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"?

 

[CoolBrees]

A paperwork issue?!?

My new favorite over generalization EVER

I am going to refer car wrecks as hardware issues.

 

[MT15]

A paperwork issue?!?

My new favorite over generalization EVER

I am going to refer car wrecks as hardware issues.

And his one response was “the President has the highest clearance” - he’s not the president, you simpleton. He should never have those after he left office. Not under any circumstance.

 

[Optimus Prime]

George Conway, a conservative lawyer and the husband of former Donald Trump aide Kellyanne Conway, said that it would be hard for "any fair jury" not to convict the former president over his handling of sensitive government documents recovered from his Florida residence.

Mr Conway appeared on The Daily Beast'spodcast "The New Abnormal" hosted by journalist Molly Jong-Fast, and said the while he "can't guarantee" that Mr Trump will see the inside of of a jail cell, he did predict that "there's a reasonable likelihood of it.".

"I think it's going to be very difficult for the Justice Department to decline prosecuting him," Mr Conway said. "I think before any fair jury, he'd have to be convicted based upon what we're seeing. There's still more evidence that needs to come out, but everything points to him being in a heap of trouble and we haven't seen everything that the Justice Department has."

Ms Jong-Fast pushed back and asked what Mr Trump's legal team could do to help him avoid possible prosecution and conviction. Mr Conway said there was "nothing" they could do at this point, claiming the "mistakes" that Mr Trump already made may ultimately damn him…….

George Conway says ‘any honest jury’ would convict Trump over government documents

“I think it’s going to be very difficult for the Justice Department to decline prosecuting him,” Mr Conway said

www.independent.co.uk

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I wonder if the DOJ appeals this. Then again, it is Florida...

Live updates: Judge reaches decision on Trump's special master bid

A federal judge has granted former President Trump's request for a special master to review evidence the FBI seized at his Mar-a-Lago resort. Follow live news updates here.

www.cnn.com

 

[superchuck500]

This is absolutely kooky. There’s so much in here that isn’t real law. Amazing.

 

[zztop]

huh imagine that... a trump appointed judge doing such things

 

[Dragon]

This is absolutely kooky. There’s so much in here that isn’t real law. Amazing.

So a judge appointed by the accused can stop an investigation into the same person? Something is seriously wrong!!

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is absolutely kooky. There’s so much in here that isn’t real law. Amazing.

In your opinion, could they appeal the ruling?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Can we get a break? Jeez.

 

[UriUT]

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, find a corrupt judge you appointed.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

This is absolutely kooky. There’s so much in here that isn’t real law. Amazing.

No worries, SCOTUS will no doubt take this case after the appeal and right this egregious wrong ruling that this inept judge made.

 

[zztop]

...what does this even mean? I get it, but this seems like a weak argument:

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Trump's position as a former president meant the seizure of documents carried a stigma "in a league of its own" and that any future indictment "would result in reputational harm."

 

[GrandAdmiral]

...what does this even mean? I get it, but this seems like a weak argument:

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Trump's position as a former president meant the seizure of documents carried a stigma "in a league of its own" and that any future indictment "would result in reputational harm."

Because it is.

 

[superchuck500]

Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal on how bad this ruling is.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

...what does this even mean? I get it, but this seems like a weak argument:

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Trump's position as a former president meant the seizure of documents carried a stigma "in a league of its own" and that any future indictment "would result in reputational harm."

By her dumb arse logic, he could have taken the Football home and then turn around and sue the Government because they changed his codes.

 

[coldseat]

Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal on how bad this ruling is.

The thing is, it doesn't really matter how bad the ruling is. Because Republicans have a majority of judges along the way to the SC (specifically Trump appointed judges, but other Republicans judges too), her ruling will be upheld. And we'll have a slew of bad precedent set along the way in service of a corrupt, degenerate ex-president. They will make Trump's nonexistent "executive authority" as ex-president equal to or greater then Biden's and destroy the whole concept of only one president at a time.

Every time they get a chance Trumpster's (district judges included) prove us right with how debased they are in being willing to go along with Trump's scams. I have little to no faith in our justice system when it comes to the Trump appointed justices. They may not all be this bad, but the majority are, and we knew it when they were appointed. They ALWAYS prove that everything negative that those of us that opposed their appointments said was right.

 

[MT15]

This guy thinks the crazy decision by the Trumpy judge won’t matter much:

 

[superchuck500]

The thing is, it doesn't really matter how bad the ruling is. Because Republicans have a majority of judges along the way to the SC (specifically Trump appointed judges, but other Republicans judges too), her ruling will be upheld. And we'll have a slew of bad precedent set along the way in service of a corrupt, degenerate ex-president. They will make Trump's nonexistent "executive authority" as ex-president equal to or greater then Biden's and destroy the whole concept of only one president at a time.

Every time they get a chance Trumpster's (district judges included) prove us right with how debased they are in being willing to go along with Trump's scams. I have little to no faith in our justice system when it comes to the Trump appointed justices. They may not all be this bad, but the majority are, and we knew it when they were appointed. They ALWAYS prove that everything negative that those of us that opposed their appointments said was right.

I know this is how it looks and I have no response to say it isn't.

In my heart, I still believe that the law matters and that while there is often more nuance and open space than we realize (e.g. constitutional right to abortion), I have to hold on to the firmly -held conviction that some results are simply too much for the law to bear.

This result is one of them - there simply is no basis for the idea that an ex-president can hold and continue to possess documents (whether classified or not) from seizure by the executive branch (led by the current president) on the basis of executive privilege. That makes no sense whatsoever, it cannot be the result. It just can't.