'There's two ways that this resolves': Maddow makes prediction on Trump documents case - Rachel Maddow

[Rhiannon12866]

With the caveat that her predictions are always wrong, Rachel Maddow lays out the two most likely outcomes she can foresee in the Donald Trump classified documents case. - Aired on 06/13/2023.

[JohnSJ]

1. There won't be a plea deal, because I would be very surprised if there is a trail on the documents

case before the next election, with the presiding judge

[MagaSmash]

2. Expect an O.J. type Acquittal with this Judge. It's over. It was all a waste of time.

[moniss]

3. A good lawyer

would explain to his client that getting things down to misdemeanors and pleading on one or two would have major benefits. Not just staying away from a jail sentence but also a plea agreement keeps all of the further evidence from being made public. His previous lawyers probably did tell him this but when a sociopath feels wronged or threatened they will invariably self destruct for several reasons. Among those reasons is their mental health condition causes them to desperately need to "win" arguments about everything around them and with everyone around them. They will invent arguments just to get a win. Therefore when the lawyer proposes something to him he must argue against it because in his mind only he is right and he will "win" the argument and therefore be "right".

He does not see himself in actual reality but rather the deluded one that sociopaths create for themselves by "winning" against those around them and failing to realize that some of the people around them aren't conceding to the correctness of the crazy argument but rather just choosing not to continue a futile attempt to reason with someone not open to reason. The sociopath will say black if you say white and all that matters to them is you giving up because to them that means they are right and have "won". A sociopath in normal circumstances is horrendous to deal with but when you combine money and power into the mix it becomes catastrophic. We see this manifested by his money/power providing him the means to stall proceedings while he "commands the camera" for his "performances" and during it all he is "arguing" with the world around him. So when a defense he has stated to a charge is proven wrong he simply restates reality as he desires it to be and a whole new "defense", i.e. argument, is created and a loss is not a loss and the fight goes on. There is no end to this for them until some set of circumstances, like a court, forces an outcome. Like his settlements he had to make about his phony university, charity etc. Even then they never admit being wrong or having done anything wrong but they will always say people were unfair or out to get them. In other words they are continuing the argument and trying to have the last word.

[jaxexpat]

4. A prosecutor should be able to expose the greatest extent of a crime.

Will any "plea deal" satisfy the prosecution? I'm supposing that airing the nature of Trumps greatest malfeasances would provide evidence of his complicity in efforts to damage the US intelligence community resulting in loss of life and/or other quantifiable harm to national security. If that is not the case, then this is, as Trump says, a witch hunt. In what world does anything but a full trial satisfy the rule of law?