Trump on Trial (Trump indicted for a fourth time in Georgia. Expands his record of most indictments by a former president)

[skinsmarydu]

10 minutes ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

I hope I’m wrong, but justice will not prevail here. Trump won’t see a second of prison time and will not be part of any harsher punishments that I would love to see happen. I have a feeling he gets away with it all with a slap on the wrist.

My dad was a Methodist minister.  I have tended to lean away, but HOLY ****, TRUMP IS THE ANTI-CHRIST. 

I absolutely hate to say it, but he's everything that is prophesied in The Revelation of John.

I'm not on the religious front by any stretch, but damn...if we don't get rid of him, we're doomed. 

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, Llevron said:

I want to believe that if it was televised, and he was so obviously guilty and a liar, that it would help us creep back into the direction of normal public discourse.  

 

But then I remember we are talking about people that watched a virus ravage all human life on the planet for 2 years while simultaneously saying it was fake while at the same time all of their thought leaders who told them it was fake got vaccinated against it or ****ing died because they didn't. 

 

He could say he did it on national television and they would ****ing thank him for it. We all know it. 

 

I know it seems close, but that's not what they saw...what took a while to finally get into the thick of the most ruby red parts of the country that continously resisted halfass shutting down and opened up soon as they possibly could is not like what happened in NYC like a scene out of Stephen King's "The Stand" where folks were reminded that city already had a island mass grave site before this COVID even started with at one point the only sound all day was ambulances running up and down the street all day and night.

 

I'd compare this more to his first Impeachment where if anyone wanted to they could see how that process actually works with actual evidence presented, but be reminded that technically wasn't court or a courthouse.  This is actual court in front a judge he appointed.  They could not watch or come up with litany of excuses why he was convicted, but that's way better then behind closed doors no one in the world seeing how we do something we've never done before happen (try to put a former president in jail).

 

This isn't even jus about MAGA folks, convincing them or not, it's a watershed moment for democracy and world is watching how we handle this.  The argument can be made the world was more shocked then we were by say Jan 6th, that kinda stuff is NEVER supposed to happen here. 

 

Regardless of how this turns out, doin behind closed doors is worst thing we could do, in context to the near endless perks Trump has already gotten in his indeictment process everyone has seen that before so this almost has to end with jail time and full visibility for the process that lead to it.

 

Few things can change people's minds that don't want to change their minds, but this moment is bigger then that.

Edited July 24, 2023 by Renegade7

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Switchgear]

12 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Regardless of how this turns out, doin behind closed doors is worst thing we could do, in context to the near endless perks Trump has already gotten in his indeictment process everyone has seen that before so this almost has to end with jail time and full visibility for the process that lead to it.

 

Few things can change people's minds that don't want to change their minds, but this moment is bigger then that.

As PleaseBlitz pointed out on the last page, Trump's lawyers know it isn't possible to televise the trial. They're asking for it so they can yell "Rigged" "Double standard", which their base  fully believes already. I doubt there's some way to suspend that rule, but if there is, it would be funny to see the "dog catching the car" moment.

 

Honestly, his base could see a televised trial, in which evidence is presented and an airtight case is made, and still say he's being treated unfairly. Exhibit A, the impeachment trials.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Chachie]

16 hours ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

I hope I’m wrong, but justice will not prevail here. Trump won’t see a second of prison time and will not be part of any harsher punishments that I would love to see happen. I have a feeling he gets away with it all with a slap on the wrist. He will still run for president which is beyond scary. 

 

 

 

 

I swore loudly for 2 years to everyone around me that this DoJ would never, ever, EVER indict a former POTUS. I think I even posted that opinion here on ES about 15-20 times. Obviously I was wrong but I agree with you that Trump will never see a minute of prison time. 

 

The slap on the wrist that you're referring to will most likely come in the form of a plea bargain where he drops out of the presidential race and agrees to never run for office again. 

 

The nightmare scenario is where he's able to run out the clock on these trials, gets elected back to the White House, and pardons himself before any trials come to a verdict. 

