Has now been confirmed by WaPo. All I can say is holy shit. I, along with many others, have grown cynical that Trump would be held accountable for even a fraction of his misconduct. From the...
Has now been confirmed by WaPo. All I can say is holy shit.
I, along with many others, have grown cynical that Trump would be held accountable for even a fraction of his misconduct. From the beginning this has seemed like such an open and shut case, but it was complicated in my mind (politically, not legally) by the discovery last year that Biden had also improperly retained classified docs after leaving office. I thought for sure that would be the out that Trump needed to escape accountability again. However, it seems the charges more pertain to obstruction of justice and related crimes arising from Trumps refusal to return the documents as opposed to simply “taking” them in the first place. I also think the special counsel would not file charges if they did not expect to have a high change of success in securing a conviction. Which isn’t to say a conviction is guaranteed (especially considering the trial is happening in Florida), but it makes me more confident that these will be hard charges to escape.
Just last week it was reported that the special counsel had an audio recording of Trump a) discussing one of the documents with people who don’t have clearances and b) expressing an understanding that the document was still classified and that he couldn’t show them. That’s pretty close to smoking gun evidence, and of course we don’t know all of the other evidence they’ve obtained.
It's a federal case with high level intelligence on the line and he case sounds to be about as open-and-shut as it's possible to have including a confession on tape. If Trump walks on this it's...
It's a federal case with high level intelligence on the line and he case sounds to be about as open-and-shut as it's possible to have including a confession on tape.
If Trump walks on this it's the US government basically saying, out loud and as clearly as it possibly can, that the state is subordinate to the oligarchy.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but there's no where to go from here. This is an attack against the national security of the United States. If he walks from this he isn't just above the law; he is above the government: he is king.
This is what goes through my mind as well. As I age, I feel like I keep going down that slippery slope from realist to nihilist. If Trump is indeed guilty and he’s not held accountable like...
This is what goes through my mind as well. As I age, I feel like I keep going down that slippery slope from realist to nihilist. If Trump is indeed guilty and he’s not held accountable like anybody else would… I feel like the last shred of hope I have for this country will be ripped from my hands. I already have so little faith in people and institutions after his presidency and the fact that so many still support him. I just don’t know where to go or how to live my life with so much disappointment inside of me. If we’re living in the fall, I guess the only course of action is to eat, drink, and be merry. But it’s easier said than done.
I can't decide if this is hoplessly naive or absurdly nihilist, but my take on it has been that the PEOPLE haven't changed; they're just showing us who they are. The exact same amount of bigotry,...
I already have so little faith in people and institutions after his presidency and the fact that so many still support him.
I can't decide if this is hoplessly naive or absurdly nihilist, but my take on it has been that the PEOPLE haven't changed; they're just showing us who they are. The exact same amount of bigotry, racism, selfishness, stupidity, and viciousness existed before Trump. It was there when Obama was President, when W was in office, with Clinton before him. If something actually changed about Americans and American politics it wasn't recent; it was with Gingrich in the 1994 Republican Revolution at the latest... maybe earlier than that.
Our judicial system is built upon letting 100 guilty people walk free rather than incarcerating 1 innocent person. The truth is that while Trump may be obviously guilty in the public eye, the DoJ...
Our judicial system is built upon letting 100 guilty people walk free rather than incarcerating 1 innocent person. The truth is that while Trump may be obviously guilty in the public eye, the DoJ has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high standard to clear and Trump may go free for purely judicial reasons.
We do live In a plutocracy where the corporations lobby for thier own rules to follow, they have a pretty sweet gig going on, I dont think they will let trump appear be above the law, people might...
We do live In a plutocracy where the corporations lobby for thier own rules to follow, they have a pretty sweet gig going on, I dont think they will let trump appear be above the law, people might start questioning the system if trump goes free
Me either but it's basically a death sentence for any continued political career. Can't really deny he's got a lot of legal problems, the money will rather back someone else who has less heat now....
Me either but it's basically a death sentence for any continued political career. Can't really deny he's got a lot of legal problems, the money will rather back someone else who has less heat now. He fucked around and now he's finding out!
I am actually not so sure about this. The ‘dangerous’ part of indicting Trump in my eyes has always been the possibility that he will be found not guilty for political reasons by the jury and not...
Me either but it's basically a death sentence for any continued political career.
I am actually not so sure about this. The ‘dangerous’ part of indicting Trump in my eyes has always been the possibility that he will be found not guilty for political reasons by the jury and not due to there being reasonable doubt about the case. Such an event will suddenly normalize this conduct in our politicians to an even greater extent than it already is.
