Trump for prison.

[gredinger]

He committed a lot of crimes, including state crimes.

How long do you believe until he'll go to prison?

[tvbcof]

Open-source almost all intelligence archives.  Take the data that anyone finds and properly adjudicate it in open court.

I suspect that Trump and a lot of other "American" politicians, bureaucrats, and contractors would qualify for death by firing squad upon rigorous completion of this work.  Others would be more adequately dealt with via incarceration.  Still others via citizenship revocation and deportation as undesirable aliens.

Accumulated evidence is not the only tool which currently exists.  Technology has brought us to a point where real-time evaluations of a subject are practical to the point of being admissible in court by the standards of the day.  The elite are sufficiently concerned about what they call 'the rats' gaining access to such technology that they will implement operations geared toward avoiding this eventuality.  If 'we' could somehow jump this hurdle we probably could have 'good governance' for about the first time in recorded human history.

[Mauser]

He committed a lot of crimes, including state crimes.

How long do you believe until he'll go to prison?

I don't think Trump will go to prison. Why don't you include a no prison sentence on your poll? So far no US president went to prison, pretty sure Trump is not going to be the first one.

[anoncoiner23]

Eh, general consensus is that trump committed crimes of persuasion, persuading people to commit crimes.
Not sure how well that would hold up in court with the millions he could spend on lawyers & ex-presidents don't usually get charged for crimes considering it'll make the whole country look worse than it already does. Take a look at similar presidential crimes (nixon primarily) justice seems to lean towards a forgiving option.

[virasog]

He committed a lot of crimes, including state crimes.

How long do you believe until he'll go to prison?

Trump will not go the jail for the actions which he have taken when he was the president. He had the rights to take those decisions as per the law because he was in the power. Secondly, there is no option in your pool to vote that he will not go to jail so most of the people will not vote.

[suchmoon]

I don't think Trump will go to prison. Why don't you include a no prison sentence on your poll? So far no US president went to prison, pretty sure Trump is not going to be the first one.

I think "After AOC's first term as president" is a poorly-worded "never" option.

[Natsuu]

I'm not really into readings of laws and such as I am studying engineering.

I've been seeing lots of disagreement with the OP that Trump can't be in prisoned but there is no reason. Can someone explain why?

[Saisher]

He committed a lot of crimes, including state crimes.

How long do you believe until he'll go to prison?

I don't think Trump will go to prison. Why don't you include a no prison sentence on your poll? So far no US president went to prison, pretty sure Trump is not going to be the first one.

OP is 100% sure that Trump commit a crime and should be put in jail he did not give us an option so no wonder there is only two voters I vote for this year out of curiosity about how many voters would like to see Trump in jail, it seems many don't want to vote because you are right no president of the US went to prison, only impeached.

[semobo]

He is not a president now but still he is rich and can influence huge amount of people, look what happened with the riots which may go to extreme if he got arrested even for a valid reasons. AFAIK, he cheated with his tax reports and failed to bring revenue to the government which is enough to put him on jail?

Maximum he will be asked for penalty which isn't likely to happen anyway.

[TwitchySeal]

Assuming he's charged within the next few months and it doesn't go to trial, I expect it to be 3-4+ years from now.

A more likely scenario is he refuses any plea bargain and spends the rest of his life successfully finding ways to delay the trial/sentencing.

[PrimeNumber7]

Assuming he's charged within the next few months and it doesn't go to trial, I expect it to be 3-4+ years from now.

A more likely scenario is he refuses any plea bargain and spends the rest of his life successfully finding ways to delay the trial/sentencing.

Politically speaking, it would be very difficult for the DOJ to prosecute Trump. Any prosecution of Trump would be seen as politically motivated and there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges. This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

This leaves the state AGs to possibly prosecute Trump, but the backlash to a prosecution by a state AG would be nationwide, bi-partisan, and there would be pressure to drop the charges. I could see the NYAG trying to prosecute Trump, and the current NYAG has a history of stretching the law in her prosecutions. The statute of limitations for Fraud in New York is 6 years, and IMO the NYAG would most likely go after Trump for some kind of fraud related to loans he took out against his buildings. Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later.

