wrong thread
Thanks, Procrustus.
I just looked for governors found not guilty. Perhaps I missed some very old cases, but I can’t find a single American governor who was acquitted of federal charges. The closest is Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who won his appeal.
Rick Perry was indicted on state charges in Texas, later dismissed.
But a bunch of governors have been convicted. Aside from Illinois governors, John Rowland of Connecticut entered federal prison in 2005, and Edwin Edwards of Louisiana in 2002.
Because of the small sample size, I’m guessing the better trial experience of senators as compared to governors is a coincidence.
McDonnell did NOT have to report to prison while his sentence was being appealed. Based on this and one other precedent I mentioned earlier, I think the chances of Trump going to jail before all appeals are exhausted is low. I’m not sure how, but this may influence his trial strategy. I guess it means they will look just a little harder for grounds for appeal. Or maybe I’m just straining to tie this post to the thread topic 
I really don’t see Trump ever going to jail, but I can’t see how he’s not found guilty. How to sentence a former POTUS? I hope it comes to sentencing, because that means guilty.
I think our legal eagles have indicated that “free on appeal” occurs only when the judge deems a substantial possibility of success. A judge can rule whatever she wants, of course, but for the documents case it’s tough to picture a colorable argument for appeal.
I know, I know, we haven’t even held the trial yet. But a case this seemingly airtight is rare. Anyway, he may not be free while on appeal…
If really the case, a good-for-him trial strategy would be to lose and then play the victim when reporting to his probation officer. It’s not like DJT, similar to the rest of us, needs a clean criminal record to get a good job.
But I don’t think losing at trial is at all a safe Trump strategy. If he loses the election, I see no reason the judge would depart from sentencing guidelines. In both the federal and New York cases, this means incarceration. If he wins the election, or the sentence is passed before the election, the judge would have a reason to depart downward from guidelines, but, well, it wouldn’t be a good reason.
Much as I’d like to see TFG get jail time like any normal person charged with the crimes he has been would, I have to agree that it’s very unlikely he’ll spend a day in jail. At the federal level, as long as anything he’s convicted of or cuts a plea deal to doesn’t have a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge is free to sentence him to less than the guidelines, all the way down to house arrest or supervised release (probation). Since that would be less than the sentencing guidelines recommend, the prosecution could appeal the sentence as being inadequate should they choose to do so, but honestly, they’d be unlikely to for the same reason that TFG would be given such a light sentence in the first place. ‘For the good of the nation’ and all that.
Agreed, but I’d look at it this way. Judges don’t want to have sent a defendant to prison who ultimately won their case.
Reversal on appeal, for a convicted politician, is not unusual. The way the Supreme Court is now, I find the idea that Trump would not have a substantial possibility of appeal success a bit out there.
Legal nitpick, but sentencing to less than the guidelines is a variance. A downward departure is a legal ruling to reduce the applicable guideline range.
When discretion is exercised, a deviation can be up or down from the Guideline range: varying or departing. “Variance” and “departure” are terms of art. A variance is a sentence imposed outside the Guidelines based on U.S.C. sentencing factors. A departure is a change from the Guideline range based on a Guideline policy.
If prison stopped him from doing the job he was elected to, there is a good of the nation case. But I fail to see a reason for a judge to go easy on him if sentencing in 2025 after election defeat. And I’m not putting on just my registered Democrat hat, but also my former Republican centrist hat.
My reasoning: Other democracies have seen national leaders sent to prison without significant or clear harm. Are these countries where politics is less tribal and emotional than in the United States? Not really:
Fighting erupts again in Taiwan parliament
As said before, if I am wrong, and judges would consistently sentence Trump to probation, I think Trump’s best self-interested strategy would be to actually lose cases.
Mr. America-hating fuckstick, you have been found guilty of hating America, and of being a fuckstick., I hereby sentence you to go on national television and voluntarily commit suicide, proclaiming your guilt to your base, and instructing them to never vote on anything again. This is for the good of the country, the world, and the continued existence of our species.
Same way as anyone else. Why?
I’ll believe it when I see it. And I hope to!
Moderating
This is far, far beyond the pale, and you need to dial it way back.
I don’t like seeing even joking, hypothetical instructions to commit suicide.
No warning issued. But let’s keep things at a more civil temperature.
Given how fanatical Trump’s supporters are, it does look like his best chance is a jury trial. It only takes 1 juror to hang a jury, and surely any court jury would have to consist of at least one or a few Trump supporters in order to be a representative sample of the local populace.
Now, of course, a hung jury would just mean repeated trials ad nauseum endlessly, but maybe Trump could keep it up indefinitely this way.
My apologies.
I think even this is giving Trump too much credit. His general strategy has always been to loudly demand that other people do things for him and give him what he wants. A good rule of thumb when trying to figure out Trump’s strategy is to ask “What would a four year old do in this situation?”
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, Trump must be acquitted.
Doubt it.
Prosecutors are trying to treat Trump in a balanced way and will not share the enthusiasm of partisan Democrats in this thread. And for a non-violent offense where the penalty would only be a couple years in prison, retrial could be borderline overzealous prosecution. Trump’s people would look at the creative arguments in law review articles like this and try get it stopped:
Retrial After Hung Jury: The Double Jeopardy Problem
I’m not saying the Supremes would outlaw retrials, but they might carve out a exception covering Trump’s situation. And worry it might happen could influence a prosecutor not to seek retrial.
Also see:
Can And Should A Court Limit Repeated Retrials?
The three trial cases I found googling were all for murder. Perhaps some here think Trump is as bad as a murderer, but if so, that’s internet thinking a careful prosecutor will not share,
So — getting back to the thread question, anything Trump can do to increase the chances of a hung jury is a great strategy for him.
Yeah that seems his best chance and even not accounting for a strongly partisan member of the jury you never know what any individual might conclude. Half of all jurors are of below average intelligence after all.