I’m not even convinced a conviction would end his political career, especially when a large portion of the country would default to thinking it was unjust anyway.
You forget about the amount of people that will vote against him. This will just fuel the fire, possibly more so if he doesn't get convicted. But, if I understand correctly, the conviction rate...
You forget about the amount of people that will vote against him. This will just fuel the fire, possibly more so if he doesn't get convicted. But, if I understand correctly, the conviction rate for some of the charges is extremely high. I know it's been tough to trust our justice system recently, for good reason... but they do have a vested interest in maintaining a minimum level of dignity and respect for the system, so will work to protect it with proper rulings.
This one is a federal crime, so it's ride or die on his election. If he is re-elected, he can simply pardon himself, which he can't do for the state crimes.
This one is a federal crime, so it's ride or die on his election. If he is re-elected, he can simply pardon himself, which he can't do for the state crimes.
I might be wrong, but isn't it still debatable whether a president can pardon themself? I thought this was one of those remaining "no decent person would do that" kind of things, but which someone...
I might be wrong, but isn't it still debatable whether a president can pardon themself? I thought this was one of those remaining "no decent person would do that" kind of things, but which someone as brash and unconventional as Trump might just try.
Thanks. That helps me think better about it. Do you know if anyone has analyzed how the current Supreme Court might rule on such a case given the tendencies each justice has displayed in the past?
Thanks. That helps me think better about it. Do you know if anyone has analyzed how the current Supreme Court might rule on such a case given the tendencies each justice has displayed in the past?
I think most of this is spot-on, but it's not election law that determines the Presidential term length, it's Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. And the 2-term limit comes from...
I think most of this is spot-on, but it's not election law that determines the Presidential term length, it's Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. And the 2-term limit comes from the 22nd Amendment.
Oh, you are absolutely right. The idea that the President can pardon himself creates this exact nightmare scenario, I agree, which is why any reasonable analysis would conclude that it cannot be...
Oh, you are absolutely right. The idea that the President can pardon himself creates this exact nightmare scenario, I agree, which is why any reasonable analysis would conclude that it cannot be allowed. My reason for commenting was simply to point out the difference between law and the constitution in your specific example.
It would only be a matter of time before someone took full advantage of the power that would allow; and frighteningly, that very person is probably knocking at the door right now.
if we allow presidents to pardon themselves, how would we be any different than a monarchy?
It would only be a matter of time before someone took full advantage of the power that would allow; and frighteningly, that very person is probably knocking at the door right now.
It's actually up in the air whether he can pardon himself or not. The standard that says he can't was a Watergate-era DoJ memo that only holds so much weight. It's never been tested in the courts,...
It's actually up in the air whether he can pardon himself or not. The standard that says he can't was a Watergate-era DoJ memo that only holds so much weight. It's never been tested in the courts, and considering it's an Executive Branch issue, it would go straight to SCOTUS. No telling how that would break.
Eh, I don't know about that. His polling numbers WENT UP last time he was indicted. Much of his base see it as evidence that he's "anti-establishment" and that the "deep state" is trying to...
Eh, I don't know about that. His polling numbers WENT UP last time he was indicted. Much of his base see it as evidence that he's "anti-establishment" and that the "deep state" is trying to silence him or whatever.
That being said, it's probably not a good sign for the general election. He did lose last time, and those swing voters he lost from 2016 are probably not appreciating multiple criminal indictments.
He's far from being politically irrelevant, though. At this point, Trump has an iron grip over about 1/3rd of the GOP base, or about 1/6 to 1/7th of the American voting population. That level of control will never be irrelevant. He could be in jail, and still have significant political power.
It's already been shown that our government is willing to put up with elected officials who break their oath of office. This dude will run from a prison cell, and still get 10s of millions of votes.
It's already been shown that our government is willing to put up with elected officials who break their oath of office.
This dude will run from a prison cell, and still get 10s of millions of votes.
And c) that document is purportedly still missing! Also, slightly off topic: could we update the headline/link now that the indictment's been confirmed, possibly to the Washington Post's ("Trump...
Just last week it was reported that the special counsel had an audio recording of Trump a) discussing one of the documents with people who don’t have clearances and b) expressing an understanding that the document was still classified and that he couldn’t show them.
Also, slightly off topic: could we update the headline/link now that the indictment's been confirmed, possibly to the Washington Post's ("Trump indicted in Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation")? This is the largest development yet in the Trump crime arc, and the headline doesn't even mention what he's been indicted for.
The most interesting thing here in my mind is probably 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which in part reads The court case around that should be interesting. Will that be deemed constitutional?