 

Alll-in-all though, you're right. I just don't see true justice being done for the two most egregious crimes in presidential history. Stealing/possibly selling secret govt documents and literal, planned, open insurrection. I know the wheels of justice turn slowly but I'm still in utter shock that it's taken this long to even press charges for Jan6.

 

 

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Chachie said:

The slap on the wrist that you're referring to will most likely come in the form of a plea bargain where he drops out of the presidential race and agrees to never run for office again

I believe it’s been pointed out on these boards that such a plea bargain would likely not be legal. 

[Chachie]

57 minutes ago, tshile said:

I believe it’s been pointed out on these boards that such a plea bargain would likely not be legal. 

 

 

Interesting point and thanks. The news outlets are not touching on this. 

[Fan since a Fetus]

He’ll get a chance to run again. The Repubs will back him. Some of them have talked poorly about Trump, but they rather see one of their own in, no matter how despicable, than a democrat. 
 

he gets a chance and with that he might get in. If he does, the damage he did prior will be considered tame compared to what will be coming. The whole world will suffer except for the dictators he loves so much. 
 

of course this post isn’t anything ground breaking, it’sa captain obvious post, but it’s just sad and worrisome to think about.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I believe it’s been pointed out on these boards that such a plea bargain would likely not be legal. 

 

My understanding, and could be wrong, isn't that it is not legal.  It is that it's untested.  Other politicians have made those deals and stuck to them.  No one has made the deal and then challenged it.  DoJ could make that deal and just hold the charges instead of submitting them as a plea deal.  Again, that is untested. 

 

Someone feel free to correct me though. 

 

 

I personally don't think that Jack Smith is interested in this type of deal though.  I think he goes for jail time and a judge sentences him to house arrest at Maralago.  

[tshile]

I thought I recall @PleaseBlitzoutlining that, no, the DOJ doesn’t work that way. And that would be a sure fire way to fall straight into the “political witch-hunt” pit of hell as now you have the DOJ going after someone to get them to not run anymore. 
 

i may be totally making that up though. It was a while ago and I may have completely misremembered the conversation 

[Llevron]

Seems Legal to me. But ill be honest im just skimming for confirmation as I remember reading it happened before. I didn't read all of this. 

 

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-16000-pleas-federal-rule-criminal-procedure-11

 

Quote

9-16.110 - PLEA NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS

Plea bargains with defendants who are elected public officers can present issues of federalism and separation of powers when they require the public officer defendant to take action that affects his or her tenure in office. The same issues can also arise when the defendant is a candidate for elective office, or when plea negotiations call for withdrawal from candidacy or an undertaking by the defendant not to seek or hold public office in the future.

GENERAL RULE: Resignation from office, withdrawal from candidacy for elective office, and forbearance from seeking or holding future public offices, remain appropriate and desirable objectives in plea negotiations with public officials who are charged with federal offenses that focus on abuse of the office(s) involved. Where the office involved is not one within the Legislative or Judicial Branches of the federal government, such negotiated terms may be also be enforced involuntarily against the will of the defendant by a sentencing judge pursuant to the Federal Probation Act. United States v. Tonry, 605 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1979).

 

I thought it was Nixon but I couldn't find confirmation on that. So I thought it was his VP but I cant find that either. So im not sure, really. Sorry I know this is subpar but I thought one of you smart people could take it from here. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

I thought I recall @PleaseBlitzoutlining that, no, the DOJ doesn’t work that way. And that would be a sure fire way to fall straight into the “political witch-hunt” pit of hell as now you have the DOJ going after someone to get them to not run anymore. 
 

i may be totally making that up though. It was a while ago and I may have completely misremembered the conversation 

 

I remember him saying it would look real real bad. I dont remember if he said it was illegal though. Honestly if he said it was even with the link above I would assume he knows something I dont. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Llevron

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I remember him saying it would look real real bad. I dont remember if he said it was illegal though. Honestly if he said it was even with the link above I would assume he knows something I dont. 

