Tell me if this is plausible:

[newdayneeded]

This indictment was allowed to go through because it was the weakest of the bunch. The intent would be to appease the democratic masses with an issuing of an indictment. An indictment that could maybe end up with zero prison time but heavy fines, and maybe public service speaking, something like that. (not at all what I want for the dickhead)

The DOJ could say, hey we got trump in on an indictment, but the other cases will take much longer to sort out. like I said, a sort of appeasement. Hoping DU does cartwheels over a 5 million dollar fine but no jail time.

Whether you think this is right or wrong, I just want to know if this is plausible in your eyes.

[NoRethugFriends]

1. No

[elleng]

2. No

'allowed to go through'? Sounds like you understand NOTHING ABOUT our judicial system, especially JURISDICTION.

[MLAA]

3. I don't think so. Jack Smith is not playing.

[3Hotdogs]

22. New disclosure of videos to show the OrangeAsshole going through the classified files,

SS agents being subpoenaed --- I agree. Jack is being nimble and quick.

[Phoenix61]

4. No. How would that even work?

He’s being charged in state court which has nothing to do with DOJ.

[Ocelot II]

5. It is not at all plausible. The various indictments are produced by grand juries,

not by prosecutors, and each grand jury in each separate jurisdiction operates completely independently of the others and on its own schedule. They are not coordinating these prosecutions; each is based on different facts, different criminal statutes and different witnesses. I don't think they could coordinate them if they wanted to, but the process doesn't work that way anyhow.

[republianmushroom]

6. Could be you are correct.

26 months and counting

[Ocelot II]

9. No, it couldn't possibly be correct.

[republianmushroom]

10. We shall see, time will tell if the poster is correct.

[Ocelot II]

11. I don't have to wait. The OP clearly doesn't know how the process works

or that prosecutions in different jurisdictions operate on their own schedules independent of what's going on elsewhere.

[Groundhawg]

7. my first thought is the charges are weak, but now i don't think he would risk weak charges

The charges are serious.

[orthoclad]

8. Maybe. I'll celebrate when

the Supreme Court denies his appeal(s). Yeah, right.

[emulatorloo]

15. The Supreme Court has already ruled against Trump multiple times.

They forced him to release his taxes. They shot down his bogus claims of ‘executive privilege.’ They even absolutely refused to hear a case at all that Trump, without comment.

All of this stuff has been reported by reputable news organizations.

[emulatorloo]

12. No. We're fact-based here. Jack Smith has multiple grand juries hard at work, and he has just

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2023, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

secured important testimony from one of Trump’s Maralago lawyers who had private convos with him about the stolen documents.. Additionally he has secured Mike Pence’s testimony about conversations with Trump about Trump’s plotting regarding overthrowing the election on Jan 6th.

Please read reputable online newspapers rather than making up fantasy and fact-free conspiracy theories.

[flying_wahini]

13. In your dreams. Trump is going to prison for sedition.

[former9thward]

17. He will not be charged with sedition.

I am afraid you are having the dreams.

[Ocelot II]

19. He probably won't go to prison at all, even if he is convicted

of multiple felonies. Sedition won't be one of them, though.

[newdayneeded]

21. whoa, not my dreams.

I'm saving up piss for his grave one day.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

14. No. Nt

[Sneederbunk]

16. I agree this case is small beer when compared to GA or DOJ.

If GA does not move soon we will know something is up. I think DOJ will prosecute on the documents but bail on January 6.

[emulatorloo]

18. Are you unaware that Pence was recently compelled by the courts to testify about J6?

He’ll be testifying to the J6th Grand Jury about conversations he had with Trump about Trump plotting to overturn the election.

These things are being reported by reputation newspapers. IMHO what OP said is implausible and is not supported by actual facts and events.

[Ocelot II]

20. Pence was just ordered to testify before the 1/6 grand jury.

That sure doesn't sound like "bailing" to me.

[live love laugh]

23. WHAT?! " ... intent would be to appease the democratic masses..."

You believe the grand jury and legal system are in place for appeasement?




Mon Apr 3, 2023, 09:46 PM
newdayneeded

0. Tell me if this is plausible:

This indictment was allowed to go through because it was the weakest of the bunch. The intent would be to appease the democratic masses with an issuing of an indictment. An indictment that could maybe end up with zero prison time but heavy fines, and maybe public service speaking, something like that. (not at all what I want for the dickhead)

The DOJ could say, hey we got trump in on an indictment, but the other cases will take much longer to sort out. like I said, a sort of appeasement. Hoping DU does cartwheels over a 5 million dollar fine but no jail time.

Whether you think this is right or wrong, I just want to know if this is plausible in your eyes.

[SKKY]

24. I mean, from everything I've seen reported...

...Bragg has 34 felony charges ready to go. I don't know how you get from a hush money payment to 34 felony charges without there being some seriously shady shit going on. So, no. I don't think this is weak sauce.

[newdayneeded]

25. Thanks for the responses.

I just always have this feeling he'll skate by as always. I hope not this time.

[emulatorloo]

26. See: " Federal appeals court denies Trump's emergency bid to stop ex-aides from testifying in Jan. 6

All these stories are posted on DU that undercut your original post. It really pays off to read the news.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143055374

Federal appeals court denies Trump's emergency bid to stop ex-aides from testifying in Jan. 6 probe

Source: CNN Politics

Washington CNN — Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has lost a bid for emergency help from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, to block some of his closest advisers from testifying about him to a grand jury, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to a new court filing.

Trump’s team on Monday night asked for the appeals court to wipe away a lower court’s ruling that would force several of his top advisers to answer questions to a grand jury investigating Trump and his allies’ attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, despite his claims of legal protections around his presidency that would shield some of their testimony. The appeals court denied his request on Tuesday, dealing Trump another legal setback just before he is set to enter a courtroom in Manhattan to face criminal charges in a separate investigation.

The swift decision means advisers to Trump, including Meadows, could be brought into the federal grand jury in Washington by prosecutors in the coming days. Trump would need a court to intervene in his favor in order to block their subpoenas. Overnight, a panel of three judges on the appeals court – Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Greg Katsas – had sought a response from the Justice Department regarding Trump’s request.

The Justice Department responded about two hours later. An appeal on the larger legal questions around executive privilege assertions could still live on before the appeals court, but the activity around Trump’s emergency request for a stay would determine now if witnesses must comply with Justice Department subpoenas and the lower court’s decision against Trump. Trump’s team is unlikely to ask the Supreme Court for help, one source told CNN.

Take care.