# I'll throw you in jail when I become President **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 10, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168 "2016-10-10T18:53:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Leo\_Krupe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Leo\_Krupe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Krupe)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/61 "2016-10-11T14:43:57Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And whether this was an offhand line at the time, Trump’s fully embraced it, [tweeting](https://twitter.com/DavMicRot/status/785473109088432128) a big pic with a “she would be in jail” caption early yesterday, and saying, “Yeah, ‘lock her up’ is right” in his speech at Wilkes-Barre later yesterday. > > And I repeat: ‘locking her up’ is a potential **outcome** of an unbiased investigation, if its findings warrant prosecution. But Trump has already decided what the outcome should be: his opponent should be imprisoned. > > This is _America_, dammit, not some gorram banana republic. I’m about the least patriotic person I know, but this is bringing out the patriot in me. Exactly. I can see (though not agree with) Trump saying, “If I’m elected, I will tell my AG to bring Hillary up on charges,” or something to that effect. Saying in so many words he would jail her is truly un-American–as in unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/62 "2016-10-11T14:48:09Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Will people be allowed to carry their guns (open or concealed) into the voting sites (and into the booths, I guess)? In Texas, firearms are not permitted in polling locations except as carried by uniformed law enforcement officers. Personally, I’ve never understood the exception. If we, the non-gun-toting public, are supposed to feel comfortable with guns everywhere – the grocery store, mall, restaurant, movie theater, etc. – then why aren’t guns allowed in polling locations? The guns everywhere argument is that we should not feel threatened by the mere presence of a gun. What makes the polling place different? [I am not a guns-everywhere person.] ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/63 "2016-10-11T14:49:54Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > Based on my experience with Teflon: sure, things don’t stick at first - but if you keep the heat somewhere between medium-low and high for 30+ years, keep throwing stuff in, and you only have THIS to show for it? > > Maybe you’ve been throwing in tap water this whole time. > > You’ve produced a whole lotta steam (looks like smoke at first, but dissipates quickly) and some scummy residue; but overall, you’ve just ruined the coating on a perfectly nice non-stick pan. Which could’ve cooked a nice, bipartisan omelette. I love this metaphor. Mind if I borrow it? ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/64 "2016-10-11T14:54:28Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > In the end, a portion of it likely comes down to the fact that Trump _doesn’t actually know what the president does_. Throughout this campaign we’ve seen time and time again that he has no attention span, knows very little about a lot of things, and has no interest in learning more. I don’t think his understanding of the office extends much further than what a hypothetical six-year-old might have - “The president is in charge of the whole country and everybody has to do what he says”. > > If you have a child of that age and you asked them what they’d do if they were president, their answers probably wouldn’t be very different from Trump’s. They’d say they would “arrest all the bad guys” or “make a machine that gives everyone food” or something of that nature. And that’s basically Trump’s platform - he’ll fix everything, somehow, just by decreeing that it be done. YES. This is the crux of it, and a point that cannot be made too often. Honestly, I think his worst moments of the debate came when he demanded of Clinton why she hadn’t fixed _all of the country’s problems already_, because those were the moments that showed the true depth of his cluelessness about how government actually works. I’m willing to believe he genuinely doesn’t know WHY saying he’d put Clinton in jail is wrong, and that, frankly, scares me more than if he were saying it in full knowledge that it was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/65 "2016-10-11T14:59:36Z")
Cognitive dissonance. It isn’t just for breakfast anymore. Wasn’t it not that long ago that the Republicans were complaining that they were being unfairly targeted in IRS probes? And that was _bad_! But now, apparently it is not only fine but desirable that Clinton be locked away without trial as if Trump is Batman and she is the Joker? And no one on the Right has a problem with this? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/66 "2016-10-11T15:00:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, there are two possible interpretations: > > GENERAL CASE #1: > > TRUMP: “…and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. OK, thanks, John. Eric, you’re the new acting Attorney General. Call that rat fuck Comey and tell him that if Hillary isn’t behind bars in 48 hours, he will be.” > > GENERAL CASE #2: > > TRUMP: "Director Comey, like millions of Americans, I listened to your speech about Secretary Clinton with disbelief. It seemed to boil down to a statement that while some federal laws might have been broken, we have never before prosecuted anyone unless we could show some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice. Because you found none of those present, you were recommending no prosecution. > > "However, my administration does not share that view. I believe that the law is what Congress says it is, and should not be shaped by prosecutorial dilettantes of the past; the mere fact that we have never before prosecuted clearly illegal conduct does not mean we should never do so. Accordingly, I am directing the new Attorney General and each US Attorney’s office to review cases in which the FBI has chosen to recommend non-prosecution even when the elements of a federal crime were found to exist, with Secretary Clinton’s being first among many due to the intense publicity surrounding your public statement. > > “Do you have any questions?” > > Now, I agree that approaches under General Case #1 are illegal. > > I am curious to hear what legal or constitutional barriers anyone believes exist for General Case #2. I think what would likely happen is he will say scenario 1, and those who have sided with him will claim that he meant scenario 2. