That is totally my bad. It is the same guy in the second part of a two-part article:
IANAL, but this sounds completely nuts to me.
First, it assumes all of the various state and federal prosecutors would work together to make a joint deal, which strikes me as extremely unlikely.
Second, it assumes that they all want to achieve a political goal: getting Trump to “drop out of public life permanently.” AFAIK, they wouldn’t and shouldn’t be seeking that goal. They should be working to convict Trump of the crimes with which they have charged him, and see him appropiately sentenced in accordance with the law. And that’s all.
Anything else is just wishful thinking.
IANAL either, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t work together, especially if Trump were willing to give in on something important.
Here’s the thing: Trump is a unique case. He’s an outrageous scumbag lifelong criminal who just happens to have Hitler-like support from a huge chunk of the electorate.
Thus, there is no way not to make it de facto political and de facto election interference. The intention is to punish the scumbag, but it already is.
If they can get the deal done and Trump whines, then so what? His unique case has been handled, and oh well.
Since IANAL, I can’t say with any authority whether the prosecutor’s plea deal is realistic or possible. But I can say that it would be great if they can pull it off.
I agree completely.
Disagree completely. There’s no way that some people will not believe it is political and election interference. The way for it to not actually be political and election interference is for the prosecutors and the courts to do their jobs professionally. Which, AFAICT, they seem to be doing, with the notable exception of one judge. After that is accomplished, Trump and his followers will of course moan and whine. That’s inevitable, but not a reason to do further damage to our public institutions by politicizing and subverting them in exactly the way Trump has threatened to do if he is elected (Og forbid).
No. The intention is to conduct the trials fairly and justly. And to be seen to have done so, even if not everyone is willing to see it.
Personally, I wish Trump could be subjected to the worst tortures of hell ever conceived of by the minds of men, and made to see the incredible harm he has done to this country and the world. Failing that, I desperately hope that he does actually serve real prison time, and not some wishy-washy house arrest.
But mostly, I want to see our justice system, and governments in general, return to the level of competence and public respect they had before Reagan declared that “government is the problem” and the Republicans went on to prove it.
Part of the problem with a plea deal is not just that Trump and the prosecutors are willing to accept it, but that it also be acceptable to the public at large. Part of the reason we trust these people to make such bargains on the public’s behalf is that, by and large, they do a decent job of protecting our interests.
But in this case, no matter what deal you make, most of the population are going to think it’s a bad deal. Trump avoids jail? All the anti-Trumpers hate that he “got away with it”. “Oh, boo-hoo, he doesn’t get to be president again, he’ll just have to cry himself to sleep in his fabulous mansion!” Trump can’t run for office ever again? “Goddamned libtards are restricting our FREEEDUMS! We want president Trump! Stollen Eelshun!”
A plea deal satisfies no one.
Some of our disagreement here isn’t real and is based on the use of equivocal terms (more my fault for not being super-clear).
Basically agree, but it does hurt Trump’s electoral prospects, and I think it would be proper (in the normal world that doesn’t exist now because Trump is Trump) for prosecutors not to charge a candidate during an election year for not so big a crime in order to avoid the type of shit that James Comey caused in 2016. But because Trump is such a monumental criminal, they had to do so. In that sense, their choice to prosecute or not has an inevitable political angle to it.
The substantial part of our disagreement is that I don’t think agreeing to a plea bargain of the type described would be unprofessional or improper.
More importantly, what will possibly happen if that doesn’t is even worse: Trump gets prison time that lets him out before the election but he is still the nominee. He and all his MAGAheads will scream election interference, bloody murder, and everything else. That would be much worse for society than Trump agreeing to drop out.
Yes, but the prosecution and by extension the State of New York are trying to convict him. I don’t see how a plea deal would make the trial seem less fair or just.
My personal guess is that he will be massively fined and get a few months in prison so as to demonstrate that such a **** is not above the law but not keep him in prison through the election so as not to prevent him from doing what candidates do when they win or lose.
Although I despise Trump with a passion, I don’t have a huge desire to see him tortured, inasmuch as I see him as a broken and barely sentient animal that society has failed to reign in. I think he should be stripped of control of his companies and put in prison so that he can’t do any more damage. I actually have more anger for the MAGAs who know better than to believe and act as they do.
Did Reagan really hurt the justice system? Though I agree that Republicans have done terrible damage overall.
You are probably right that both sides would have something to complain about should such a plea deal happen, but I’m not sure that our side would be nearly as unhappy as the MAGAs. The MAGAs are dumbasses who will not be happy with anything that has even a slightly negative impact on Trump. We, however, are mostly reasonable people who could see that the plea deal allows us to dodge a bullet and get through this mess.
Putting him in prison so that he gets out either before or after the election creates a much bigger mess, and I’m not sure that the total level of satisfaction will be much different. MAGAs will rage even more, while our side might be a bit more satisfied. The total utility of society will be significantly less than with the plea deal, IMO, since making sure that Trump is not president and having everyone know that he agreed to that (whether he complains now or later or not) is the surest path imaginable to normalcy, or at least something close to the ideal.
Agreed. The idea that a bunch of prosecutors from unrelated cases join together to prevent a candidate for running for president sounds terrible. I don’t want to live in that country. Does anyone?
