trump may have been the worst president in recent history, but he is a pretty good con-man.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Nope. Whatever the judge rules during trial, or on pretrial motions for that matter, any appeal will be post-verdict.
Clarence Thomas is in charge of Florida should an appeal happen it would go to him,yes?
Thinking of the scene from The Wall.
Not the appeal proper, no. But procedural motions pending an appeal to the Supreme Court could go to him. He might decide the motion, or he could refer it to the full Court.
It essentially happened with Trump’s recent sexual assault civil conviction, and polling still shows Trump a bit more likely to win next year than Biden.
I’m far from sure, but there is at least a hope that being jailed would lose him some swing votes. Being judged guilty without jail time doesn’t slow him down one bit.
What he did to Carroll was worse than keeping secret documents, and yet — he’s Teflon Don.
Being found guilty of espionage could possibly bar him from office, so there’s that little tidbit.
14th Amendment to the Constitution:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Note that being convicted of espionage has been deemed in the past to be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, as it led to the exclusion of one person from the House of Representatives 100 years ago.
The 1919 exclusion of Victor Berger from the House of Representatives also was based on purely expressive acts: The House refused to seat Berger after he was found guilty of Espionage Act violations for publishing statements espousing socialist opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I. The House took these statements as giving “aid and comfort” to enemies during the war.
So it might depend on what is behind the charges of espionage, and how they are alleged to have been done.
Yes. I’ve heard of editions of Russian novels that have a handy guide to indicate that Alexander Androvich Petroski might be Sacha, Alexander Androvich, Petroski or several other possibilities, depending on the circumstances.
One reason I was hoping the Jan 6 charges would happen in time to bump trump from trying for the presidency.
Wow, Clair mccaskel thinks that witness tampering could be in the mix.
Why would that be a surprise? He’s always been the king of the threat/payoff combo.
It could be as simple as him reminding his servants of their non-disclosure agreements, so they better not spout to the feds, because he’d sue them for breach of contract.
But if they keep their mouths shut, there’s money in it.
Looking at the immediate future, what happens on Tuesday regarding fingerprints, handcuffs etc? If this has already been addressed I apologize.
From an update to the NY Times story:
On CNN, Trump’s lawyer Jim Trusty said that Trump’s legal team had not been shown the indictment itself, but that the summons commanding Trump to appear in court had “some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be.” He mentioned the Espionage Act, multiple false-statement charges and “several obstruction-based type charges.” Specifically, he mentioned Section 1519 (which relates to obstructing an official effort and was widely expected because it was listed on the F.B.I. search warrant affidavit), but also a new one: Section 1512, which criminalizes witness tampering or other means of obstructing an official proceeding.
He’ll be processed like any other defendant, with a couple exceptions.
No handcuffs, in deference to his prior office.
He’ll be fingerprinted, DNA taken and a mug shot snapped. The mug shot will not be released to the public – although I wonder how long it will take for it to leak.
He’ll be asked if he understands the charges against him and whether he wants those charges read out in open court. (Probably not.) He’ll then be asked to enter a plea. He may delay doing that or he will enter a plea of not guilty.
There will be a tentative trial date set and a motions schedule.
Bail will be set or he’ll be released on his own recognizance. That’s going to be up to the judge, and the judge will likely have some conditions for release whether on bail or on O/R having to do with what he can or can’t say about the case in public.
He may be asked to surrender his passport and/or wear an ankle bracelet as a condition of his release.
That’s about it.
There’s nothing that would stop him from trying. The 14th amendment has to do with holding the office, not running for it.
The message to swing voters would be that if you vote for Trump, you either get his VP candidate, or (too late at night to figure this out) whomever the House of Representatives wants gets to be president. And the way the House votes there (1 vote per state) greatly favors the GOP.
The other message to swing voters would be that the government wants to dictate your vote. They would rebel against this and give the GOP a solid majority. In my view, this would give a bad result – GOP win – but their reason for voting GOP – stand up for democracy – would be the best.
Even if you could show beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is or was a Russian spy, we are not in a formal or complete state of war with Russia. And when the 14th amendment and Espionage Act were passed, the idea was that the grave act of declaring a country our enemy was done by a congressional declaration of war. In an democracy, you shouldn’t be able to stop someone from running for office on the basis of an unfavorable interpretation of the law. The living constitution concept shouldn’t be used to limit democracy.
If Trump broke the law as charged and with criminal intent, for a crime not normally overlooked, and there is strong proof, he should be convicted. But there is nothing good about the front-runner to be the next U.S. president being charged with a crime.
Trump: But it’s mine! MINE! MINE!
I have to side with @PhillyGuy here - this sounds like we’re talking about someone who is actively under an oath of office. Trump’s oath is expired.
I’m trying to figure who would enforce the “No person shall be” thing for someone running. Do the states decline to put that person on a ballot?
Reporting now that ag garland did not sign off on the charges. Apparently the only way that he would get involved, is if he felt the charges were out of line, he would tell congress that he had issues with the charges.
Garland did not sign off or take issue with the charges.
By using a special council, garland took it away from being a Biden administration indictment, and made it a special council indictment.
I don’t see it. The plain text says “having previously taken an oath.” It doesn’t say it has to be while said oath is valid.
The bigger problem is the idea that it doesn’t apply to the president.
nevermind.
Well, only the president of the United States, but not a president of another country, I’ll grant you that.
It applies to “any office, civil or military, under the United States”. Not sure why you think the POTUS would be excluded.
Katie Benner, a New York Times reporter assigned to cover the DOJ, advises a speaking indictment is coming soon with respect to the charges.
I hope that happens tomorrow.