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]

Why wasn’t this done after the first hearing?
==================================

The House January 6 select committee has formally transmitted a subpoena to Donald Trump, compelling the former president to provide an accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack and his broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The subpoena made sweeping requests for documents and testimony, dramatically raising the stakes in the highly charged congressional investigation and setting the stage for a constitutionally consequential legal battle that could ultimately go before the supreme court.

“Because of your central role in each element,” the panel’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney, wrote, “the select committee unanimously directed the issuance of a subpoena seeking your testimony and relevant documents in your possession on these and related topics.”

Most notably, the committee demanded that Trump turn over records of all January 6-related calls and texts sent or received, any communications with members of Congress, as well as communications with the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.

The expansive subpoena ordered Trump to produce documents by 4 November and testify on 14 November about interactions with key advisers who have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, including the political operatives Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.

“You were at the center of the first and only effort by any US president to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power,” the panel’s leaders wrote in making the case to subpoena Trump. “The evidence demonstrates that you knew this activity was illegal.”……

Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committee

Capitol attack committee makes sweeping requests for documents and testimony and dramatically raises stakes of investigation

www.theguardian.com

 

[efil4]

 

[superchuck500]

Sen. Lindsey Graham asks Supreme Court to block Georgia grand jury subpoena for his testimony | CNN Politics

Graham says his efforts in Georgia after the 2020 election were legislative activities protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the US Constitution.

www.cnn.com

It's not an uninteresting question for the Supreme Court - basically what is the scope of legislative immunity in the context of a state-run election that chooses electors to the federal electoral college.

 

[FullMonte]

It's not an uninteresting question for the Supreme Court - basically what is the scope of legislative immunity in the context of a state-run election that chooses electors to the federal electoral college.

I agree that it's an interesting question for them...but, at the same time, it seems like a no-brainer answer.

As I understand it, legislative immunity provides immunity from legal action for a member of congress for anything they do that is part of their job. Graham does not represent Georgia, and he is not a member of any committee (that I'm aware of) that deals with elections. As for any concerns he has about the accuracy of the election, there is currently a law on file that spells out, in great detail, how disputes to any state's electoral results be handled by congress.

So, I see no way that a senator calling a state they don't represent to try and somehow convince them to change the results of their presidential election in any way could be considered doing that senator's job.

 

[MT15]

Why wasn’t this done after the first hearing?
==================================

The House January 6 select committee has formally transmitted a subpoena to Donald Trump, compelling the former president to provide an accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack and his broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The subpoena made sweeping requests for documents and testimony, dramatically raising the stakes in the highly charged congressional investigation and setting the stage for a constitutionally consequential legal battle that could ultimately go before the supreme court.

“Because of your central role in each element,” the panel’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney, wrote, “the select committee unanimously directed the issuance of a subpoena seeking your testimony and relevant documents in your possession on these and related topics.”

Most notably, the committee demanded that Trump turn over records of all January 6-related calls and texts sent or received, any communications with members of Congress, as well as communications with the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.

The expansive subpoena ordered Trump to produce documents by 4 November and testify on 14 November about interactions with key advisers who have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, including the political operatives Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.

“You were at the center of the first and only effort by any US president to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power,” the panel’s leaders wrote in making the case to subpoena Trump. “The evidence demonstrates that you knew this activity was illegal.”……

Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committee

Capitol attack committee makes sweeping requests for documents and testimony and dramatically raises stakes of investigation

www.theguardian.com

I think they wanted to establish all the facts first - they were hoping, and I think they did succeed, in convincing non-cult Rs of Trump’s culpability first with all the testimony from his WH staff. Had they jumped right into a Trump subpoena I think the backlash would have been much more fierce.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From the Atlantic
==============
As an appellate judge, Merrick Garland was known for constructing narrow decisions that achieved consensus without creating extraneous controversy.

As a government attorney, he was known for his zealous adherence to the letter of the law.

As a person, he is a smaller-than-life figure, a dry conversationalist, studious listener, something close to the opposite of a raconteur.

As a driver, his friends say, he is maddeningly slow and almost comically fastidious.

And as the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, he is a hyper-prudential institutionalist who would like nothing more than to restore—quietly and deliberately—the Justice Department’s reputation for probity, process, and apolitical dispassion.

Which is why it is so difficult for me to imagine him delighting in the choice he now faces: whether to become the first attorney general in American history to indict a former president.

But this is what I believe he is preparing himself to do.

I have been observing Garland closely for months. I’ve talked with his closest friends and most loyal former clerks and deputies. I’ve carefully studied his record. I’ve interviewed Garland himself.

And I’ve reached the conclusion that his devotion to procedure, his belief in the rule of law, and in particular his reverence for the duties, responsibilities, and traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice will cause him to make the most monumental decision an attorney general can make.

