He's going to get away with all of it, isn't he? n/t

[Grim Chieftain]

[leftstreet]

1. Bush did. Why shouldn't Trump?

What exactly are the standards here?

[Kid Berwyn]

6. Two Bushes and a Nixon.

All was forgiven, for some reason.

[RockRaven]

2. If the past predicts the future, yep. Every last bit.

[SamKnause]

4. Yes, looking forwards not backwards fucked this country up.

Now it just becomes the normal.

[MustLoveBeagles]

18. The ironic part?

Forgiving and forgetting has caused us to go backwards as a country.

[OLDMDDEM]

3. I am a diehard Dem. My first thoguhts on this are that he will get away with it. Then, I look at the midterms

and have to say that maybe he won't. The repugs have nothing to lose if they are in the minority and would possibly love to see him out of the white house. Maybe I'm dreaming but something tells me this could happen.

[Bettie]

13. I applaud your optimism

I wish I could share even a little bit of it.

Maybe it's living in Iowa that makes me feel hopeless.

[OLDMDDEM]

15. I understand your point. I lived in Nebraska (Omaha) for many years. Now I live in Maryland.

[PatSeg]

43. It is possible

But I've been letdown so many times, I try to keep my optimism reserved.

[Ponietz]

5. Israel and AIPAC will see that he does

[MineralMan]

7. Probably. He will die before there are consequences.

Of that I'm pretty certain. What will happen before then, I do not know. It's worrisome.

[dem4decades]

8. Even if he drops a nuke and we all die he'll get away with everything.

[dedl67]

30. I think his plan is to take us all with him.

[dem4decades]

37. That will make the religious right happy.

[JBTaurus83]

9. Yes.

The legal and political system in this country would need a revolution in order to address all of the corruption.

[ABC123Easy]

10. Yep

Not sure what else to say.

Merrick Garland did nothing until it was way too late.

Will the next Dem POTUS have the guts and fortitude to prosecute these scumbags? I hope so. Will believe it when I see it though.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Pick your preferred AG, the outcome would have been *exactly* the same:

No Trump trial before the election.

There will be no possibility of bringing Trump to Justice, or repairing the damage of the Trump era, until the court is expanded and the current MAGA majority is neutralized.

Until then, it won’t matter who the AG is.

[ABC123Easy]

23. I disagree

Merrick Garland was a failure all unto himself. I think Biden could've picked many other AG candidates who would've actually done their job. Especially after an attempted coup by the outgoing POTUS.

SCOTUS has nothing to do with it right now. POTUS is only immune from activities related to its normal duties. Stealing classified documents and attempting to overthrow an election are not those.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Answer this one question:

Who sets the schedule for trials, and the hearings regarding various motions before a trial can even begin, the judge or the AG? Who sets the schedule for the appeals on rulings, the judge or the AG? (OK, that’s two questions)

That is why the choice of AG would have made absolutely no difference in the outcome.

Garland is not the villain of this story.

[ABC123Easy]

36. So you're saying

That even at the State or Federal level, NO MATTER what level, that the SCOTUS sets the schedule?
For your statements to be correct, the above would need to be true. It's obviously not true. You can't possibly think that the 9 SCOTUS judges set the schedule for trials across the entire US.
In addition for what you say to be true, Jack Smith would've never have been able to get court dates for any of his criminal proceedings against Dolt45.
Lastly, none of the State level criminal proceedings would've ever gone forwards either per your statements.
Therefore, if Garland had acted from day 1, and appointed a Special Council (instead of almost 3 years afterwards) there would've potentially been convictions for the vast majority of the indictments against Dolt45.
Garland clutched his little pearls and wasn't brave enough to enforce the law.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. You were referring to the power of Garland as AG

So I responded within the context of federal prosecutions.

As we saw, Trump appealed rulings by the presiding trial judge all the way to SCOTUS- that’s how the immunity ruling came about.

Once the immunity ruling was issued, then each charge in the J6 case had to be vetted for whether it was covered by immunity, rulings that would have been appealed all the back to SCOTUS if the election hadn’t happened first, In any case, because of the Trump and SCOTUS orchestrated delays, no trial date was ever set.