The most interesting thing here in my mind is probably 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which in part reads
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
The court case around that should be interesting. Will that be deemed constitutional?
I can't imagine that part would be held to be constitutional. The Supreme Court, along with lower federal courts, has long established that Congress (and the States) cannot create additional...
I can't imagine that part would be held to be constitutional. The Supreme Court, along with lower federal courts, has long established that Congress (and the States) cannot create additional qualifications for public office, beyond those set forth in the Constitution. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, Cook v. Gralike, and Powell v. McCormack.
"Trump-Appointed Judge Is Said to Be Handling Documents Case". The New York Times. Specifically, the "Trump-appointed Judge" is Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously delayed this case by improperly...
Specifically, the "Trump-appointed Judge" is Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously delayed this case by improperly appointing a special master to review all the seized documents, a decision that was later overturned by a conservative appeals court. Just to remind everyone how awful her judgement was, let me quote from her wiki article:
The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria. The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.
To translate this from legalese: basically, when the government seizes your stuff per a court ordered subpoena, it will only be returned to you if four conditions are met:
You can show that the government displayed a “callous disregard” for your rights,
You have a need in the material that you want returned,
You would be irreparably harmed by the government’s retaining it, and
No other adequate remedies exist elsewhere.
Obviously Trump didn't satisfy any of these first three conditions since these materials didn't belong to him to begin with. Notably, Trump's lawyer didn't even argue what materials he needed or why he needed them at all, only chanting "executive privilege" like some sort of mantra and refusing to elaborate further. Nevertheless, Judge Cannon granted his motion to have a special master sort and return material. But why? Per the New York Times:
She noted that the inquiry of Mr. Trump needed to be undertaken with particular care and deference, placing him in his own category.
“As a function of plaintiff’s former position as president of the United States,” Judge Cannon wrote, “the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.” She also noted that, because of the search of Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump faced “unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public.”
According to the Judge currently handling this case, the Richey test didn't apply to Trump because Trump was the President, so he deserved special treatment above other citizens.
I have to hope after the legal embarrassment of what happened to her rulings last time, that she wouldn't be eager to jump right back into the 11th circuit's smack-down target sights.. You never...
I have to hope after the legal embarrassment of what happened to her rulings last time, that she wouldn't be eager to jump right back into the 11th circuit's smack-down target sights.. You never know I guess. After getting the lifetime appointment, you'd think these judges would feel less beholden, but wow what a spectacularly bad job that was last time.
Not Ideal.. I feel like the 11th circuit is just waiting for her to pull another stunt, but honestly I'm more concerned about a Florida-man juror hanging a verdict (not that it's likely to be a factor for some time yet). Not great Dan.. Not great.
I'm surprised that this happened so quickly. The special counsel was only appointed 7 months ago, so that seems pretty fast given the politics involved. I'll be interested to see how long Trump's...
I'm surprised that this happened so quickly. The special counsel was only appointed 7 months ago, so that seems pretty fast given the politics involved. I'll be interested to see how long Trump's allies continue to back him through all of these indictments.
A lot to unpack there. It really come down to misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies from the right (and left, in some cases), people living in a bubble, and refusing to even consider that...
A lot to unpack there. It really come down to misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies from the right (and left, in some cases), people living in a bubble, and refusing to even consider that they're wrong.
Any moderate republican is called a RINO and shunned at this point. You have to have these extremist ideologies to be considered a "Real" republican, even though those ideologies are hypocritical at best.
There are 10s of millions that vote for these people, simply out of spite for the "Other side" even though the other side is fighting for them to have a chance at that, "Pursuit of happiness" while the right wingers are actively promoting class and race warfare.
They WANT a civil war part deux. They have absolutely no clue how that would affect not only the country, but the world.
They don't CARE about constitution and the laws, unless it benefits only their ideologies.
These are the people that loudly call themselves "Patriots", but what they really are, are wannabe dictators in their own little worlds. Fascists l, by definition, don't care about what true, don't care about other people's values, and don't care about anything except what they have to gain by being that Fascist.
I'm losing friends to those ideologies, and it's more than sad. It's sick
Not an expert on... well anything really, but I'll try to answer your 3 main questions. Because as a person with a lot of wealth (not as much as he claims, but still orders of magnitude more than...
Not an expert on... well anything really, but I'll try to answer your 3 main questions.