I want Trump to run for president and lose. That’s my wishful thinking. Because the issue isn’t Trump; it’s that 74,224,319 people thought he was the best person to run the country. I’d like to see that number go down.
I think the motivation for preventing Trump from running is the fear that he will manage to win. It’s a legit fear, but if he can win in 2024, then the country has much bigger problems than just Trump.
IMHO Trump’s issue with the Gag orders prove that even if a deal was reached that Trump would withdraw from the election, he’d still be a force pushing any non-MAGA Republicans ever further to the right for him to get “Justice” (read revenge).
Getting him to withdraw from the election a la Agnew might, barely, possibly be within the reach of prior law and precedent. Not one I would want to see, but barely. But then restricting his actual First Amendment rights to speak about it and the results? The combination goes too far. And he’d never abide by it, daring the government to enforce it.
I think that particular combo is worse, in several ways, than just letting the trials and election go forward. Yes, their are risks. But, as I keep reminding myself before spirals of despair, the King (Trump) could die, or maybe the horse could learn to sing.
Yes. Because Trump is a unique problem, since he is extremely skilled and willing to game and weaponize our politics and institutions. I don’t think we are likely to have another Trump in the next 200 years (I think another Buchanan or Dubya is much more likely: respectful of institutions but massively incompetent and/or moronic. Even Nixon was unwilling to go beyond a certain level of selfish destruction.).
The best case scenario would have been for the GOP to impeach him and make him ineligible to run. Second-best would have been for them to boot him out of the party. Third best would be the plea deal. Fourth would be him running and losing–but we don’t get a clean version of that scenario if Trump is imprisoned for any length of time, since, when he loses, MAGA will scream that that is what made him lose and the election wasn’t legitimate. It could also trigger a constitutional crisis if Trump is in prison while the election is happening.
Anything that prevents him from winning is preferable to the alternative. Also, the country already has a bigger problem than Trump. It will take a generation to purge MAGA thinking from this country and build a normal party to oppose the Democrats, which we need for a healthy polity. (I don’t think a Trump replacement will arise; I think the GOP will remain a dying cancer on the body politic for a long time.)
The thing is, for any normal defendant, a plea bargain is the trial, or rather the legal process, going forward in an unremarkable way. Since Trump is not normal, to say the least, neither a plea bargain nor a jury verdict will have a normal result.
I personally doubt that Trump will be alive in two years, much less four, so we just need to get through this and wait for that day to come. I won’t say “pray for it.”
Who cares? They will anyway.
Right. That’s basically my perspective. The idea I was arguing against was that letting the trials just go forward without a plea bargain would lead to a more harmonious result. I was saying that wasn’t the case.
I know. What I meant was “Who cares about a ‘clean version’?” There ain’t no such thing. There’s only the one election, and if Trump loses it MAGATs will claim it was tainted for any number of idiotic reasons.
The time to agree to do that was November 2020 and the time to do it January 2021.
Some thoughts about this whole saga from a non USA-ian,
I follow this as its better than a soap opera!!
- Is it “legal”(i.e - within the rules) to impeach and convict Trump now for essentially “conduct unbecoming” of a president?
What I would like to see happen is recognition that Trump is unfit to be a representative of any sort, and action then being taken to bar him from public office. Were elected individuals to have any sense of what is “right”- this would be a natural course of action. - What the courts do (i.e - the various prosecutions) should be fully and completely independent of any sort of political action (but not necessarily the reverse). I can’t help but think of a politician we have here that was convicted of shoplifting - she was asked to stand down from her parliamentary position, I think this is correct.
- From where I’m sitting, the US has a real problem with identity politics. There is too much of ÿour team/my team like politics is a sport, and you are rooting for your favourite team as a separate decision from the policies and the people. This is where, it seems to me, things are going wrong and what has led you to where you are now.
I hear that many Canadians do and that, sadly, there are Canadian Trumpers. Apologies if you are not Canadian. Bigger apologies if you are! (j/k)
You will be aware that we have a complete POS senator named Mitch McConnell, who was leader of the Senate during Trump’s second impeachment, and there was a debate whether he could be impeached after he left office, etc., and he moved not to convict on that basis or some such horseshit. I certainly think he could be and probably would be were he to be elected again (assuming that the Democrats hold the House in 2025, which I certainly think we will).
Yah don’t say… 
Not sure what you mean by the “reverse” thing or the connection to the following sentence:
I agree, and I think Bill Clinton should have resigned after the Lewinsky Affair came to light.
Your implied definition of “identity politics” is not how the term is used in the US, which means politics involving innate identity, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I think this is accurate. My take, and not only my take, is that the GOP ran out of policy ideas in the 1990s and turned to the culture wars, obstruction, and stoking hate and rage in order to remain relevant. They’ve done immense damage and almost zero good for the country since they took the House after a long hiatus in 1994.
Better late than never. 
Some of the reason I doubt this is found here:
Incarcerated New Yorkers To Gain Email Access Starting This Month (April 2019)
Even if he doesn’t have full internet, he would have ways to get right wing news. At a minimum, he could have it emailed. Then he will email back his Truth Social posts.
The first amendment should not, and would not, end of the jailhouse door.
Guys, it’s not just me at this point:
“The good news is I still do not think Trump will be on the ballot this November and this week in court shows why.”
It’s basically my “ball of shit” argument as delivered by a guy who actually worked as a journalist in the White House.