I think maybe some sort of Community Service type of punishment might be our best option.
It would be a plus if he hates every second of it.
Yeah, but that’s not fair to Eric.
I think I meant “would”. Not that I agree with it, but I think that might happen for the whole “working together” “common ground” stuff we’ve heard from some politicians. The soft side of things, I suppose.
Still all guesswork and supposition from me though. I can’t wait to see what, if any, charges are put forward and the whole crazy and difficult process this must be. But I still think hitting him in the wallet would be the best punishment overall, besides jail time.
Lose-lose. Dems would despise him, and Pubbies would say he hadn’t gone far enough, or did it for the wrong reasons, or had something nefarious up his sleeve.
Not all of us Dems, Rog.
Dan
Then you are no true Scotsdem.
Home confinement, no internet, and limited visitors.
Sure, I’d like more punitive measures, but the above impresses me as reasonable and sufficient for this entire situation.
Why can’t they be added to? It seems to me that the Constitution defines the minimum standard for being President.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Nothing in that suggests that anyone who meets the minimum criteria must be allowed to run for office. And there’s precedent for adding additional limits:
A person who meets the above qualifications, however, may still be constitutionally barred from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
- Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, gives the U.S. Senate the option of forever disqualifying anyone convicted in an impeachment case from holding any federal office.[14]
- Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, from becoming president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.[15]
- The 22nd Amendment prohibits anyone from being elected to the presidency more than twice (or once if the person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a presidential term to which someone else was originally elected).
He had legal advisors to tell him he shouldn’t be doing these things, and it’s starting to sound like they did do exactly that, so I think the judge should throw the absolutely heaviest book at him. Whatever the maximum penalty is, do that.
Well of course the Constitutional requirements for being President can be added to by amending the Constitution. But the Supreme Court held in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The same logic would apply to the Presidency.
There are lots of creative ideas here! But I think what will probably be most important is not whether he is convicted of anything, but whether he is becoming radioactive to the politicians who have hitherto enabled his political nine lives. I believe there is absolutely no crime Trump could commit which would cause them to cease to shield him from the consequences of his relentlessly immoral and criminal life. Only the voters abandoning him would do that. The neofascists of course never will, but that’s not required. What is required is an energized Democratic base, and much increased dubiousness of the Independent middle. And that seems to be happening. Republicans currently running for office are shedding references to Trump (and to anti-abortion) all over the place.
Without his political protectors, Trump is as vulnerable as any other treasonous seditionist. Then he can actually get – not what he deserves, because what do monsters deserve? – but what the law mandates.
I don’t understand why so many posters feel that home confinement is the harshest penalty Trump would receive if convicted. Is it to accommodate his Secret Service protection? Please show me where the Constitution states that all presidents must have Secret Service protection for life – or any federal benefits whatsoever.
IANAL, but I don’t see why a sentencing judge couldn’t strip Trump of his Secret Service protection at the same time he sends him to Leavenworth for 20 years.
Of course not. Just a supermajority of Dems.
Isn’t it cruel and unusual punishment if he can see Russia yet not be able to visit flee to?
No argument. Just explaining why it might happen.
There’s a time in this nation’s history when he might actually have been executed for sedition and treason, but I instead believe he should spend the rest of his life in prison with no opportunity for parole. The problem with that, however, is that any Republican president would immediately pardon him, and he would essentially go scot free.
Let us receive some official guidance for this thread.
IF he is convicted and we have a Democratic House and Senate, I’d like them to strip him and his grifting wife of their SS protection.
As to him running after conviction, I don’t see how it can be stopped. Yeah there’s a bit in the 14th about rebelling against the United States, but who gets to officially declare that he did so? And if he was elected from prison, he simply pardons himself the minute he takes office.
I don’t think he should be under house arrest, in theory he has sensitive secrets in his noggin. Best put him in solitary.
Lol, if the Dems maintain the senate, impeach him in the House and ram the conviction through the Senate. And the crimes will be not this document stuff but what is presented by the J6 committee: treason, sedition, insurrection, wrapped up all nice and proper given it goes to his actions as a sitting President…
And while the Constitution is silent as to the question of whether you can impeach ex president, it is also silent on the question of can you convict the president if they commit a crime in their final day of office. And I can’t believe that would be anyone’s intention, including the Founders
It isn’t in the Constitution, but it is written in law. Former presidents are entitled to benefits including a pension and SS protection. AIUI, this could have been rescinded by impeachment, but there is currently no provision in law to rescind it if he is convicted of a crime.
As to why house arrest is likely, just for a start he would be in danger from violence and murder in a normal prison. Every prisoner is, to some extent, DT more than most. Ordinary prison guards aren’t qualified to protect him, and there’s no room for his SS protectors. Better to confine him in his own home, with appropriate guardians.