Aileen Cannon prevented Smith from getting a trial date- she eventually dismissed the docs case altogether.

You clearly don’t understand the process, rationale or definition of a special prosecutor, or how the court system works in general.

Special prosecutors DO NOT:

Work faster
Have more power
Control the courts

Special prosecutors are “special” because of the administrative layer that separates them from the AG and president to prevent ethical conflicts of interest.

That’s it.

Smith was appointed at exactly the right time - 48 hours after Trump filed his 2024 candidacy, which made him an opponent of the sitting president. Before that, Trump was just a private citizen who happened to be a former president, which doesn’t warrant a special prosecutor.

About 80% of Smith’s team was comprised of Garland’s team, which had been in place since June 2021.

Thanks to Garland, Smith started on third base due to:

Garland fighting all executive privilege claims up to the Supreme Court and winning.
Garland fighting all attorney-client privilege claims up to the Supreme Court and winning
Obtaining the search warrant for Mar a Lago and seizing the evidence for the docs trial- it was the only evidence Cannon didn’t exclude.

[ABC123Easy]

42. Totally disagree

Your quote was, "until the court is expanded" referring to SCOTUS. Your point is based on the SCOTUS. You don't get to change at this point. I dismantled your claim regarding SCOTUS so you've attempted to move on to another topic.

Garland appointing a Special Council to investigate Dolt45 on DAY 1, has nothing to do with the SCOTUS whose immunity ruling didn't exist until much, much later, nor does it depend upon court scheduling.

To quote yourself, you clearly do not understand how special councils work, the powers of the AG, to appoint them, nor an understanding of short term and long term history of the SC rules.

If that wimp Garland had not been twiddling his thumbs and clutching his pearls, Aileen Cannon would most likely have not been given the Jack Smith case given the rotating schedule these level judges follow. She was assigned other cases at the time.

Stick to your original assertions and don't move to another topic to cover when your logic has been shown to be lacking.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. You dismantled nothing

My assertions are evidence based, and have been discussed thousands of times, by myself and others, over the last few years here at DU, long before you came here.

The OP was “Will he get away with it?”

The immunity ruling which protects Trump from federal criminal prosecution will stand unless/until the court is expanded and the MAGA majority is neutralized.

(Historical note: SCOTUS has been expanded/contracted by congress several times in the history of the US, from as few as 6 justices to as many as 10)

Appointing a special counsel on day one would have been inappropriate and unjustified, but most importantly, would have made absolutely no difference , since SC’s have no special powers or authority. Your insistence that they do shows your lack of understanding.

If, instead of merely watching the clock and calendar, you had paid closer attention to the investigations and prosecutions, and the numerous delays Trump sought and was granted by various appellate judges and ultimately SCOTUS, you would understand how the choice of AG didn’t matter in attempting to bring Trump to trial before the election.

(Note: Cannon was selected from a pool of just three judges. Even if she hadn’t been selected, Trump would still have sought and gotten the same kind of delays he did in the J6 case. The only way to have avoided the possibility of Cannon being assigned would have been for Smith to convene the grand jury in DC, which would have brought challenges of inappropriate/incorrect venue and possible dismissal of charges)

Links for your education, and to prevent further public embarrassment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel

Www.emptywheel.net

(Note: unless you have the desire, stamina and patience for wading through court transcripts, emptywheel may not be for you, but if you do, searching for “Garland” should produce links to all the archived posts around the investigations and prosecutions)

[ABC123Easy]

45. Keep trying to change the subject

Your initial point which I'm not moving away from despite your efforts, dealt with the SCOTUS. I've completely destroyed your agreement on that point even if you cannot or won't admit it. Your insults and attacks are not going to sway me. I've been here in various forms far longer than you have. Not sure what that has to do with the fact that you are horribly wrong on your initial argument.
You're making assertions based on nothing regarding Cannon and numerous other points.

You can post as many links as you choose. Three judges are just that, three which backs up my point that odds are she would not have been chosen if Garland had possessed just a modicum of guts and acted when he should have. You understand one of three odds I hope.

Do you not understand that the immunity ruling was much later than Garlands confirmation? Which means that the SCOTUS ruling came later than when Garland took office. Do you understand the tenets of the immunity decision? Are you arguing that stealing classified documents and staging a coup are normal activities within the description of the duties of the POTUS?