Long story short, I don't think Trump is going to jail.

[BADecker]

Trump's not going to prison. It's exactly the opposite. He just left prison.

In his first few days, Biden has done more criminal activity than Trump even thought of in 4 years. Biden will die in prison... either, office or the formal one.

[TwitchySeal]

there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges.

What makes you think that?  

I know you don't trust polls that cast Trump in a negative light, but here's an ABC news poll from a couple weeks ago anyway:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/b2030ff6-7d13-4e12-83b1-42ef7ace3da5/note/f1766c48-a9bc-4c9b-8f39-d9abd05f9711.#page=1

If you have a more reliable way to figure out what Americans think please share.

This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

The President doesn't have the authority to prosecute anyone.  I don't think he has the authority to appoint a special council either, but I might be wrong about that.

Like other political enemies (Biden, Obama, Comey, etc...), Trump attempted to have Clinton charged.  It seems pretty clear that the reason she wasn't charged was the same reason Comey gave in his infamous presser: it was unlikely they'd be able to get a conviction.  I don't think Sessions or Barr would've hesitated to charge her if they had a case that rose to the level that gives the DOJ a high 90% conviction rate.

Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later.

I'd be shocked if he wasn't involved in his business while he was president.

I think most of the financial charges will come from before he was President.

If he ends up facing any serious criminal charges, they would most likely be related to Jan 6th terrorist attack he organized.

I'm torn personally on whether or not charging Trump would be best for the country.  I think he deserves it, and not charging him creates a horrible precedent.  But on the other hand, we need to be lowering the temperature so we can move on from the train wreck that was Trump and charging him would just be one more reason for one side to dunk on the other. 

[PrimeNumber7]

This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

The President doesn't have the authority to prosecute anyone.  I don't think he has the authority to appoint a special council either, but I might be wrong about that.

The Attorney General has the authority to appoint a special counsel and has the ultimate authority to direct prosecutions. The Attorney General is accountable to the President. If the President directs the Attorney General to take an action he refuses to take, the President can fire the Attorney General. The President can also install an (acting) Attorney General that is loyal to him, such as one that would describe himself as the President's "wingman".

Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later.

<>

If he ends up facing any serious criminal charges, they would most likely be related to Jan 6th terrorist attack he organized.

I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues.

there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges.

What makes you think that?

Any prosecution of Trump will be transparently political. His political enemies have been calling for him to be jailed for too long for most Americans to believe otherwise.

[TwitchySeal]

I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues.

It seems to be a pretty common misconception being pushed by the media that 'the speech' is the only thing to consider regarding Trump and the attack on the capital.  Of course that's not true.  You need to look at all the evidence.  The tweets, the violent rhetoric, that blatant lies being repeated over and over.  

The speech was a pep rally before the big game.  All the work has already been done, now it's time to get hyped and win the game.

Also, the event was literally organized by him.

[PrimeNumber7]

I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues.

It seems to be a pretty common misconception being pushed by the media that 'the speech' is the only thing to consider regarding Trump and the attack on the capital.  Of course that's not true.  You need to look at all the evidence.  The tweets, the violent rhetoric, that blatant lies being repeated over and over. 

The speech was a pep rally before the big game.  All the work has already been done, now it's time to get hyped and win the game.

Also, the event was literally organized by him.

It is not illegal to lie, even repeatedly. I am not sure what you are referring to that you describe as "violent rhetoric". You should also cite the specific tweets you have concerns with (as posted on twitter.com) that you believe instigated the riot.

[DaveF]

Any prosecution of Trump will be transparently political. His political enemies have been calling for him to be jailed for too long for most Americans to believe otherwise.

