Poll: Should Trump accept a plea deal or risk a trial?

[Thinker101]

Wouldn’t a conviction preclude him running?

Don't give up your day job....folks still want burgers, dumbass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Legal experts on CNN and MSNBC code for people with Law Degrees who hate Trump.

lol

Nonsense.

One’s opinion of Trump has nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the indictment documenting Trump’s crimes.

 

[August West]

Well, I'm no legal expert of course, but, a good barometer as to what Trump should decide would be to listen to what CNN and especially MSNBC suggest he should do and promptly do the opposite. He has the means and stature of a former president, if he fights this, even the greatest prosecution team will have a rough go of it. It will not be a quiet affair, it will get messy and there will be unknowns on every side. Trunp could hire five.of the greatest legal minds in America. He may just need them if the evidence is strong.

This former president has no stature. None.

 

[August West]

lol

Nonsense.

One’s opinion of Trump has nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the indictment documenting Trump’s crimes.

If Trump shot or raped someone in the middle of 5th Ave., they would blame it on the media.

 

[scruffy]

Trump should plead out.

He will go to jail, otherwise.

I don't think he can accept that humiliation.

You people are hilarious.

Great thread. Good humor.

 

[Mac1958]

If Trump shot or raped someone in the middle of 5th Ave., they would blame it on the media.

There was a time that a thought like that would be facetious.

Now? No. That's reality.

 

[22lcidw]

lol

Nonsense.

One’s opinion of Trump has nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the indictment documenting Trump’s crimes.

One must believe it though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are laws, however, that can preclude him from ever running for any office again.

The Judge can indeed bar Trump from ever running for office again if convicted.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

www.law.cornell.edu

I disagree for a couple of reasons:

#1 Such laws have to be based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment Section 3, dealing with insurrection, rebellion or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. None of the laws the FPOTUS was charged with contain such a the provision. The closest would by 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information - and it does not carry such a provision. The other charges deal with conspiracy, obstruction, and false statements which don't apply.

#2 Regarding DocGate and the 14th's Section 3 clause. That applies to insurrection, rebellion, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy which would change the whole dynamic of the case. That is not just mishandling classified documents and willfully retaining them (18 USC 793(e) ) or the obstruction charges which can (IMHO) easily be shown. Pertaining to DocGate then, the insurrection and rebellion provisions don't apply. That would mean the government would have to prove to the court specifically that the actions undertaken by the FPOTUS were done with the intent to "provide aid and comfort to our enemies", which would be a very high bar for them to do. I don't believe (<<-- Opinion) that the government will attempt to touch the 14th's Section 3 provisions. And no, failure to properly secure and as a result letting unauthorized persons have access to classified documents doesn't meet that bar, they would have to show specifically intent and actions to transmit those documents to a foreign power - which the indictment appears to show they have no plans of doing.

#3 To attempt to bar the FPOTUS from office they would need to have brought 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - into play, which does bar the individual from holding office again when it says "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States". However, that law was passed by Congress and is perfectly applicable to those that work for the government in an employee/employer relationship. However the Office of the President isn't a simple employee/employer relationship, it is an elected position. As such the requirements are laid out in the Constitution (Article II Section 1) and 18 USC 2071 could be challenged (IMHO) based on the idea that Congress placed an additional restriction outside of the Constitutional limitations contained in Article II Section 1 and the 14th Amendment Section 3.
.
.
.
.
The above pertains the DocGate only. If there is another indictment relating to the J6 riots and the FPOTUS is convicted then the 14th's "insurrection or rebellion" provision may come into play. But that is a whole different discussion.

WW

 

[konradv]

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

www.law.cornell.edu

I disagree for a couple of reasons:

#1 Such laws have to be based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment Section 3, dealing with insurrection, rebellion or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. None of the laws the FPOTUS was charged with contain such a the provision. The closest would by 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information - and it does not carry such a provision. The other charges deal with conspiracy, obstruction, and false statements which don't apply.

#2 Regarding DocGate and the 14th's Section 3 clause. That applies to insurrection, rebellion, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy which would change the whole dynamic of the case. That is not just mishandling classified documents and willfully retaining them (18 USC 793(e) ) or the obstruction charges which can (IMHO) easily be shown. Pertaining to DocGate then, the insurrection and rebellion provisions don't apply. That would mean the government would have to prove to the court specifically that the action undertaken by the FPOTUS were done with the intent to "provide aid and comfort to our enemies", which would be a very high bar for them to do. I don't believe (<<-- Opinion) that the government will attempt to touch the 14th's Section 3 provisions. And no, failure to properly secure and as a result letting unauthorized persons have access to classified documents doesn't meet that bar, they would have to show specifically intent and actions to transmit those documents to a foreign power - which the indictment appears to show they have no intent of doing.

