Trump “suspends his campaign”. And then the MAGAts nominate him anyways. The MAGAts aren’t subject to any such court order/plea deal; they’re FREE 'MURRICANS! They’ll nominate who they want, libtard!
Trump says, “Hey, you can’t punish me for what someone else did!”, which is actually a legitimate point.
“Well, then, you must refuse the nomination!”, you say. So Trump “Refuses” in his usual “Stand back and stand by” fashion, and the MAGAts all say, “Well, we know he didn’t really mean that, so we’re keeping him on the ballot!”
Oh, but then he must “Notify the secretaries of state”. Why? Was that in his original plea deal? Can he be required to actively help the courts enforce their own order? And again, so maybe he goes through the motions of “notifying” them, and the State officials respond with some variation of “My hands are tied/screw the libtard NY prosecutors/let the voters decide” and he stays on the ballots in every Republican run state, and maybe a few Democrat run ones as well.
And every MAGAt out there will know that Trump wants them to do all this, without Trump ever actually telling them that, because we all know that’s what Trump would want them to do.
And then, if he wins the election, he pisses on the plea deal, knowing that he’s the president-elect, and no one will dare touch him.
I am not a lawyer and thus cannot cite what the prosecutors can do to prevent Trump from gaming the system as you describe, but I think, “Suspend your campaign immediately, which includes relinquishing all funds,” sounds completely plausible. If he doesn’t do it, he goes to prison.
In order to be as confident as you seem that nothing can be done along those lines, I think a little more legal knowledge would be required to prove that negative.
Again, if Trump were in his fifties, I think he would take the deal but then violate it in 2028 or something. But he just needs to be stopped this once.
If the prosecutors are thinking about plea deals in the way you want them to, as a means to eliminate Trump’s political ambitions, then the only plea deal I think the prosecutors would accept is one with at least some jail time. Having him in actual jail in the months leading up to the election is about the only way I can see us avoiding Trump still mucking about in politics and the culture war.
But there’s no way Trump would agree to any deal that requires him to spend even one day in jail. So it’s never going to happen.
Which is also why Trump wouldn’t agree to this deal. There’s no way he doesn’t play 2024 out to the bitter end, because, as you say, this is probably his last kick at the can.
He would be off the ballot in enough states in such a scenario to make his loss 100% guaranteed. But if the MAGAs were still going for a win, that would be great! It would the biggest disaster imaginable for the GOP.
…and do you think Trump cares about that? If he loses, he wants everyone else to lose as well. He’ll burn the GOP to the ground, and then tell them they deserved it for failing him.
Here is where we are more in agreement. I can see a scenario in which he does take the deal, however:
His lawyers sit him down and say, “The trial is going terribly. You’re going to be convicted and found guilty and probably will do some prison time. That will mean you can’t campaign, and you will lose. But I think they will take a plea deal at this stage.”
If Trump believes what they say, which isn’t guaranteed, and believes that he would lose the election in such a scenario, which also isn’t guaranteed, I think he might take the deal.
What do I think is actually going to happen? I think he’s not going to do a deal, he’s going to be convicted, and he’s going to be given a short prison sentence. Even three months will be fatal to his campaign and election chances. Then the GOP will have do with the shitball in their court.
Thinking about this part, can relinquishing funds even be part of a plea deal? Trump doesn’t actually legally own those funds, his usually greedy acting like he does notwithstanding. They’re technically owned by the Super PACs or the GOP party itself. Those entities use them for the benefit of Trump, but he’s not actually in charge of that. Can these third party entities be compelled by a plea deal in a case they are not even a party to?
That doesn’t strike me as accurate. He has his own campaign funds that he can spend however he likes. The RNC and PACs have their own, separate accounts. He would have to relinquish control of what he currently has.
That’s why candidates “suspend” campaigns even when they’re really quitting, since (or so I have heard, I’m not an expert) that they can’t retain control of those funds after they officially quit.
Now, this is my opinion only and I could be completely wrong, but I don’t believe that this will change anything. And, contrary to the Salon article and this quote from it “Once the public fully realizes that the emperor has no clothes and that Trump is just a bombastic charlatan…”, nothing will change, unless he’s found guilty and imprisoned.
Anybody with a functioning brain and a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills already knows that Trump is “just a bombastic charlatan” and if the past eight years haven’t convinced anyone else, then how is Trump sitting in a courtroom going to impact the others?
We are really veering into rabid fantasy-land here. There is a negative 1,000,000% chance that any prosecutor on any Trump trial would propose or accept “suspending a political campaign” as part of a plea deal. Trump is the one trying to make out that these prosecutions are political persecutions. Any such plea deal offer plays right into his hands.
But more importantly, that’s just not how the legal system works. Any plea deals offered would be in accordance with normal legal principles and precedent, not political considerations like campaigning.
ETA: I am not a lawyer. The above is my layman’s opinion.
It’s going to look kind of weird and inscrutable from outside of the MAGA-Sphere … but when Trump finally does get unceremoniously dropped, it’s going to be sudden and will not really be telegraphed.
And it won’t be worldview flipping – people changing from conservative to liberal, or from MAGA to never-Trumper. It will be so many once-strident MAGA warriors just dropping their swords and withdrawing altogether from politics for a time. Not all MAGA people and not all at once. But enough to matter.
I just want to point out that the Constitution doesn’t give a damn whether Trump suspends his campaign, gives back all his funds, or writes contrite letters to the secretaries of state. The Constitution cares that a group of electors from each state vote for the President and Vice President.
Now, those electors may be “uncommitted” electors running on the Republican ballot. Then about a month after “Election day” they meet, cast their votes for President, and send them in a sealed box to Washington, where they’re opened and counted on January 3. And if a majority of those votes happen to say “Donald J. Trump” what plea bargain in the world is going to stop Donald J. Trump from becoming President on January 20? Will he be sworn in, immediately be arrested, then immediately pardon himself?
Remember, in 1872 Democratic candidate Horace Greely died before the Electoral College met and somehow still managed to get three votes, which were duly counted by Congress.
Thank you! That is spot on, and I’m surprised no one else has pointed that out yet.
And don’t dredge up Spiro Agnew; he took a plea deal to one felony count and resigned to avoid trial and conviction on a whole bunch of felonies, at a time when even crooked politicians could be shamed out of office.
I recently spoke with Kenneth McCallion. He is a former Justice Department prosecutor who also worked for the New York attorney general’s office as a prosecutor on Trump-related racketeering cases.
He could be wrong, but I think it would be helpful to adduce contrary opinions from other experts while confidently asserting that such a plea deal is impossible or fantasy.
I also think the idea that Trump could take such a deal and be elected anyway is unrealistic. If taking the plea deal resulted in his being off the ballot in just a couple of states he would need in order to get elected, then he won’t win. If he had a crushing lead at this point in time, then perhaps that could happen without further safeguards, but he doesn’t.
Well, it could be helpful to adduce contrary opinions from other experts that the world is flat, but I’m not going to do that, either. The expert interviewed in that Salon article you linked did not say anything about a plea deal, so as far as I can see that came solely from you, mentioning a different but unnamed Salon article.
If such a plea deal emerges in any of his trials, I will come back and eat humble pie.
I agree with your logic 100%. There is no way such a plea deal is offered for the reasons you noted, not least of which that it makes the whole “it’s election interference!” whine absolutely true. Spot on.