What I absolutely fail to understand is:
how Trump is not behind bars yet with all the stuff he has been accused off
Because as a person with a lot of wealth (not as much as he claims, but still orders of magnitude more than the average citizen has) he has the resources to deflect, disrupt, delay, and deal with prosecutors and accusers. He and his lawyers can tie up proceedings with any number of legal tactics designed to cause the other side to give up. Or if not give up, agree to a deal outside the courts that results in charges or lawsuits being dropped.
how Trump potentially even would be allowed to run as president again given the fact some of the accusations are treason and him leaking classified documents if I'm not mistaken
Legally, being accused (or even indicted) does not prevent someone from running or being President in the US. Even being convicted of a felony is not a disqualification, which in a lot of states would lose you the right to vote. Practically speaking, being accused of such things should effectively make it impossible for someone to run, but as the world has seen, Trump is apparently the exception to every unwritten rule about what should be political suicide.
how people claiming to be nationalist or patriotic even would consider voting for someone like Trump who would fuck over his country and the folks that elected him the momemt he's getting a good enough offer or any other personal advantages out of it.
The answer to this goes into some psychology that I'm probably unqualified to answer, but the best answer I can give here is that people believe what they want to believe. For the same reason that people in classical cults believe deeply that the cult leader is magnanimous, benevolent, and cares about them when in fact they are a egomaniac who is just exploiting them for money/power/sex. They are usually hurting, often desperate, and someone is kind to them and offers what appears to be a solution to their pain. After a certain point it no longer matters what reality is or what the cult leader says, it only matters what reality they have constructed in their own mind as a survival mechanism.
Most of the things he's done don't rise to the level of crimes, and others (like violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution) are relatively untested under the law, so it's hard to say how...
how Trump is not behind bars yet with all the stuff he has been accused off
Most of the things he's done don't rise to the level of crimes, and others (like violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution) are relatively untested under the law, so it's hard to say how a prosecution would go. As abhorrent as the things he's done are, most of them are not clear-cut criminal actions. Some things might be, but it'd be unwise to indict a former president for something he did in office that you'd be uncertain of getting a conviction on. This documents case looks like a slam-dunk and people are still biting their nails over it.
how Trump potentially even would be allowed to run as president again given the fact some of the accusations are treason and him leaking classified documents if I'm not mistaken
The only mechanism under the US Constitution to bar someone for running for president is in the 14th Amendment, and you can find a discussion of it here. We had the opportunity to prevent this after Jan 6, but Republican Senators voted no. Congress could've also voted to simply disqualify him with a simple majority vote, but chose not to go that route.
how people claiming to be nationalist or patriotic even would consider voting for someone like Trump who would fuck over his country and the folks that elected him the momemt he's getting a good enough offer or any other personal advantages out of it.
Most of them live in an alternate news reality where none of the accusations against Trump are true, and are all just lies propagated by his enemies, who hate him for attacking the "deep state" that they believe runs Washington. They don't believe he fucked over the country; quite the opposite.
Also, are there no conservatives/ Republicans that do have some common sense and either are more "moderate", or simply are actual politicians with an actual plan?
There are a few of these, they have mostly been run out of the party at this stage. I wouldn't call Liz Cheney moderate, but she aligned herself as a reasonable, democratic opposition to Trump and was primaried in her next election. Other vocal opponents of Trump are also gone (Amash, Kinzinger, etc.). If Republicans would all align to oppose Trump, they might be able to get their party back, but that's a BIG if, and plenty of Republican politicians in Congress today are fully Trump sycophants.
Schwarzenegger ... I guess him being born Austrian keeps him from running as president (or maybe he doesnt want to or maybe is not as popular as I imagine him to be)...
Yes, being born Austrian means he cannot run for US President - only a "natural-born citizen" (citizen at birth who did not need to undergo naturalization at a later date) can hold the office of President. Beyond that, he may be popular among "reasonable Republicans," but they are a minority of the party.
I really have absolutely no clue how the GOP primary will work out. Biden was able to win in part because Trump was so hated, so Democrats will have to find a new playbook if he's not the...
I really have absolutely no clue how the GOP primary will work out. Biden was able to win in part because Trump was so hated, so Democrats will have to find a new playbook if he's not the frontrunner in 2024.
Still, It's an open question whether these indictments will actually remove Trump from contention. DeSantis is in second place right now, but it seems like very few Republicans want to directly engage with Trump since he's a sticky phosphorus fire. How much of the GOP will go down with him since they hitched their wagon to Trump's brand in 2016?
Oh, he's definitely scarier in terms of what kind of damage he would do if he won, but I think he's much less of a threat in the actual election. He doesn't have the charisma or...
Oh, he's definitely scarier in terms of what kind of damage he would do if he won, but I think he's much less of a threat in the actual election. He doesn't have the charisma or cult-of-personality following that Trump has, and his crusade against Disney is extremely anti-corporation and free market, which is one of the things the party has going for it (in terms of campaign financing).
