Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to convict Trump?

[Kablooie]

It would take a unanimous jury to convict Trump so one single MAGA asshole, who would never vote to convict no matter how damning and obvious the evidence, would prevent a conviction.

It's likely that at least one juror would be a MAGAt and it only takes one, particularly when Trump's lawyers will try to put several MAGAts on.

[brooklynite]

1. Why do people keep coming up with new reasons to be miserable?

What you're now saying is the the prosecutors are too incompetent to keep bias out of the jury pool. Add to which, a pro-Trump juror can only cause a mistrial, not get an acquittal.

[elleng]

5. Right, 'misery loves company,' and are ignorant of seriousness with which jurors

take their obligations.

[hlthe2b]

19. Generally I believe/trust juries to do the right thing, but I won't be blind to all those black

defendants who found the opposite from all-white or nearly all-white juries through the past many decades, especially, but not exclusively in the deep South. We can't be blind to the issues and our system does have flaws and can be manipulated--especially by the uber-wealthy and powerful. I believe in the system but I am not ignoring those issues.

The importance of voir dire and the amount of pre-trial investigation of potential jurors (from BOTH defense and prosecution) would be unmatched and unprecedented.

[elleng]

2. No

[Kingofalldems]

3. Should we give up and let him slide?

[hlthe2b]

4. A DC jury would have a chance of being less "infiltrated" by one or more MAGATs

but no way to be absolutely sure. The irony is that I do have faith a jury could be seated that would give Trump a fair trial and force the prosecutor to prove his/her case, but the opposite with a single MAGAT would be the issue.

HOWEVER, I think DC would be the jurisdiction (unless Fulton CO, GA gets to him first), so I'm not overly concerned.

[wnylib]

15. Unless Trimp's attorney requested

and was granted a change of venue.

[hlthe2b]

18. I doubt it. He is President of all the US and this would be a Federal Trial. Can't see justification

for other than a DC venue, the seat of government for the US, IF DOJ pursues it--unless the Feds make a case for security concerns. Obviously, they might try to change the venue out of Fulton County in the event of a GA indictment, but IF it is FEDERAL, I don't see it very likely to be outside of DC.

And while Fulton CO DA is leading the GA investigation, andy resultant indictment would be on STATE charges so he might get it out of Fulton County, but he's not going to get it in podunk south GA or MTG-land (NW GA). It would be hard to see a GA state trial taken out of Atlanta metro/ surrounding counties and if Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis prosecutes, well, somewhat hard to see it moving out of Fulton County.

But, cart before the horse. We have to see someone actually prosecute him (and Fani is the one prosecutor publicly attempting to do so and most likely to get the first indictment)

[Timewas]

6. Regardless

Of any conviction he needs to be charged and tried.... That is how it is supposed to work, if not then we all should have that same right to break some laws and just walk away. That would be the end of this country. Either the laws apply to all equally or to none.

[usonian]

7. When has he ever paid the consequences of his crimes?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't he always settled out of court?
I mean, weren't these felonies?

Now, the easiest charges to prove might just be grifting the campaign funds. Even when "concealed", easily traced.

But what would the settlement be?

A. Giving back money he may have distributed to unsavory persons or sent to Russia
https://americanindependent.com/republicans-congress-celebrated-fourth-of-july-russia/
or Hungary
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/21/trump-shares-cpac-hungary-platform-racist-antisemite
in diplomatic pouches?

B. 25 pushups?
SIR, ONE SIR!
silence

C. ???????

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. Trump has never been indicted on a crime...apples and oranges, but concern noted.

[usonian]

13. Well, knock me over with a feather.

I thought that $25 million was pretty fraudulent, but it was apparently a civil suit. And all the others to date?

Michael Cohen was craftier than I imagined.

It's hard to imagine him taking a plea deal.
Denial is his middle name.
Interesting to speculate, though.
Some people must be thinking seriously about this.

Thanks for the correction.

[SCantiGOP]

8. I would indict him tomorrow, but...

There is a downside to a Trump trial. Everybody from far left to far right, all over the world, would cover it and follow it.
In other words, his fondest dream. The hugest media event in history.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. No. Leader of the free would seem enough for attention? No, no one savours a criminal trial.

[Bucky]

9. The two obstacles to a criminal trial

(1) getting an adequate jury pool to find 12 people (and at least 12 alternates) who can be objective about assessing his guilt, and
(2) his principal defense strategy would be to turn the court case into a circus that would make the OJ Simpson trial look like a Lincoln Douglas debate

I think they should go ahead and try to prosecute anyway, but the trial would be an absolute shit show.

Maybe it'll be more encouraging to think about the dozens of civil trials he will end up facing for all the defrauding that he's done of his future former followers. No civil trials only require a 10 juror super-majority, not a unanimous decision

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. Disagree, and confident top prosecutors more than up to the job, and a jury, after all, is

the ultimate tool of real justice.

The amount of misery creating at this time of revelation of crimes is sad.

[Kablooie]

14. Also there's the problem of arresting him if he's indicted.

If he decides not to appear and instead holes up at Mar a Lago surrounded by gun toting buffoons, what do they do?
Shoot their way in to handcuff him?


There are a lot of ways he could complicate, confuse and damage the justice department and the country.

[Bucky]

16. Do you recall the Elian Gonzalez stand off? The Whiskey Rebellion?

As Alexander Hamilton said, "When the federal government shows up in force it should appear as a Hercules." That means strong, resolute, and unable to be challenged by opposing force.

Admittedly, no one can reliably predict what Trump would do if there was a subpoena issued for a federal investigation. With the NY state civil investigations for his charitable "foundation" shenanigans, he always sent his lawyers. And right now probably he's on track to comply with deposition orders.

