebekah Jones for ‘running a disinformation campaign'

Jared Moskowitz, the former head of Florida’s emergency management department, also exchanged messages with Rebekah Jones that show he was complimentary to her.

www.politico.com

 

[MT15]

SFL, I think this might be hard for you to understand, but I don’t take anything said by these people as gospel and I disagree with some of their statements regularly. The real world is full of nuance, it’s not like a Marvel comic book with good guys and cartoonish supervillains.

But one thing you said has me curious. How is Tom Nichols “grifting”? I’m laughing as I typed that. Do you just accuse others of what your heroes do?

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, I think this might be hard for you to understand, but I don’t take anything said by these people as gospel and I disagree with some of their statements regularly. The real world is full of nuance, it’s not like a Marvel comic book with good guys and cartoonish supervillains.

But one thing you said has me curious. How is Tom Nichols “grifting”? I’m laughing as I typed that. Do you just accuse others of what your heroes do?

You are the one who ALWAYS questions the credibility when someone posts a tweet or article from someone you disagree with. If you are going to do that constantly then you shouldn't be surprised when someone questions the credibility of the people you post.

You don't seem to have any of that nuance you referenced when others post things that you disagree with. You give blanket statements attacking their credibility usually without specifically pointing out what's incorrect.

Tom Nichols is like many of the other former Republicans that the Democrats have helped resurrect their careers because they are anti Trump like Bill Krystol, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, John Weaver, Max Boot, David Frum, David French, Joe Walsh, George Conway, Reed Galen.

Nichols was a nobody until he opposed Trump and the Democrats and the media built him up like the others I listed solely because they were anti Trump. There's nothing wrong with them opposing Trump, but it's funny how the media ignored their pre-Trump views and statements. For example:

 

[MT15]

SFL, I have very often researched the lies the people tell that you post and showed you exactly why you shouldn’t believe what they say. After so many times, I just quit believing anything they say. So no, I don’t research every thing they say anymore. It’s a colossal waste of time.

I don’t know what you think you’ve proven with your posts from Nichols. He’s always been to the right of me on some issues. He’s the furthest thing from a nobody grifter, though. That you would form that thought just tells me you have no clue what you are talking about.

I am curious about who you got those tweets from. That would be interesting to know.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, I have very often researched the lies the people tell that you post and showed you exactly why you shouldn’t believe what they say. After so many times, I just quit believing anything they say. So no, I don’t research every thing they say anymore. It’s a colossal waste of time.

I don’t know what you think you’ve proven with your posts from Nichols. He’s always been to the right of me on some issues. He’s the furthest thing from a nobody grifter, though. That you would form that thought just tells me you have no clue what you are talking about.

I am curious about who you got those tweets from. That would be interesting to know.

You've said that many times about researching the people I post, but you are exaggerating. You had only done that a few times.

Shouldn't you look into something before you claim they are lying or or isn't accurate? Otherwise how would you know for sure? I don't think the people you post are lying or inaccurate every time so I look it up before I comment on it.

I showed that Nichols completely changed his views as soon as opposing Trump presented him with more opportunities. I didn't get those tweets from anyone. I had seen the tweet from the 28th a few weeks ago so I searched his profile for the rest.

 

[MT15]

You've said that many times about researching the people I post, but you are exaggerating. You had only done that a few times.

Shouldn't you look into something before you claim they are lying or or isn't accurate? Otherwise how would you know for sure? I don't think the people you post are lying or inaccurate every time so I look it up before I comment on it.

I showed that Nichols completely changed his views as soon as opposing Trump presented him with more opportunities. I didn't get those tweets from anyone. I had seen the tweet from the 28th a few weeks ago so I searched his profile for the rest.

You have a cynical view of Nichols, people change their views sometimes as years go by. It certainly wasn’t an overnight change now, was it? If you want to see overnight change, just look at any number of R politicians and their views on Trump. It’s also disingenuous to say he changed his views based on seeing some sort of opportunities. First, you cannot know that and second, he doesn’t need to monetize his social media presence, lol. He’s doing just fine with his books and pieces for The Atlantic. He also just retired from teaching at the War College, as a distinguished professor, IIRC.

He is still a conservative, but he is an expert in some fields that are important in understanding Trump, and he has the integrity to recognize Trump for what he is and say it out loud. That will make him enemies among those whose writings you follow, as they apologize for Trump incessantly.

Nichols is an accomplished, serious person. I don’t agree with him always, and sometimes reading him is exasperating. But he’s no grifter, unlike some that you quote on here, and he always has an interesting take on things. He can be a bit curmudgeonly, but I can certainly overlook it. You should read him with an open mind, he generally does know what he is talking about in his areas of expertise.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Don’t feel badly if you’ve lost track of all the investigations into the activities of defeated former president Donald Trump, his underlings and his cronies — there are almost too many to list. But let’s give it a try:


• The coup — the violent and nonviolent part

• The retention of highly classified and/or top-secret documents (and Trump lawyers’ apparent misrepresentation that all such documents had been returned)

• The fundraising appeals for an entity that did not exist and for a cause (campaign litigation) that was no longer active
• The mysterious disappearance of Secret Service, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security texts
• The civil investigation in New York into Trump’s finances
• The Georgia grand jury investigation into his attempt to “find” just enough votes to win the state
• The possible accessing of voting machines
• And possible tampering with Jan. 6 committee witnesses


We don’t know whether the facts justify prosecuting what to many seems like an unprecedented crime spree, and we don’t know the extent of Trump’s involvement in each of these matters. Remember, though, that in each case, multiple legal theories might result in prosecution.

The coup, for example, could entail possible seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, defrauding the United States, and aiding and abetting the violence. And those are just the possible federal charges.


When Attorney General Merrick Garland said that this is the biggest investigation ever undertaken by the Justice Department, he was not exaggerating.

The number of cases already brought, the number of witnesses, the number of potential charges and the gravity of the whole thing must be daunting.

Garland promised to follow the law and the facts, and will, I am convinced, indict Trump and other senior officials if the facts and law warrant, “without fear of favor” — or concern about Trump’s violent mob………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/21/merrick-garland-hard-questions-trump-investigation/

 

[MT15]

So much for the “standing order” that declassifies everything, lol.

 

[MT15]

I just read his attorneys will argue the scope of warrant and the language in it. Basically saying that the warrant has to be specific and narrow, and some evidence was taken (warrant said something like "classified docs and those around it") that should not have been.

I have read a Teri Kanefield thread on Trump’s motion, and it is evidently a dumpster fire. It reads in places like he dictated the language. And her thought is that he doesn’t own these documents, so none of the stuff argued should apply. He was basically in possession of government property, refused to return it and the FBI went and took it. They weren’t his to have.

 

[MT15]

Here’s a link to her thread.