I just don't think DeSantis will motivate conservatives to the polls the way Trump had.
On the one hand I have to think the prosecutors have a solid case, otherwise why risk indicting him? But Trump has a way of things just sliding off of him. So I guess we'll have to see.
On the one hand I have to think the prosecutors have a solid case, otherwise why risk indicting him? But Trump has a way of things just sliding off of him. So I guess we'll have to see.
But when Mr. Corcoran’s testimony and notes became a key factor in the documents case, Mr. Trump made plain that he still viewed his lawyers as somehow exempt from legal scrutiny.
“I always used to think that attorneys really had a very high status in life, that when you had an attorney, that attorneys can’t be subpoenaed, they can’t be summoned to talk,” Mr. Trump told Newsmax in March after Judge Howell’s ruling. Complaining about how Mr. Corcoran had been compelled to testify in the documents investigation, he said: “They bring attorneys in as though they’re, you know, witnesses to a case. It wasn’t supposed to be that way.”
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman — not U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was randomly assigned Trump’s case — will be handling the former president’s arraignment and bond matters.
Cannon, who had been widely reported to be handling those duties, will still remain on the historic case as the lead judge.
If Cannon were to step aside for any reason, the Trump case would be randomly assigned again to one of the other three federal judges in the West Palm Beach division: Robin Rosenberg, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, Donald Middlebrooks, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, or Kenneth Marra, who was nominated by President George W. Bush.
Trump’s legal team has been interviewing South Florida lawyers to join the team, most notably Ben Kuehne, a Democrat and prominent member of the legal community. He’s a former president of the Miami-Dade Bar Association and most recently represented Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo in his federal civil case in which Carollo was sued by businessman Bill Fuller.
Meanwhile, Trump is speaking (campaigning?) in Georgia, and will be in North Carolina later. AJC: A defiant Trump attacks ‘scam’ federal indictment in return to Georgia NYT: ‘This Is the Final...
Meanwhile, Trump is speaking (campaigning?) in Georgia, and will be in North Carolina later.
COLUMBUS — A defiant Donald Trump delivered a slashing defense against his federal indictment before a friendly Georgia GOP convention on Saturday in his first public appearance since prosecutors unveiled charges that pose an urgent legal threat to his comeback bid.
Throughout his speech to more than 2,000 conservatives and Republican officials, the former president issued a scathing rebuke of the indictment and framed himself as a victim of “vicious persecution” from politically motivated prosecutors.
“Witch hunt, witch hunt. Scam. Hoax,” Trump said, calling the criminal probes “election interference” that would backfire on President Joe Biden and his supporters.
“In the end, they’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” Trump said to sustained applause. “And I’m just standing in their way. Here I am, just standing in their way.”
He repeated false claims of rampant voting fraud and a “rigged” Georgia 2020 election, and was rewarded with loud applause from the crowd. He denigrated Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as a “lunatic Marxist” for her probe into his attempt to overturn his defeat.
Trump held back on directly attacking Gov. Brian Kemp, though a chorus of boos echoed through the convention hall when the former president mentioned Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused his demand to “find” enough votes to overtake Biden.
And Trump dismissed the ongoing probes into his conduct, at one point telling the crowd that “every time I fly over a blue state, we get a subpoena.”
“The only good thing about it is it’s driven my poll numbers way up,” said Trump.
“This is the final battle,” Mr. Trump said in the speech to several thousand activists, delegates and members of the news media who gathered in Columbus, Ga., at a brick building that was once an iron works that manufactured mortars, guns and cannons for the Confederate Army in the Civil War.
“With you at my side,” he continued, “we will demolish the Deep State, we will expel the warmongers from our government.” He added: “We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the Communists, we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country, we will rout the fake news media,” and said “We will expose the RINOs, we will defeat Joe Biden and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.”
“Either the Communists win and destroy America, or we destroy the Communists,” the former president said. He made similar remarks about the “Deep State,” using the pejorative term he uses both for U.S. intelligence agencies and more broadly for any federal government bureaucrat he perceives as a political opponent.
Mr. Trump went on to describe the Justice Department as “a sick nest of people that needs to be cleaned out immediately.” He called the special counsel, Jack Smith, “deranged” and “openly a Trump hater.” He attacked Mr. Smith’s wife as “even more of a Trump hater. I wish her a lot of luck.”
And he attacked by name Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., who is weighing criminal charges against Mr. Trump, calling her “a lunatic Marxist” and accusing her of ignoring violent crime and instead spending all of her time “working on getting Trump.”
Has now been confirmed by WaPo. All I can say is holy shit.