Let me be absolutely clear: Garland did not tell me he was going to indict Donald Trump. In fact, he did not tip his hand to me in any way—he is far too cautious to signal his intentions to even his closest friends, much less a reporter.

Nor did his top aides suggest the announcement of an indictment. When his department says that it doesn’t discuss ongoing cases, it means it—at least in this case.

Before I lay out the reasons I believe I am correct in this assessment, I want to discuss why it is entirely possible I am not.

The main reason to disbelieve the argument that Garland is preparing to indict is simple:

To bring criminal charges against a former president from an opposing political party would be the ultimate test of a system that aspires to impartiality, and Garland, by disposition, is repelled by drama, and doesn’t believe the department should be subjected to unnecessary stress tests.

This unprecedented act would inevitably be used to justify a cycle of reprisals, and risks turning the Justice Department into an instrument of never-ending political warfare………

The Inevitable Indictment of Donald Trump

Merrick Garland hasn’t tipped his hand, but it’s clear to me that he will bring charges against the former president.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[superchuck500]

I agree that it's an interesting question for them...but, at the same time, it seems like a no-brainer answer.

As I understand it, legislative immunity provides immunity from legal action for a member of congress for anything they do that is part of their job. Graham does not represent Georgia, and he is not a member of any committee (that I'm aware of) that deals with elections. As for any concerns he has about the accuracy of the election, there is currently a law on file that spells out, in great detail, how disputes to any state's electoral results be handled by congress.

So, I see no way that a senator calling a state they don't represent to try and somehow convince them to change the results of their presidential election in any way could be considered doing that senator's job.

I agree with you for the most part - though it's an important point that any senator can object to any state's count under the electoral count statute. So Graham's position is that it's reasonable that he (as a Senator with this right or obligation depending how you look at it) should be able to inquire into the merits of an election in a (any) given state - to satisfy any basis he might have for lack of confidence.

But certainly the moment that inquiry becomes lobbying for some kind of result, that posture is completely changed and the senator unquestionably lacks immunity to make that kind of overture.

I think it's a fairly fine needle to thread, but the 11th Circuit was able to do it, hopefully the Court is too.

 

[MT15]

Yes, I think had Graham limited his call to “are you sure the vote is correct?” he’d be fine. But he tried to talk Raffensperger into throwing out votes. And Raffensperger said he felt pressured to do so, IIRC. So, I think Graham might be in trouble here.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

A temporary reprieve...

Clarence Thomas freezes order for Lindsey Graham to testify before Georgia grand jury investigating 2020 election | CNN Politics

Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday agreed to temporarily freeze a lower court order requiring the testimony of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in front of an Atlanta-area special grand jury that is investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state.

www.cnn.com

 

[Taurus]

A temporary reprieve...

Clarence Thomas freezes order for Lindsey Graham to testify before Georgia grand jury investigating 2020 election | CNN Politics

Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday agreed to temporarily freeze a lower court order requiring the testimony of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in front of an Atlanta-area special grand jury that is investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state.

www.cnn.com

Jesus, we are truly lost when SCOTUS isn't even hiding the bias anymore.

 

[Optimus Prime]

And those who love Trump and won’t convict him of anything ever will probably be saying “yes your honor, I can be completely impartial and unbiased”
==============================

As jury selection begins in the Manhattan tax fraud trial of Donald Trump’s real estate company, multiple potential jurors have had to be dismissed because they hate the former president so much.

One potential candidate told reporters there’s “no chance in hell” she could be unbiased in the case against the Trump Organization.

“He’s guilty in my mind whatever the case is — anything he does, anything his corporation does,” one potential juror, identifying herself only as a 34-year-old ad executive named Adrienne, told Insider.

“If it’s down to, can you be impartial about Donald Trump? I think it’s hard,” another dismissed juror told the publication. “He’s such a polarizing person.”

The second juror said she heard a third potential panel member be sent home because they said, plainly, “I hate Trump.”

Jury troubles are just one element in the complex case against the Trump Organization, one of the highest-profile attempts thus far to sanction Donald Trump’s business practices…….

Dismissed juror says ‘no way in hell’ she can be unbiased in Trump tax trial

Jury selection underway in landmark Trump Organization tax trial

www.independent.co.uk

 

[barbar]

And those who love Trump and won’t convict him of anything ever will probably be saying “yes your honor, I can be completely impartial and unbiased”
==============================

As jury selection begins in the Manhattan tax fraud trial of Donald Trump’s real estate company, multiple potential jurors have had to be dismissed because they hate the former president so much.

One potential candidate told reporters there’s “no chance in hell” she could be unbiased in the case against the Trump Organization.

“He’s guilty in my mind whatever the case is — anything he does, anything his corporation does,” one potential juror, identifying herself only as a 34-year-old ad executive named Adrienne, told Insider.

“If it’s down to, can you be impartial about Donald Trump? I think it’s hard,” another dismissed juror told the publication. “He’s such a polarizing person.”