Maybe that’s all it was 🤷‍♂️ 

 

personally - I want to see it play out without the idea of forbidding public office in the future. 
 

although that is the goal so I guess it’s not the worst outcome. 
 

I kind of wonder how much teeth there is to that. Like are they actually forbidden or is it more of a “we go back to trial if you violate the terms of the deal.” Cause I could see him taking the deal and then running anyways 😂 

Edited July 25, 2023 by tshile

[Cooked Crack]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

My understanding, and could be wrong, isn't that it is not legal.  It is that it's untested.  Other politicians have made those deals and stuck to them.  No one has made the deal and then challenged it.  DoJ could make that deal and just hold the charges instead of submitting them as a plea deal.  Again, that is untested. 

 

Someone feel free to correct me though. 

 

 

I personally don't think that Jack Smith is interested in this type of deal though.  I think he goes for jail time and a judge sentences him to house arrest at Maralago.  

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I thought I recall @PleaseBlitzoutlining that, no, the DOJ doesn’t work that way. And that would be a sure fire way to fall straight into the “political witch-hunt” pit of hell as now you have the DOJ going after someone to get them to not run anymore. 
 

i may be totally making that up though. It was a while ago and I may have completely misremembered the conversation 

 

I don't think a plea deal here would be illegal, I just don't think either side has any interest in agreeing to one.  I'm working off of the assumption that DOJ has the goods on Trump because, well, it would be shocking to me if they indicted Trump without having an ironclad case.  

 

A plea agreement is not in the DOJs interest because (1) you let the subordinates plea to lesser charges so they'll flip on the kingpin, and Trump is the kingpin and (2) a plea agreement that involves restricting Trump's future political activities would be seen as an entirely political prosecution of Trump (and I would hold that view as well) and the DOJ simply cannot do that.

 

A plea agreement is not in Trump's interest unless they let him off nearly scot free, and I don't see that as within the realm of potential possibilities given the list of crimes they are charging.  Like, you don't fine someone for ESPIONAGE.  Anything involving more than, like, 5 years of jail time is effectively a life sentence for him given his age and comorbidities and, additionally, there is a very decent chance that Trump wins the presidency again and can pardon himself (and even if he can't pardon himself, which is unclear, good luck actually imposing any consequences on a sitting POTUS/CinC). 

[Spaceman Spiff]

21 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

My dad was a Methodist minister.  I have tended to lean away, but HOLY ****, TRUMP IS THE ANTI-CHRIST. 

I absolutely hate to say it, but he's everything that is prophesied in The Revelation of John.

I'm not on the religious front by any stretch, but damn...if we don't get rid of him, we're doomed. 

 

Enlighten me so I can school my southern bible thumping, Trump loving, MiL.   

[TheGreatBuzz]

36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 (2) a plea agreement that involves restricting Trump's future political activities would be seen as an entirely political prosecution of Trump (and I would hold that view as well) and the DOJ simply cannot do that.

 

But this has been done with other politicians so the standard is set.  Especially since you can argue that much of his crimes involved abuse of the office.  Not being allowed back to that office seems like a perfectly reasonable plea condition. 

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

But this has been done with other politicians so the standard is set.  Especially since you can argue that much of his crimes involved abuse of the office.  Not being allowed back to that office seems like a perfectly reasonable plea condition. 

 

I don't think something that happened to "other politicians" sets a standard for a prosecution involving national security breaches by a former and potentially future President (with a cult following), but maybe if you provide some examples I'd change my mind. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[TheGreatBuzz]

31 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I don't think something that happened to "other politicians" sets a standard for a prosecution involving national security breaches by a former and potentially future President (with a cult following), but maybe if you provide some examples I'd change my mind. 

 

Of course Google is all Trump and Hunter Biden stuff.  Didn't Blagojevich have that as part of a deal?  And some women Senator?  

 

Or maybe I'm just making it up.