This is where it gets kind of muddled. BEFORE he was elected there were some tax / finance / fraud cases against him that were put on hold.
Now that he is out they are moving forward. That is not political. If they start adding on more charges for things that happened in say 2019 then yes there might be a political bias.

But, if they were investigating in 2014 to 2016 and had a case that they just did not bring because of the election, then it's not political.

Now, the HANDLING of the case might be different but that is gong to be tough to prove.
Is it political if you go harder after a big name person then Joe Blow? Or is it just a DA working on his resume?

"I got a conviction against DT" gets you a better position at a law firm then "I got a conviction against PN7" Unless you are secretly famous and just like to slum it down here with the rest of us.

-Dave

[BADecker]

The real reason why they are pushing for Trump imprisonment is twofold:
1. Trump's stand on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is essentially destroying destroying the Covid lie;
2. They need to make an example of him so that nobody else will pit themselves against them, Big Pharma.

[PrimeNumber7]

Any prosecution of Trump will be transparently political. His political enemies have been calling for him to be jailed for too long for most Americans to believe otherwise.

This is where it gets kind of muddled. BEFORE he was elected there were some tax / finance / fraud cases against him that were put on hold.
Now that he is out they are moving forward. That is not political. If they start adding on more charges for things that happened in say 2019 then yes there might be a political bias.

But, if they were investigating in 2014 to 2016 and had a case that they just did not bring because of the election, then it's not political.

I was aware of a civil tax dispute between the IRS and Trump from prior to the election, but I was not aware of any pending criminal cases/investigations against Trump from prior to the election. In most instances, a case being investigated in 2014 probably could not be brought today due to the statute of limitations laws (for most things Trump would possibly be charged with).

Bringing charges against someone for political reasons is not necessarily illegal, so any conviction may stick provided the relevant statutes were violated. The problem is political. I can see there being a backlash against charging a former US President with crimes resulting in him going to prison. This backlash could ultimately lead to pressure on the Biden administration to drop the charges.

There is also the risk of charging Trump but not obtaining a conviction. This would make any prosecution look politically motivated, and could delegitimize the Biden DOJ.

[TwitchySeal]

It is not illegal to lie, even repeatedly.

It's not illegal to shoot a gun either.  Or walk out of a bank with cash.  Or have sex.

Doesn't make shooting someone, robbing a bank or rape legal.

I am not sure what you are referring to that you describe as "violent rhetoric".

then google it?

here's one that stood out to me for example.:

A 78-year-old white male Trump supporter punched a Black male protester being escorted out of a Trump campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The Trump supporter was recorded on video saying he enjoyed “knocking the hell out of that big mouth” and “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”

Trump the next day when asked about the violence at his rally:

I thought it was very, very appropriate. He was swinging, he was hitting people and the audience hit back. And that’s what we need a little bit more of.

There has not been a single documented case of protesters initiating violence against Trump supporters, according to Time. And at the Las Vegas rally that Trump cites, multiple security personnel told Politico that the protester threw no punches and that Trump was “over-exaggerating.”

source

I'm not going to write up a report for you, from memory there's the "if he can do a body slam, that's my kind of guy" when the Republican running for governor (maybe congress?) was arrested for body slamming a reporter.

And the rally where he said 'if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them and I'll pay your legal fees'

The times he's fondly remembered the good old day when you could 'punch them in the face' and 'they'd be carried out on a stretcher' after protesters interrupted him.

And there's plenty of others.

Bringing charges against someone for political reasons is not necessarily illegal, so any conviction may stick provided the relevant statutes were violated. The problem is political. I can see there being a backlash against charging a former US President with crimes resulting in him going to prison. This backlash could ultimately lead to pressure on the Biden administration to drop the charges.

You're arguing that someone should be able to get away with crime because they were president. 
Take Trump out of the equation and you'll see how ridiculous (and political, ironically) of an argument that is.  

Think about why we have a criminal justice system.  Why there are punishments for committing crimes.  That's the argument for why a president should be charged with crimes that can be proven in court.