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/67 "2016-10-11T15:37:55Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think what would likely happen is he will say scenario 1, and those who have sided with him will claim that he meant scenario 2. Certainly possible. But the key differences between 1 and 2 are procedural. If the FBI simply tosses her in jail with no warrant or bail, it’s a violation of her Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. If a grand jury is presented the case and the relevant law, returns an indictment and Clinton is arrested pursuant thereto, released on bail, and prosecuted as a result, I’m asking what constitutional or statutory barriers are in the way. I have already made my feelings about the legality of her conduct clear in the thread I started when the news broke: namely, that her conduct was not illegal. I trust that I don’t need to distance myself from Trump fandom or reiterate my belief in Clinton’s lack of criminal liability in every post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/68 "2016-10-11T15:42:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So, if you were his lawyer you would put forth scenario #2, but if this were a bar bet you would stake your next shot of Talisker 30 yr. old single malt on scenario #1? 😃 If I were his lawyer I’d make sure the check cleared. But yeah, I think Trump’s conception of the criminal process runs along the lines of Steve McGarrett muttering, “Book 'im, Danno,” with intermediate steps like indictment and requisite proof being extremely fuzzy. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/69 "2016-10-11T15:51:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I were his lawyer I’d make sure the check cleared. You are too trusting. If I were his lawyer I would meet him at his bank and have him withdraw cash from his account in front of witnesses and hand it to me. I know his back story. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/70 "2016-10-11T16:13:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > In the end, a portion of it likely comes down to the fact that Trump _doesn’t actually know what the president does_. Throughout this campaign we’ve seen time and time again that he has no attention span, knows very little about a lot of things, and has no interest in learning more. I don’t think his understanding of the office extends much further than what a hypothetical six-year-old might have - “The president is in charge of the whole country and everybody has to do what he says”. > > If you have a child of that age and you asked them what they’d do if they were president, their answers probably wouldn’t be very different from Trump’s. They’d say they would “arrest all the bad guys” or “make a machine that gives everyone food” or something of that nature. And that’s basically Trump’s platform - he’ll fix everything, somehow, just by decreeing that it be done. This is true, but it’s the combination of not knowing, and not caring to learn, what non-magical powers the President has - or even caring to learn that the President’s powers are in fact limited to the non-magical - with a heart that rival’s Nixon’s in its vileness. If he were a basically decent human being, the notion that Clinton should be locked up wouldn’t cross his mind. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/71 "2016-10-11T16:59:54Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The only guy to really try it (Nixon) was a low-energy quitter. Sad! > > We might have gotten to the bottom of whether it was unconstitutional if he hadn’t surrendered to the liberal media. Worth noting that what Richard Parker is referring to is that Nixon’s articles of impeachment literally included misusing executive power by interfering with the IRS, FBI, and DoJ by, among other things, ordering them to act against his personal enemies and interfering with investigations. [https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-5-2.htm](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-5-2.htm) ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/72 "2016-10-11T19:49:05Z")
In the New York Times online today: **[Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy’s Institutions](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/world/americas/united-states-democracy-clinton-trump.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)** > [@](#): > > When Donald J. Trump told Hillary Clinton at Sunday’s presidential debate that if he were president, “you’d be in jail,” he was threatening more than just his opponent. He was suggesting that he would strip power from the institutions that normally enforce the law, investing it instead in himself. > > Political scientists who study troubled democracies abroad say this is a tactic typical of elected leaders who pull down their systems from within: former President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the fascist leaders of 1930s Europe. > > Today’s United States, unlike the countries in those cases, has strong institutions and norms that prevent any president from going that far, these experts stress. But Mr. Trump’s threat to jail his opponent for her deletion of thousands of emails sent from a private server while she was secretary of state, they warned in interviews on Monday, would chip away at the things that make American democracy so resilient. > > Mr. Trump’s comment was “a threat to the rule of law, a threat to the stability of our institutions, a threat to basic agreements that are necessary for democracy to function,” said Adrienne LeBas, a political scientist at American University… > > …Mr. Trump’s remark, then, could be interpreted as a threat not only to Mrs. Clinton, but also to the police agencies, prosecutors and courts that normally apply the law. By suggesting that he alone could determine her fate — appointing a special prosecutor on a case the F.B.I. has already dismissed and predetermining the outcome — Mr. Trump seemed to disregard these institutions as illegitimate… You have to wonder if Trump were running against Obama, if he would have uttered a similar threat, promising to deport Obama to his “native Kenya” for being an illegal immigrant and a dangerous Muslim. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/73 "2016-10-11T19:50:42Z")
