Never has anyone been so heavily investigated but never indicted as Donald Trump. Do you think a criminal indictment will ever be brought against him? If so, which case will be first and under which charges?
It will have to be an ironclad cause that the prosecutors can’t lose, except if there is a tainted jury. And that’s the problem… it only takes one juror to nullify a criminal case and set a defendant free. Good luck finding a fair and impartial jury.
I’m of the opinion that Trump will be indicted. But the first indictment won’t be obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, or conspiracy to commit election fraud. It’s going to be as a result of the theft of the Mar a Lago classified documents and associated obstruction charges.
A tainted jury would be the one thing that could derail a conviction in this case, but I’m of the opinion attorneys are very good at weeding out folks that won’t render a verdict based on any reason, and a hung jury wouldn’t be likely given the clear evidence that’s already available to the public and lack of viable defenses we’ve seen. The attempt to hold him accountable must be made, or we won’t be living in a democracy much longer. The time needs to be soon, though. Hence this thread.
A tainted jury would simply result in a mistrial, unless the defense managed to fill every slot on the jury with a logic-impervious Trumpoltroon.
A mistrial would be the same as a not guilty verdict
Hardly. I’ve been involved in cases that were tried up to 4 times in order to obtain a verdict.
A not guilty verdict is final; a mistrial isn’t.
I think in this particular case they either nail in one or not at all.
That’s probably Merrick Garland’s thinking in this case, but it’s not generally the case.
Agreed.
Missing poll option:
No indictment based on fear of the consequences of failure to convict.
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
“There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.” “Unless you win”. James Clavell - Shogun though I doubt it’s original.
And these roosters lost.
The case against Trump is so ironclad that even most Trumpers would probably convict.
No criminal indictments. Just an apology from the DOJ and a $500 fine. He’ll stamp his feet and turn red and threaten the judge and appeal the fine over and over and it will never be paid.
Sort of a variation on the 16th century saying:
Treason never prospers - What’s the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason
Which case?
[ SarahPalinVoice ] All of them! [ /SPV ]
17th century-John Harrington.
““Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.””
It will be this year and a conviction will come next year. This is a slam dunk as sure as Kareem Jabbar coming in undefended, or Wayne Gretzky breaking behind the defense heading toward an empty net. When you possess property that by statute is not your personal property, instruct others to move it around so that they won’t be discovered, instruct your lawyers to lie about what you have, and then engage in a whine fest about wanting “your” property back, you’re daring the prosecutors to bitch slap your sorry ass.
The sedition case is a lot more problematic. Convict him on this first, then indict for sedition.
Trump himself said he could shoot somebody on the street and his followers would still vote for him.
(I note that facing a rape accusation, Trump remarked as proof of his innocence “She’s not my type.”
Presumably if she was his type he would have raped her?!)