If they have to send in an FBI SWAT team, that's what they'll do. One thing that Bennie Thompson is showing us is that the federal government is not screwing around with Trump's tomfoolery anymore.

Again, very seriously doubt there will be a criminal case brought before 2025. It simply takes forever for things like this to get going. Plus the Republicans are almost certain control at least one house of Congress starting next year. Even if the case is handed off to DOJ by then (as it should be) and they'll be in a great position to delay and divert the investigation.

This is a very complicated case with a lot of moving parts. It's unprecedented and it's a pretty wide ranging criminal conspiracy to block the certification of the 2020 election results. Rico cases can take up to a decade. It takes time to unravel conspiracies, particularly one in a field where there's not been a lot of precedent for how to proceed with an investigation or prosecution at this level.

Anyway, I don't think that arresting him would be a problem. He'd love the showdown. The bigger issue is clearing the track for the civil cases, which are bound to be spread out over multiple jurisdictions.

[hlthe2b]

20. I don't see the secret service enabling Trump to avoid arrest. No way. And they are not going to

allow a bunch of gun-toting extremist MAGATs to come into Mara Lago to do so, either.

[Bucky]

28. 100% yes

Pretty sure I didn't write the Secret Service would obstruct a warrant. They're not part of the discussion

I was responding to the previous poster's speculation that an army of gun nuts and Q-heads would try to go Alamo inside the Mar-A-Lago compound. This is, of course, a highly unlikely situation

[hlthe2b]

21. No. Secret Service would not allow that and would turn him over to Federal Marshalls if

a Federal warrant were issued.

[Bucky]

22. I don't think that's part of their jurisdiction

The Secret Service is there strictly to protect the former president. I strongly suspect that they can neither assist nor impede an arrest of their principal from a legally issued warrant.

Even their usual duties of helping to surreptitiously carry out the bodies of dead hookers in the middle of the night is entirely a concierge service and ex-presidents are encouraged to tip 15-20%

[hlthe2b]

23. The interaction between Federal police, Federal Marshalls and Federal Bureau of Prisons has been

explored previously. SS can NOT prevent the above from doing their duty. They must coordinate with them. Here is a summary of a series of discussions from some time back as to how things would work with a SS detail for an imprisoned protected for example. I thought I'd bookmarked a more comprehensive piece from Salon, but I can't find it. This one came out about the same time"

https://www.businessinsider.com/secret-service-agent-protect-trump-jail-prison-state-federal-crimes-2021-1

There is no damned way SS is going to interfere with a valid warrant, btw. I'm not sure where some seem to get that impression, but there is no way. I suspect too many have watched movies about rogue agents and coup d'etat.

[Bucky]

27. Correct

The Trump family in particular is treated the Secret Service quite shabbily. They sent them on petty errands, refuse to let them use the restroom inside Ivanka and Jared's New York residence, and shown complete contempt for the rules and norms of the US government.

Do you know how the Secret Service responded to these insults? They continued and today continue to protect the former president and his immediate family with diligence and efficiency.

Despite the occasional bad apple scandals we hear from the SecSvc, they're a remarkably professional and by-the-book organization. They certainly wouldn't defy a court order under any circumstances (but particularly not for this ex-P)

[Kablooie]

34. i wasn't thinking of the SS, I was thinking of Proudboys and their ilk.

But I hadn’t considered the SS.
They would complicate things for Trump a lot.
Even if he tried to flee the country the SS would probably attempt to protect him but also try to make him to follow the law.

[hlthe2b]

24. Not impeding IS ASSISTING. That is their responsibility with a valid Federal warrant.

[Bucky]

26. What? No.

Not impeding is not impeding. Are you sure you understand what the term jurisdiction means?

[hlthe2b]

29. Federal must cooperate with Federal Did you read ANYTHING I posted upstream?

It is not me who does not understand the jurisdictional overlap between SS, Federal Marshalls and FBI when there is a valid Federal arrest warrant. Not obstructing the Federal Marshalls is not impeding and that is the SS role. They would come along, but not impede. They legally can NOT obstruct justice and must cooperate while still providing physical protection to their protectee. They (Ss) are not an island of their own and not answerable to the courts and their agents in such Federal matters.

[Bucky]

32. please reread what you think you're disagreeing with

No one is saying the Secret Service would impede an arrest of an ex president. I never wrote that. From the start of this confusing conversation, we're both saying they wouldn't.

But also, you wrote "Not obstructing the Federal Marshalls is not impeding and that is the SS role."

While logically, yes, not obstructing is not impeding, "not impeding other LEOs" is not part of the Secret Service's duties, since logically you can't give someone a law officer a "duty" to not do something.

I'm confused as to why you ever thought anyone stated that the Secret Service was an island or unaccountable to the law or would protect an ex president from the law. I literally wrote the exact opposite. Please work on your reading skills.

[hlthe2b]

33. Oh, please.

Have a nice evening, Bucky., but this is a semantic argument that has spun us in circles.

[canetoad]

17. A great big UNREC

Stop putting the cart before the horse.

[Kablooie]

35. Did I put the court before the hearse?

When it applies to Trump it doesn’t sound so bad.

[canetoad]

36. True dat

[Demsrule86]

25. I think that is the case...even in New York, we have a hold out MAGA juror.

[Emile]

30. A DC jury has a damn good chance of convicting Trump! Please stop this BS.

[Mr.Bill]

31. Even with a MAGA juror causing a hung jury, he can be tried again.

And again. He can spend the rest of his life in courtrooms. Or until he can't get lawyers anymore.