The second juror said she heard a third potential panel member be sent home because they said, plainly, “I hate Trump.”

Jury troubles are just one element in the complex case against the Trump Organization, one of the highest-profile attempts thus far to sanction Donald Trump’s business practices…….

Dismissed juror says ‘no way in hell’ she can be unbiased in Trump tax trial

Jury selection underway in landmark Trump Organization tax trial

www.independent.co.uk

Ah man I didn't even think of that. Trump supporters will have no problem lying to the judge. It's gonna be a jury full of trumpets.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Ah man I didn't even think of that. Trump supporters will have no problem lying to the judge. It's gonna be a jury full of trumpets.

Clearly some of those folks just don't want to be selected for the jury. Someone who hates Trump and wants to convict him would have no problem concealing their disdain for him for the chance to watch his face as a guilty verdict is read. It's been my fear that one or two Q believers will get on the jury and vote not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[MT15]

Clearly some of those folks just don't want to be selected for the jury. Someone who hates Trump and wants to convict him would have no problem concealing their disdain for him for the chance to watch his face as a guilty verdict is read. It's been my fear that one or two Q believers will get on the jury and vote not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You have to swear under oath to tell the truth. So, I do think people who hate Trump will hesitate to lie about it. It’s worrisome that cult members will have no such hesitation. I think it’s a real problem.

 

[superchuck500]

Jesus, we are truly lost when SCOTUS isn't even hiding the bias anymore.

I think the temporary stay makes sense - like we said before, the underlying federal legal questions is significant. These kinds of temporary orders simply ensure that proper consideration is given . . . I don't think any view on the merits can be drawn from it. This is the same process that booted Trump's application without noted dissent so I think it's hasty to label it bias.

 

[MT15]

I think the temporary stay makes sense - like we said before, the underlying federal legal questions is significant. These kinds of temporary orders simply ensure that proper consideration is given . . . I don't think any view on the merits can be drawn from it. This is the same process that booted Trump's application without noted dissent so I think it's hasty to label it bias.

I think you’re correct. But I have heard the argument made that Thomas should recuse himself from this case due to the involvement of his wife in efforts to overturn the election. I don’t think he will, but it would make sense.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

You have to swear under oath to tell the truth. So, I do think people who hate Trump will hesitate to lie about it. It’s worrisome that cult members will have no such hesitation. I think it’s a real problem.

I hate Trump with a passion. Wouldn't shed a tear if he's push off the top of Trump Tower. Doesn't mean I can't be an unbiased juror. The truth is the truth. I hate paying my taxes, but I still pay them and don't cheat. I have a huge disdain for my cheating ex-wife, but I wouldn't personally do anything to ruin her life or career...

In other words, put me on the jury.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Federal prosecutors investigating the trove of national security documents seized from former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence are ramping up pressure on reluctant witnesses in the case, according to The New York Times.

Prosecutors have expressed skepticism about the initial account provided by Walt Nauta, a "little-known figure who worked at the White House as a military valet and cook" before getting hired at Mar-a-Lago, according to the report. Prosecutors are using the "specter of charges" for misleading investigators to pressure him to sit for questioning, the Times reported.

Nauta, who was once tasked with bringing Trump Diet Cokes in the Oval Office, initially denied any role in moving boxes of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago but told investigators that Trump instructed him to move the boxes in a second interview, according to The Washington Post. Investigators also reviewed surveillance footage showing the boxes being moved.

Prosecutors are also trying to force longtime Trump aide Kash Patel to answer questions before a grand jury after he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in his first appearance.

Patel was named by Trump as one of his representatives to the National Archives and Records Administration to handle his presidential records. Patel was particularly interested in records related to the Justice Department probe into Trump's 2016 campaign ties to Russia, which he publicly said he planned to release.

Patel has also claimed he was in the room when Trump ostensibly declassified the documents before leaving office, a claim that has been refuted by multiple administration officials. Trump's lawyers have provided no evidence in court that the documents were declassified and Patel invoked the Fifth rather than repeating the claim before the grand jury.

Prosecutors have asked a federal judge in D.C. to force Patel to testify. Patel's lawyers have opposed the move over concerns that the DOJ wants to use Patel's statements to incriminate him, according to the report...........

Legal experts said the DOJ's pressure campaign could be trouble for Trump.

Prosecutors are likely to give Patel an "immunity deal that he can't in some ways refuse" that would allow him to avoid "criminal liability" in the matter, predicted Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.

"They say you have immunity so you don't risk criminal liability for yourself. 'Now tell us what you know.' And if that's what they're trying to do, that's a pretty strong tactic at this stage," Goodman told CNN, adding that it "looks like they're closing in directly on Donald Trump."

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe tweeted that once the DOJ grants Patel immunity, "his 5th Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination will evaporate."

"He will then be forced to tell the truth about Trump's role in the Mar-a-Lago crimes against America's national security," he wrote. "The jig will be up.".........

MSN

www.msn.com