Seems to me that not being indicted is a poor incentive to ask for a plea bargain! Perhaps they are talking to the unindicted and pointing out that they still might be?
That’s true I guess. Plus, they may be focusing on those indictments that have the highest probability of resulting in successful prosecutions. Still…kind of galls me that some of them will likely get away with their involvement.
Wow…I imagine they are moving carefully with that one…
<< deleted by poster >>
Not sure why you (and lots of people) feel this way, unless it’s the result of an exhausted pessimism from watching this creep get away with everything for years. And you may be right, and I can relate.
But the court absolutely has the authority to put him in stir if he misbehaves enough. Nothing stopping them. And I may be naive, but I can picture an exasperated judge, after a series of sanctions and warnings about what potential consequences are, finally saying, “Okay, Mr. Trump, you’ve used up your last chance.”
We have no U.S. precedents, so comparables must be international. I just looked for examples of national leaders jailed for contempt of court, and found several. Until just ten days ago, South Africa ex-president Jacob Zuma was in jail for this very charge.
Maybe Trump will get away with everything. Most criminals probably do. But saying “No way” goes too far. My view is right in the middle here between ThelmaLou and Stratocaster. There is a way, but not absolutely.
I think this is the scenario.
They’ll give Trump more rope than most due to deference for the office he held, but there’s simply no reason to articulate the specific conditions if there is no intent to use them if violated.
To do anything else is to demonstrate in a graphic way that law enforcement and the courts are toothless. I don’t believe that’s a message they wish to put out there. Better to simply not impose conditions.
So to me, by the fact that the conditions are imposed at all tells me they intend to use them if Trump goes too far.
If Trump has convinced himself that his supporters won’t “sit still” for him being jailed, he could violate the rules on purpose. I also think he may believe that no-one would dare jail him.
So he’ll break the rules. IMHO, of course.
Trump has never shown an iota of self-control or good judgement.
Give him the rope and he’ll hang himself.
Yeah, that’d be it.
People also said there was no way he’d ever be charged with anything.
So, I say that the insistence that he can never and will never see the inside of a jail to be just as much a complete guess without any credence.
I think he’ll skate as close as he possibly can to rule violation without quiiiite going over the line. He’s relatively good at that.
Depends a lot on the judge. I forget which judge is in charge of which case. He’s got a friendly judge and a not so friendly one.
Trump has shown the capacity to shut up, behave, and act sensible when he realizes there are actual consequences to not doing so. I think you have this right.
He may be an idiot, but he’s also a coward.
Friendly in Florida
Not so Friendly in Georgia
Pretty darn unfriendly in DC.
I don’t recall how the NYC judge was, seemed pretty impartial despite Trump’s shenanigans.
All these judges, regardless of their leanings regarding Trump, know full well every decision they make will have a laser focus on it and they will be scrutinized like never before. I suspect they will all try to be pretty scrupulous in following the rules in these cases. Still some room to be more or less generous though.
Maybe, though Cannon seems incapable of doing so if she’s actually trying.
She got pretty beat up the last time she went all in for Trump. I am not sure she is keen on going there again. Maybe she is but Trumpers tend to be more about themselves than taking one for the team. She will almost certainly lean some in Trump’s favor but I would be surprised if she did much more.