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
    8,792
    Reaction score
    10,597
    Age
    47
    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:
    Do we believe that this guy was acting on his own for only his own benefit? and if he's telling the truth how in the world is he still employed there?
    ================================================================================================

    The criminal trial of Donald J. Trump’s family business took an emotional turn Thursday as one of the former president’s most loyal executives laid bare the machinery of a sprawling tax fraud, scoring points for both prosecution and defense during hours of illuminating testimony.

    The executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, several times bolstered Manhattan prosecutors’ contention that the scheme benefited not just himself, but the Trump Organization. He testified that the off-the-books luxuries he and other executives received saved the company money in taxes.

    Yet Mr. Weisselberg, 75, who started working for the Trumps decades ago, rose to become chief financial officer and is now the prosecution’s star witness, also distanced Mr. Trump and his family from the wrongdoing. He testified that they did not team up with him, nor authorize him to commit crimes.

    He agreed more than a dozen times that he had acted only for himself. Near tears, he testified that he had betrayed a company he had served for decades.

    And asked by a defense lawyer, Alan Futerfas, whether he was embarrassed, Mr. Weisselberg, his gravelly voice soft, replied, “More than you can imagine.”

    The testimony, which unspooled over more than seven hours in a chilly downtown courtroom, injected a burst of human drama into what has otherwise been a dissection of financial minutiae. The jury, subdued during the trial's early days, appeared captivated by what might become the proceeding’s most crucial moments.

    To avoid a long prison sentence, Mr. Weisselberg in August pleaded guilty to 17 felonies and agreed to testify against the Trump Organization. But he remains on its payroll, collecting a $640,000 salary, and has refused to turn on Mr. Trump, the subject of a broader investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

    With his freedom and livelihood on the line, Mr. Weisselberg is the man in the middle. He is caught between the prosecutors with whom he struck a deal and the family that has employed him for nearly a half-century.

    “Mr. Weisselberg’s legal situation is as complex as that faced by any witness,” said his lawyer, Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., noting that Mr. Weisselberg had to testify even though he continues to be “a loyal employee of the Trump Organization.” He added that Mr. Weisselberg will “answer every question truthfully, and let the chips fall where they may.”..........

     
    superchuck500 said:
    There has been some talk that Garland would appoint a Special Counsel. Garland is by the book and it seems appropriate here. So we end up with Mueller 2.0. But the difference now is that there is no non-prosecution policy - unless/until Trump happens to win again.

    I think it depends on how mature these investigations are.
    Click to expand...
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Merrick Garland named a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Justice Department's investigation into the presence of classified documents at former President Donald Trump's Florida estate as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.

    The move, which is being announced just three days after Trump announced his 2024 candidacy, is a recognition of the unmistakable political implications of two investigations that involve not only a former president but also a current White House hopeful.

    Though the appointment installs a new supervisor atop the probes — both of which are expected to accelerate now that the midterm elections are complete — the special counsel will still report to Garland, who has ultimate say of whether to bring charges...............

     
    Trump and the cult members acting like it's some milestone decision that Garland appointed a special counsel and crying that DOJ is out of control! He was already being investigated by prosecutors! This just means that the investigation will now be handled outside of the usual leadership structure of DOJ that includes political appointees at the deputy and associate attorney general level.

    They're so forking stupid I can't take it.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    Trump and the cult members acting like it's some milestone decision that Garland appointed a special counsel and crying that DOJ is out of control! He was already being investigated by prosecutors! This just means that the investigation will now be handled outside of the usual leadership structure of DOJ that includes political appointees at the deputy and associate attorney general level.

    They're so forking stupid I can't take it.
    Click to expand...
    That's because in their mind every special counsel will perform their role like the Republican operative Ken Starr did. That's why I wish they would have just kept it within DOJ, they were gonna cry about it no matter what.
     

    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington​

    www.lawfareblog.com

    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

    What triggered the appointment of a special counsel, who is Jack Smith, and what, if anything, does this mean for the investigations into Donald Trump?
    www.lawfareblog.com www.lawfareblog.com

    Why does Mr. Smith go to Washington?

    "Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election, and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel,” Garland said.