 

Edit:  and I meant more examples of general abuse of office and/or corruption. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by TheGreatBuzz

[PleaseBlitz]

36 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Of course Google is all Trump and Hunter Biden stuff.  Didn't Blagojevich have that as part of a deal?  And some women Senator?  

 

Or maybe I'm just making it up.

 

Edit:  and I meant more examples of general abuse of office and/or corruption. 

 

Blago was impeached and prohibited from ever holding office again by the IL Senate, not law enforcement, so it was totally political (if justified). 

 

Separately, the DOJ indicted him for corruption, convicted him, and he got jail time (until his sentenced was commuted by Trump, of course). 

Edited July 25, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Skintime]

6 hours ago, Chachie said:

 

 

 

I swore loudly for 2 years to everyone around me that this DoJ would never, ever, EVER indict a former POTUS. I think I even posted that opinion here on ES about 15-20 times. Obviously I was wrong but I agree with you that Trump will never see a minute of prison time. 

 

The slap on the wrist that you're referring to will most likely come in the form of a plea bargain where he drops out of the presidential race and agrees to never run for office again. 

 

The nightmare scenario is where he's able to run out the clock on these trials, gets elected back to the White House, and pardons himself before any trials come to a verdict. 

 

Alll-in-all though, you're right. I just don't see true justice being done for the two most egregious crimes in presidential history. Stealing/possibly selling secret govt documents and literal, planned, open insurrection. I know the wheels of justice turn slowly but I'm still in utter shock that it's taken this long to even press charges for Jan6.

 

 

He will never be elected to anything ever again.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

2) a plea agreement that involves restricting Trump's future political activities would be seen as an entirely political prosecution of Trump (and I would hold that view as well) and the DOJ simply cannot do that.

This is probably what I’m remembering. 
 

Thank you for the clarification 

[China]

Eight search warrants issued in Trump classified documents case, new filings show

 

Eight search warrants and affidavits were filed in connection with the federal case involving former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents, which resulted in a slew of criminal charges against him, according to recently unsealed court motions.

 

The motions were filed in connection with the ongoing efforts by media organizations, including NBC News, to obtain access to much of the information in the search warrant served at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, last year.

 

Prosecutors filed a motion last month with the federal court overseeing the case, requesting permission to disclose the warrants and accompanying documents to the legal teams representing Trump and his aide Walt Nauta as part of disclosure requirements now that both men have been charged. 

 

In the motion, which was unsealed Tuesday, prosecutors said they have not publicly disclosed the contents, locations or devices sought by the search warrants, and they asked the court to keep the details under wraps.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Ex-NYPD Boss Handing Over Trump Records to Jack Smith

 

Bernie Kerik, the former NYPD commissioner who collected evidence of supposed election fraud for the Trump campaign in 2020, has cut a deal to turn over records to Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith as part of the investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

 

Smith previously sought the documents, which are related to Kerik’s role as the former president’s on-the-ground investigator looking into eventually disproven conspiracy theories about ballot stuffing and fake voters. However, Kerik’s legal team had refused to turn those documents over, citing attorney-client privilege stemming from the fact that Kerik was working on behalf of Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

 

But on Friday, Trump himself waived that privilege and agreed to have the documents turned over, according to Kerik’s defense lawyer, Timothy Parlatore.

 

Smith is expected to now receive nearly 2,000 pages of material describing how Kerik looked into bogus fraud allegations. The records could prove pivotal for federal prosecutors, who are seeking evidence of Trump’s decision-making process as he relentlessly voiced baseless accusations that the 2020 election was “rigged,” even though top advisers had told him otherwise.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Dan T.]

So in the defamation lawsuit brought against Rudy Giuliani by election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, the disgraced Giuliani has submitted a filing to the court that basically says, "yeah, I lied about them, but so what?"  

 

Giuliani not contesting he made false statements about Georgia election workers - The Washington Post

 

I hope Ms. Freeman gets paid. Big time.