Keep replying and keep posting background info on things. None of changes the fact that your initial assertions are wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions as am I but you're not entitled to your own facts and rewriting history.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. Well, that was substance-free

You have not made the case that a different AG could have forced a trial before the 2024 election.

You have also not made the case that Trump could be brought to trial for federal crimes committed during his current term with the current SCOTUS MAGA majority in place.

My original assertions stand, unrefuted.

[ABC123Easy]

47. You should change your username to

"Substance free"

I've made the case quite clearly.

Odds are Cannon wouldn't gave gotten the case. Do you understand odds and probabilities? 1 out of 3 is less than 51% right? You're arguing with math.

You're arguing with history. The immunity decision came WAY after Garland took office. Do you understand that? Do I need to go over time and how us humans keep track of time?

Your assertions are absurd. Maybe you're a flat earther or a moon landing conspiracy person. I only ask because trying to converse with you is like speaking to one of those two. I've made my points logically and factually.

Before you start hurling attacks and insults at me again I'm going to be the adult here and say, "have a nice day".

[CentralMass]

11. Yes.

[0rganism]

12. F47 might, but his followers won't be so lucky

Suckers like Hegseth and Bondi aren't as untouchable as they aspire to be. Even as they squat in F47's shadow, he'll throw every one of them under the bus as needed, and they'll damn well keep their mouths shut the whole time if they care about their families. Omertà.

[maxsolomon]

14. He's already divided the populace - for generations.

Half of America is ready to carve him on Mt. Rushmore. Half are ready to shit on his grave. It won't be politically feasible to hold him accountable (for any of it).

We want to forget our shame, not relive it.

[QueerDuck]

20. I see it happening again to some extent too. The recent ugly comments about Jeffries...

... and other comments trying to discourage voting for Democrats who support the military. It's just insane for anyone to promote that way of thinking.

Just sign me,
ANOTHER PROUD FINGER-WAGGER (or am I "arrogant"... I forget) LOL

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Is he?

What do you mean by “getting away with it”?

Not going to prison? Perhaps

Successfully achieving his desired goals/outcomes? Far from certain.

[delisen]

21. He will get away with it, if he dies soon. Otherwise probably not.

[flvegan]

24. Nobody is going to hold him accountable, so yes. Yes he is.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

25. How will this happen ?

without telling itś going to happen.

I have seen two impeachment trials that went nowhere

I have seen multiple legal cases go nowhere...thanks Garland, Smith rocked but messed up by picking Florida instead of DC.

The supremes have shown how partisan they can be and itś impressive

We need a reckoning and if we don´t get one soon...idiocracy is the true result

[Walleye]

26. I think we will be so glad to see the last of him. We won't try to hold him accountable.

[Bread and Circuses]

27. Indeed. And based upon the comments , we see it the same.

Republican presidents have never faced legal consequences .

He’ll get away with it all . The country is now run by a a global fascist criminal syndicate .

They win everything

[Irish_Dem]

28. Yes.

All of it and so will the rest of the Trump Crime Family.

[Torchlight]

29. I'm guessing no, he won't get away with it

That a leg will break and the table crashes. Sooner. Later. Dunno.

[Cosmocat]

31. Sorry - knew the outcome of this movie before it even started

nm

[NCDem47]

32. And he knew it then and he knows it now.

America doesn't have the GUTS to go after former Presidents for misdeeds.

[FraDon]

33. It was never just about "him" or Bush or any of them.

Hasn't it always been about the corrupt cocoon which has fueled its success throughout human history. That's a lot of folks with lots to loose. Each morning I wake and broadcast an urgent call for our next Ellsberg. Frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed we haven't heard from a dozen by now.

[WestMichRad]

35. Yup.

At least we will have the knowledge that he was convicted on 34 felony counts, even if he received no significant penalties as a result.

[Emile]

39. He got away with orchestrating an insurrection too.

[JI7]

40. 40 percent of the country supports him

The problem is this country has large numbers of people that support him and similar shit as seen by Republicans in Congress.

[QueerDuck]

41. No.

Stop.