    The use of the phrase “recent developments” (note that “developments” is in the plural form) suggests that Trump’s presidential announcement may not have been the only factor. But Trump’s Nov. 15 announcement that he would be seeking the presidency again clearly was the dominant factor. It’s one thing for the Justice Department to investigate a former president who did run against the incumbent president. It’s quite another thing for the Justice Department to prosecute a man who is actively running against the incumbent president and would, if elected, fire the attorney general.

    Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.1, the attorney general is required to appoint a special counsel under two separate situations in which a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” In the first circumstance, there must be a “conflict of interest for the Department.” In the second, some “other extraordinary circumstances” must exist to require the appointment of a special counsel. Under either circumstance, the attorney general must also consider whether “it would be in the public interest to appoint” one.

    Trump’s announcement arguably triggered the “conflict of interest” language of the regulation: How is it not a conflict of interest to investigate or prosecute a man who is running for office and would fire you if elected?

    But Garland made clear that this was not the basis for his decision. “The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution," he said, a clear reference to the language of the second prong. Relatedly, Garland reinforced the public interest basis for his action when he said that given Trump’s White House announcement and President Biden’s intention to run for reelection in 2024 as well, going forward with the appointment was “in the public interest.” This appears to suggest that Garland still does not believe the matter presents a conflict of interest for the department—or at least, has not concluded that it does.
    Click to expand...

    There's a lot more to read at the lawfare link.
     
    guess I'll post this here

    apnews.com

    Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    The last legal obstacle preventing Congress from obtaining Donald Trump's taxes has fallen. On Tuesday the Supreme Court rejected the former president's plea for an order to prevent the Treasury Department from giving six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses to the Democratic-co
    apnews.com apnews.com
     
    zztop said:
    guess I'll post this here

    apnews.com

    Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    The last legal obstacle preventing Congress from obtaining Donald Trump's taxes has fallen. On Tuesday the Supreme Court rejected the former president's plea for an order to prevent the Treasury Department from giving six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses to the Democratic-co
    apnews.com apnews.com
    Click to expand...
    And the curious part, none of the justices dissented or objected. :scratch:
     
    DaveXA said:
    And the curious part, none of the justices dissented or objected. :scratch:
    Click to expand...

    It immediately made me think they are now maybe finally becoming aware that folks no longer trust them and investigations at least into Alito maybe have him a bit…concerned….I would like to see him, in particular, get the karma he so richly deserves…..followed by Thomas and those disingenuous, blatant liars Barrett and Kavanaugh…..
     
    SFIDC3 said:
    It immediately made me think they are now maybe finally becoming aware that folks no longer trust them and investigations at least into Alito maybe have him a bit…concerned….I would like to see him, in particular, get the karma he so richly deserves…..followed by Thomas and those disingenuous, blatant liars Barrett and Kavanaugh…..
    Click to expand...

    I am cool with Barrett and Kavanaugh on the court as long as Alito and Thomas find their way off the bench in the next year or so. Negating two of Trump's picks and taking a 5-4 majority would be great.
     
    cuddlemonkey said:
    I am cool with Barrett and Kavanaugh on the court as long as Alito and Thomas find their way off the bench in the next year or so. Negating two of Trump's picks and taking a 5-4 majority would be great.
    Click to expand...

    I'll honestly never get over Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. It was such a monumental disqualifying event. I don't think someone with his demeanor should be a judge period. Alito, and Thomas appear to be corrupt.

    If Dems were ever in a supermajority, and were going to purge the court. They would take out those 3.
     
    J-DONK said:
    I'll honestly never get over Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. It was such a monumental disqualifying event. I don't think someone with his demeanor should be a judge period. Alito, and Thomas appear to be corrupt.

    If Dems were ever in a supermajority, and were going to purge the court. They would take out those 3.
    Click to expand...

    Agreed. Making him impotent on the bench (much as I assume he is in real life) would be funny, though.
     
    A New York law that temporarily allows adult survivors of sexual abuse to sue their abusers beyond the statute of limitations for civil claims came into effect on Thursday – and with it, the first of what could be hundreds of new legal actions.

    Among the first claims filed under the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), signed into law in May by Governor Kathy Hochul, is that of E Jean Carroll, a writer who accused Donald Trump of rape. Carroll filed an upgraded lawsuit against Trump minutes after the new state law took effect……

    www.theguardian.com

    E Jean Carroll files new suit against Trump as New York sexual abuse law takes effect

    JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank also face lawsuits in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     

    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

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom