Does Trump ever do any jail time? (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Optimus Prime

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,843
    Reaction score
    15,634
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    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:
    MT15 said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    What happens if it's discovered that Ginni Thomas had direct contact with Graham during this time frame
     
    MT15 said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    I don't think there's any caselaw or professional/academic authority that would point to Justice Thomas recusing himself from Senator Graham's application to quash the Fulton County grand jury investigation into his contact with the Georgia Secretary of State's office because Ginny Thomas was active in trying to resist the election of President Biden. There isn't any evidence that she was lobbying the GA Sec of State is there? Judicial recusal is not nearly as broad as people think. It usually requires some actual conflict of interest or a relationship with a litigant or interest of the matter is so close to the judge that it gives the impression of impartiality. I just don't see that here. I think it's more pertinent question on some of the J6 stuff - where he also didn't recuse himself. But I don't see it here (unless she was directly involved in lobbying Raffensperger.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I don't think there's any caselaw or professional/academic authority that would point to Justice Thomas recusing himself from Senator Graham's application to quash the Fulton County grand jury investigation into his contact with the Georgia Secretary of State's office because Ginny Thomas was active in trying to resist the election of President Biden. There isn't any evidence that she was lobbying the GA Sec of State is there? Judicial recusal is not nearly as broad as people think. It usually requires some actual conflict of interest or a relationship with a litigant or interest of the matter is so close to the judge that it gives the impression of impartiality. I just don't see that here. I think it's more pertinent question on some of the J6 stuff - where he also didn't recuse himself. But I don't see it here (unless she was directly involved in lobbying Raffensperger.
    Click to expand...
    There is evidence she was lobbying Meadows, I think the speculation is that she may have lobbied Graham as well. 🤷‍♀️

    Personally - I think her deep involvement in lobbying state officials in other states as well as federal government employees is enough for him to recuse. I thought the standard was to avoid any appearance of potential conflict? Anyway, I know he won’t do it, he’s too arrogant. But I think if he would it might possibly restore a bit of the luster that this SC has given up.
     
    MT15 said:
    There is evidence she was lobbying Meadows, I think the speculation is that she may have lobbied Graham as well. 🤷‍♀️

    Personally - I think her deep involvement in lobbying state officials in other states as well as federal government employees is enough for him to recuse. I thought the standard was to avoid any appearance of potential conflict? Anyway, I know he won’t do it, he’s too arrogant. But I think if he would it might possibly restore a bit of the luster that this SC has given up.
    Click to expand...

    That's indeed what the ethical rule says but it's a highly subjective idea - what "could appear" like something to someone is impossible to function as a standard. So the limited authorities interpreting it have said it needs to be either some objective analysis (for example where the judge worked on the case before becoming a judge) or some kind of situation where reasonable minds would not disagree.

    It's sort of all academic anyway at SCOTUS because the only arbiter of it would be the rest of the Court to push Thomas to recuse. Personally, I don't think this gets there. But sure, I see that it's possible to take a broader view.
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    Justice Thomas, Mark Meadows is on line 3...
    Click to expand...

    So it gets a bit wonky here. Though Graham is also domiciled in South Carolina, and initially tried to litigate his objection to the subpoena in federal court in SC, there was later an agreement for Graham to accept service in Georgia - where he then moved to quash in federal court in Atlanta. So that case went to the 11th Circuit and that’s why Thomas received the emergency relief application.

    Meadows challenged the subpoena in South Carolina state court as a matter of service procedure. I’m not 100% sure but I think he has to exhaust his appeals in state court before going to federal court - but it’s possible that he could go directly due to the federal question of executive privilege.

    But unless it somehow gets over to federal court in GA, the circuit that SC appeals to is the 4th Circuit, which is overseen by Roberts - so Thomas wouldn’t be in line to receive any application from Meadows.

    Though again I’m not totally sure about the court-path Meadows would take now. It appears to me to raise the friction between the anti-injunction statute and federal question jurisdiction. I actually love this wonky shirt.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    That's indeed what the ethical rule says but it's a highly subjective idea - what "could appear" like something to someone is impossible to function as a standard. So the limited authorities interpreting it have said it needs to be either some objective analysis (for example where the judge worked on the case before becoming a judge) or some kind of situation where reasonable minds would not disagree.

    It's sort of all academic anyway at SCOTUS because the only arbiter of it would be the rest of the Court to push Thomas to recuse. Personally, I don't think this gets there. But sure, I see that it's possible to take a broader view.
    Click to expand...
    Well, I know the law is always much more nuanced than it appears on the surface...but the law says (emphasis mine):

    (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

    (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
    (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
    (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
    Click to expand...

    It would seem, to my untrained legal eyes, that the law makes it clear that "any justice" is required to recuse themselves in a case where their spouse is likely to be a material witness. I would think that in this particular situation, we are right on the edge of that, if not already there.
     
    FullMonte said:
    Well, I know the law is always much more nuanced than it appears on the surface...but the law says (emphasis mine):



    It would seem, to my untrained legal eyes, that the law makes it clear that "any justice" is required to recuse themselves in a case where their spouse is likely to be a material witness. I would think that in this particular situation, we are right on the edge of that, if not already there.
    Click to expand...

    I haven’t seen any evidence that Ginny Thomas is a material witness to the effort to overturn the Georgia election.
     

    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