Trump thinks he’s running for king. That’s it, pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/74 "2016-10-11T20:12:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Even this overly charitable spin has legal problems: There’s no question that it’s charitable in the extreme – indeed, it borders on science fiction. BUT… > [@](#): > > 1. If Trump chose this course because Clinton was his political opponent–and I think there’s pretty good evidence for that argument–then she has a First Amendment defense. It is not well-settled, but it just cannot be that you can exercise prosecutorial discretion based on which political opinions you dislike. (You could also pursue it as an equal protection “class of one” argument, but it would probably be stronger as a First Amendment claim.) It would be unconstitutional for the same reason that an order to target Republicans for prosecution would be unconstitutional. Sure, but I’d be stunned to learn that the prosecution efforts directed at Edward Snowden and Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning were not influenced by the White House in some measure. A general order to target Republicans would be problematic, but a specific order phrased as alt-magical-Trump did (“I am directing the new Attorney General and each US Attorney’s office to review cases in which the FBI has chosen to recommend non-prosecution even when the elements of a federal crime were found to exist, with Secretary Clinton’s being first among many due to the intense publicity surrounding your public statement,”) does not suffer that infirmity. The legal theory underlying the prosecution is a reversal of long practice of reading in motive as an element of the offense. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/75 "2016-10-11T20:16:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Trump’s intention is not to arrest Clinton for following standard accepted State Department procedures. His intention is not to arrest Clinton for keeping the number of embassy attacks against the US to 1/13 of what they were under her predecessor. His intention is not even to arrest her for murdering Vince Foster and making it look like a suicide. His intention is to arrest her because she opposed him. That’s what’s beyond the pale. See, you’re making the assumption that Trump is actually telling the truth, and that when he says he’s going to have Hillary Clinton arrested, he sincerely means it. That is of course a risible error. You must assume Trump is lying, because he almost always is, and go to the real question; **would Trump make money by having Clinton arrested?** The answer is clearly no. There’s no profit in it for him, so he’d lose interest in her. So why is he saying he’d arrest her? To impress his base, so they’ll vote for him, so he can become President and make billions of dollars in bribe money. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/76 "2016-10-11T20:27:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > TSure, but I’d be stunned to learn that the prosecution efforts directed at Edward Snowden and Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning were not influenced by the White House in some measure. Well, “influenced . . . in some measure” is pretty vague. It would be bombshell news if the White House ordered the US Attorney to prosecute Manning or Snowden. > [@Bricker](#): > > A general order to target Republicans would be problematic, but a specific order phrased as alt-magical-Trump did (“I am directing the new Attorney General and each US Attorney’s office to review cases in which the FBI has chosen to recommend non-prosecution even when the elements of a federal crime were found to exist, with Secretary Clinton’s being first among many due to the intense publicity surrounding your public statement,”) does not suffer that infirmity. I don’t think that’s correct. Deciding to prosecute someone because of her political beliefs is not distinguishable from deciding to focus resources on prosecuting Republicans, as a First Amendment matter. Trump’s defense would have to be to challenge the factual premise–i.e., he would argue that he selected her for some reason other than this impermissible reason. I think that would be tough, given what he’s said about it. Moreover, even your version seems to acknowledge that he would be selecting her because of her First Amendment activities rather than in spite of them. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/77 "2016-10-11T20:32:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You are too trusting. If I were his lawyer I would meet him at his bank and have him withdraw cash from his account in front of witnesses and hand it to me. I know his back story. This implies that he has money in the bank. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/78 "2016-10-11T20:35:52Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > This implies that he has money in the bank. Also check he doesn’t own the bank. You might get counterfeits. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/79 "2016-10-11T21:00:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Moreover, even your version seems to acknowledge that he would be selecting her because of her First Amendment activities rather than in spite of them. No, no – the selection would be because of Comey’s public statement, not her First Amendment activities. Now, of course it’s true that Comey’s statement was made because of Mrs. Clinton’s highly public profile, which arose in turn because of her First Amendment activities, but there’s an arguable attenuation there. Indeed, looking at recent prosecutions of people like Tom DeLay, Bob McDonnell, and Rick Perry, it seems safe to hint that they were selected because of political prominence, and indeed all those cases ended up in the appellate courts in prosecutorial ruin – but none for selective prosecution. I can easily imagine a Trump administration prosecution winding down a similar path. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168/80 "2016-10-11T21:15:17Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > There’s no profit in it for him, so he’d lose interest in her. So why is he saying he’d arrest her? To impress his base, so they’ll vote for him, so he can become President and make billions of dollars in bribe money. I think you’re overlooking his immense appetite for personal vengeance (at a juvenile level, certainly) on people who have irritated him somehow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ill-throw-you-in-jail-when-i-become-president/768168.md?page=5)