I, along with many others, have grown cynical that Trump would be held accountable for even a fraction of his misconduct. From the beginning this has seemed like such an open and shut case, but it was complicated in my mind (politically, not legally) by the discovery last year that Biden had also improperly retained classified docs after leaving office. I thought for sure that would be the out that Trump needed to escape accountability again. However, it seems the charges more pertain to obstruction of justice and related crimes arising from Trumps refusal to return the documents as opposed to simply “taking” them in the first place. I also think the special counsel would not file charges if they did not expect to have a high change of success in securing a conviction. Which isn’t to say a conviction is guaranteed (especially considering the trial is happening in Florida), but it makes me more confident that these will be hard charges to escape.
Just last week it was reported that the special counsel had an audio recording of Trump a) discussing one of the documents with people who don’t have clearances and b) expressing an understanding that the document was still classified and that he couldn’t show them. That’s pretty close to smoking gun evidence, and of course we don’t know all of the other evidence they’ve obtained.
I'm not going to hold my breath that he gets any sort of real punishment
It's a federal case with high level intelligence on the line and he case sounds to be about as open-and-shut as it's possible to have including a confession on tape.
If Trump walks on this it's the US government basically saying, out loud and as clearly as it possibly can, that the state is subordinate to the oligarchy.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but there's no where to go from here. This is an attack against the national security of the United States. If he walks from this he isn't just above the law; he is above the government: he is king.
This is what goes through my mind as well. As I age, I feel like I keep going down that slippery slope from realist to nihilist. If Trump is indeed guilty and he’s not held accountable like anybody else would… I feel like the last shred of hope I have for this country will be ripped from my hands. I already have so little faith in people and institutions after his presidency and the fact that so many still support him. I just don’t know where to go or how to live my life with so much disappointment inside of me. If we’re living in the fall, I guess the only course of action is to eat, drink, and be merry. But it’s easier said than done.
I can't decide if this is hoplessly naive or absurdly nihilist, but my take on it has been that the PEOPLE haven't changed; they're just showing us who they are. The exact same amount of bigotry, racism, selfishness, stupidity, and viciousness existed before Trump. It was there when Obama was President, when W was in office, with Clinton before him. If something actually changed about Americans and American politics it wasn't recent; it was with Gingrich in the 1994 Republican Revolution at the latest... maybe earlier than that.
And that gives me at least a little hope.
Our judicial system is built upon letting 100 guilty people walk free rather than incarcerating 1 innocent person. The truth is that while Trump may be obviously guilty in the public eye, the DoJ has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high standard to clear and Trump may go free for purely judicial reasons.
We do live In a plutocracy where the corporations lobby for thier own rules to follow, they have a pretty sweet gig going on, I dont think they will let trump appear be above the law, people might start questioning the system if trump goes free
The DOJ has a pretty high success rate.
Me either but it's basically a death sentence for any continued political career. Can't really deny he's got a lot of legal problems, the money will rather back someone else who has less heat now. He fucked around and now he's finding out!
I am actually not so sure about this. The ‘dangerous’ part of indicting Trump in my eyes has always been the possibility that he will be found not guilty for political reasons by the jury and not due to there being reasonable doubt about the case. Such an event will suddenly normalize this conduct in our politicians to an even greater extent than it already is.
I’m not even convinced a conviction would end his political career, especially when a large portion of the country would default to thinking it was unjust anyway.
You forget about the amount of people that will vote against him. This will just fuel the fire, possibly more so if he doesn't get convicted. But, if I understand correctly, the conviction rate for some of the charges is extremely high. I know it's been tough to trust our justice system recently, for good reason... but they do have a vested interest in maintaining a minimum level of dignity and respect for the system, so will work to protect it with proper rulings.
This one is a federal crime, so it's ride or die on his election. If he is re-elected, he can simply pardon himself, which he can't do for the state crimes.
That's one thing a President can't do.
Which is why Nixon had to get a pardon from his successor.
I might be wrong, but isn't it still debatable whether a president can pardon themself? I thought this was one of those remaining "no decent person would do that" kind of things, but which someone as brash and unconventional as Trump might just try.
Thanks. That helps me think better about it. Do you know if anyone has analyzed how the current Supreme Court might rule on such a case given the tendencies each justice has displayed in the past?
I think most of this is spot-on, but it's not election law that determines the Presidential term length, it's Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. And the 2-term limit comes from the 22nd Amendment.
Oh, you are absolutely right. The idea that the President can pardon himself creates this exact nightmare scenario, I agree, which is why any reasonable analysis would conclude that it cannot be allowed. My reason for commenting was simply to point out the difference between law and the constitution in your specific example.
It's slightly more than an unwritten rule. The standard comes from a Watergate-era DOJ memo, but it's never been tested in the courts.
You're right. Seems there is no actual "Law" for it.
But, if we allow presidents to pardon themselves, how would we be any different than a monarchy?
It would only be a matter of time before someone took full advantage of the power that would allow; and frighteningly, that very person is probably knocking at the door right now.
It's actually up in the air whether he can pardon himself or not. The standard that says he can't was a Watergate-era DoJ memo that only holds so much weight. It's never been tested in the courts, and considering it's an Executive Branch issue, it would go straight to SCOTUS. No telling how that would break.
Eh, I don't know about that. His polling numbers WENT UP last time he was indicted. Much of his base see it as evidence that he's "anti-establishment" and that the "deep state" is trying to silence him or whatever.
That being said, it's probably not a good sign for the general election. He did lose last time, and those swing voters he lost from 2016 are probably not appreciating multiple criminal indictments.
He's far from being politically irrelevant, though. At this point, Trump has an iron grip over about 1/3rd of the GOP base, or about 1/6 to 1/7th of the American voting population. That level of control will never be irrelevant. He could be in jail, and still have significant political power.
It's already been shown that our government is willing to put up with elected officials who break their oath of office.
This dude will run from a prison cell, and still get 10s of millions of votes.
And c) that document is purportedly still missing!
Also, slightly off topic: could we update the headline/link now that the indictment's been confirmed, possibly to the Washington Post's ("Trump indicted in Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation")? This is the largest development yet in the Trump crime arc, and the headline doesn't even mention what he's been indicted for.
The most interesting thing here in my mind is probably 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which in part reads
The court case around that should be interesting. Will that be deemed constitutional?
I can't imagine that part would be held to be constitutional. The Supreme Court, along with lower federal courts, has long established that Congress (and the States) cannot create additional qualifications for public office, beyond those set forth in the Constitution. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, Cook v. Gralike, and Powell v. McCormack.
"Trump-Appointed Judge Is Said to Be Handling Documents Case". The New York Times.
Specifically, the "Trump-appointed Judge" is Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously delayed this case by improperly appointing a special master to review all the seized documents, a decision that was later overturned by a conservative appeals court. Just to remind everyone how awful her judgement was, let me quote from her wiki article:
To translate this from legalese: basically, when the government seizes your stuff per a court ordered subpoena, it will only be returned to you if four conditions are met:
Obviously Trump didn't satisfy any of these first three conditions since these materials didn't belong to him to begin with. Notably, Trump's lawyer didn't even argue what materials he needed or why he needed them at all, only chanting "executive privilege" like some sort of mantra and refusing to elaborate further. Nevertheless, Judge Cannon granted his motion to have a special master sort and return material. But why? Per the New York Times:
According to the Judge currently handling this case, the Richey test didn't apply to Trump because Trump was the President, so he deserved special treatment above other citizens.
Let's hope she doesn't handle the trial.
I have to hope after the legal embarrassment of what happened to her rulings last time, that she wouldn't be eager to jump right back into the 11th circuit's smack-down target sights.. You never know I guess. After getting the lifetime appointment, you'd think these judges would feel less beholden, but wow what a spectacularly bad job that was last time.
Not Ideal.. I feel like the 11th circuit is just waiting for her to pull another stunt, but honestly I'm more concerned about a Florida-man juror hanging a verdict (not that it's likely to be a factor for some time yet). Not great Dan.. Not great.
Until he's in prison none of this really means much, he always manages to get away without punishment.
Here is another article from CNN.
I'm surprised that this happened so quickly. The special counsel was only appointed 7 months ago, so that seems pretty fast given the politics involved. I'll be interested to see how long Trump's allies continue to back him through all of these indictments.
A lot to unpack there. It really come down to misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies from the right (and left, in some cases), people living in a bubble, and refusing to even consider that they're wrong.
Any moderate republican is called a RINO and shunned at this point. You have to have these extremist ideologies to be considered a "Real" republican, even though those ideologies are hypocritical at best.
There are 10s of millions that vote for these people, simply out of spite for the "Other side" even though the other side is fighting for them to have a chance at that, "Pursuit of happiness" while the right wingers are actively promoting class and race warfare.
They WANT a civil war part deux. They have absolutely no clue how that would affect not only the country, but the world.
They don't CARE about constitution and the laws, unless it benefits only their ideologies.
These are the people that loudly call themselves "Patriots", but what they really are, are wannabe dictators in their own little worlds. Fascists l, by definition, don't care about what true, don't care about other people's values, and don't care about anything except what they have to gain by being that Fascist.
I'm losing friends to those ideologies, and it's more than sad. It's sick
Not an expert on... well anything really, but I'll try to answer your 3 main questions.
Because as a person with a lot of wealth (not as much as he claims, but still orders of magnitude more than the average citizen has) he has the resources to deflect, disrupt, delay, and deal with prosecutors and accusers. He and his lawyers can tie up proceedings with any number of legal tactics designed to cause the other side to give up. Or if not give up, agree to a deal outside the courts that results in charges or lawsuits being dropped.
Legally, being accused (or even indicted) does not prevent someone from running or being President in the US. Even being convicted of a felony is not a disqualification, which in a lot of states would lose you the right to vote. Practically speaking, being accused of such things should effectively make it impossible for someone to run, but as the world has seen, Trump is apparently the exception to every unwritten rule about what should be political suicide.
The answer to this goes into some psychology that I'm probably unqualified to answer, but the best answer I can give here is that people believe what they want to believe. For the same reason that people in classical cults believe deeply that the cult leader is magnanimous, benevolent, and cares about them when in fact they are a egomaniac who is just exploiting them for money/power/sex. They are usually hurting, often desperate, and someone is kind to them and offers what appears to be a solution to their pain. After a certain point it no longer matters what reality is or what the cult leader says, it only matters what reality they have constructed in their own mind as a survival mechanism.
Most of the things he's done don't rise to the level of crimes, and others (like violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution) are relatively untested under the law, so it's hard to say how a prosecution would go. As abhorrent as the things he's done are, most of them are not clear-cut criminal actions. Some things might be, but it'd be unwise to indict a former president for something he did in office that you'd be uncertain of getting a conviction on. This documents case looks like a slam-dunk and people are still biting their nails over it.
The only mechanism under the US Constitution to bar someone for running for president is in the 14th Amendment, and you can find a discussion of it here. We had the opportunity to prevent this after Jan 6, but Republican Senators voted no. Congress could've also voted to simply disqualify him with a simple majority vote, but chose not to go that route.
Most of them live in an alternate news reality where none of the accusations against Trump are true, and are all just lies propagated by his enemies, who hate him for attacking the "deep state" that they believe runs Washington. They don't believe he fucked over the country; quite the opposite.
There are a few of these, they have mostly been run out of the party at this stage. I wouldn't call Liz Cheney moderate, but she aligned herself as a reasonable, democratic opposition to Trump and was primaried in her next election. Other vocal opponents of Trump are also gone (Amash, Kinzinger, etc.). If Republicans would all align to oppose Trump, they might be able to get their party back, but that's a BIG if, and plenty of Republican politicians in Congress today are fully Trump sycophants.
Yes, being born Austrian means he cannot run for US President - only a "natural-born citizen" (citizen at birth who did not need to undergo naturalization at a later date) can hold the office of President. Beyond that, he may be popular among "reasonable Republicans," but they are a minority of the party.
I really have absolutely no clue how the GOP primary will work out. Biden was able to win in part because Trump was so hated, so Democrats will have to find a new playbook if he's not the frontrunner in 2024.
Still, It's an open question whether these indictments will actually remove Trump from contention. DeSantis is in second place right now, but it seems like very few Republicans want to directly engage with Trump since he's a sticky phosphorus fire. How much of the GOP will go down with him since they hitched their wagon to Trump's brand in 2016?
Gah, I'm quite worried about this. I think DeSantis is a significantly scarier candidate.
Oh, he's definitely scarier in terms of what kind of damage he would do if he won, but I think he's much less of a threat in the actual election. He doesn't have the charisma or cult-of-personality following that Trump has, and his crusade against Disney is extremely anti-corporation and free market, which is one of the things the party has going for it (in terms of campaign financing).
I just don't think DeSantis will motivate conservatives to the polls the way Trump had.
On the one hand I have to think the prosecutors have a solid case, otherwise why risk indicting him? But Trump has a way of things just sliding off of him. So I guess we'll have to see.
Love to see it, no one should be above the law.
Trump on tape regarding Iran document: “As president, I could have declassified it, but now I can’t”
NYT: Trump Indictment Shows Critical Evidence Came From One of His Own Lawyers
Miami Herald: Magistrate to preside over Trump’s arraignment, not controversial Judge Aileen Cannon
Meanwhile, Trump is speaking (campaigning?) in Georgia, and will be in North Carolina later.
AJC: A defiant Trump attacks ‘scam’ federal indictment in return to Georgia
NYT: ‘This Is the Final Battle’: Trump Casts His Campaign as an Existential Fight Against His Critics