#3 To attempt to bar the FPOTUS from office they would need to have brought 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - into play, which does bar the individual from holding office again when it says "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States". However, that law was passed by Congress and is perfectly applicable to those that work for the government in an employee/employer relationship. However the Office of the President isn't a simple employee/employer relationship, it is an elected position. As such the requirements are laid out in the Constitution (Article II Section 1) and 18 USC 2071 could be challenged (IMHO) based on the idea that Congress placed an additional restriction outside of the Constitutional limitations contained in Article II Section 1 and the 14th Amendment Section 3.
.
.
.
.
The above pertains the DocGate only. If there is another indictment relating to the J6 riots and the FPOTUS is convicted then the 14th's "insurrection or rebellion" provision. But that is a whole different discussion.

WW

What’s the problem with Congress legislating additional restrictions? Any citations on that? The Constitution is a very short document. It outlines what is forbidden with the assumption that anything not forbidden is permitted. Your argument seems to be that anything not specifically permitted is forbidden. IMO, that’s the Stalinist theory of governance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What’s the problem with Congress legislating additional restrictions? Any citations on that? The Constitution is a very short document. It outlines what is forbidden with the assumption that anything not forbidden is permitted. Your argument seems to be that anything not specifically permitted is forbidden. IMO, that’s the Stalinist theory of governance.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

www.law.cornell.edu

I go back to principals laid out in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton where the SCOTUS struck down provisions for term limits because they exceeded the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold federal elected office. If a limitation to bar someone from office isn't supported by the Constitution (either under Article II Section I or the 14th Amendments Section 3), then those additional requirements are not valid.

States could not impose term limits on federal office because they exceed the limitations of A2S1 and 14S3. The same logic applies to Congress, there must be a Constitutional basis for them to add limitations.

WW
.
.
.
.
BTW - I try to be a reasonable and respectful poster. The "Stalinist" bit wasn't needed or called for.

 

[surada]

Bullshit. He should just pay the fines and get back to running.

We'll see. Conviction for espionage is something like 20 years in prison.

 

[kyzr]

We'll see. Conviction for espionage is something like 20 years in prison.

Espionage is a stretch. Presidential records ALL fall under the PRA without exception. So says AG Whitaker.
All the charges Smith posted have fines, so if Trump pays the fines, pleads guilty to "carelessly handling classified documents" (like Hillary did) then Trump can get back to running.

 

[konradv]

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

www.law.cornell.edu

I go back to principals laid out in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton where the SCOTUS struck down provisions for term limits because they exceeded the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold federal elected office. If a limitation to bar someone from office isn't supported by the Constitution (either under Article II Section I or the 14th Amendments Section 3), then those additional requirements are not valid.

States could not impose term limits on federal office because they exceed the limitations of A2S1 and 14S3. The same logic applies to Congress, there must be a Constitutional basis for them to add limitations.

WW
.
.
.
.
BTW - I try to be a reasonable and respectful poster. The "Stalinist" bit wasn't needed or called for.

Quit being a snowflake. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I could say the same about your attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. That isn’t respectful. If your points were valid, where’s the challenge in the courts? If you think what I said wasn’t valid, defend yourself. I’m not impressed with your passive-agreesive whining.

 

[Foolardi]

I've been listening to various legal experts on CNN and MSNBC talk about how strong and tight the Jack Smith indictment is. Many of them think Trump should seriously consider a plea deal - if one is offered. I think a plea would be better for Trump - but I'd rather see a trial. What do you think?

Read the full indictment here.

Well then you've been played butt goot by the not for
Primetime Faustian Players.By the same draconian bunch who
Lied almost hourly about both Trump Impeachments,the hoax
known as Russian Collusion and the Special Trump witchhunt
counsel.Where virtually every one of the 18 or more Prosecutors
were Hillary backers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Quit being a snowflake. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. I could say the same about your attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. That isn’t respectful. If your points were valid, where’s the challenge in the courts? If you think what I said wasn’t valid, defend yourself. I’m not impressed with your passive-agreesive whining.

Interesting.

I disagreed with a poster, laidout sound reasons for the disagreement, and when asked cited the SCOTUS case law as the basis for my reasoning. That is what a discussion is supposed to be about.

You can take your snowflake, heat, and other stupid remarks - write them down a a 12x12 piece of cardbord, fold that into a firm triangular shape, and then shove it up your ass.

WW

 

[surada]

The question isn't really what a verdict would be. Democrats have gone too far to risk a verdict. Will there be a plea or an assassination? A political strike against one of the Trump children would send a profound message.

Why are you thinking those are options?

 

[surada]

Well then you've been played butt goot by the not for
Primetime Faustian Players.By the same draconian bunch who
Lied almost hourly about both Trump Impeachments,the hoax
known as Russian Collusion and the Special Trump witchhunt
counsel.Where virtually every one of the 18 or more Prosecutors
were Hillary backers.

Trump appointed some 300 judges. What are you complaining about?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

www.law.cornell.edu

I go back to principals laid out in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton where the SCOTUS struck down provisions for term limits because they exceeded the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold federal elected office. If a limitation to bar someone from office isn't supported by the Constitution (either under Article II Section I or the 14th Amendments Section 3), then those additional requirements are not valid.

States could not impose term limits on federal office because they exceed the limitations of A2S1 and 14S3. The same logic applies to Congress, there must be a Constitutional basis for them to add limitations.

WW
.
.
.
.
BTW - I try to be a reasonable and respectful poster. The "Stalinist" bit wasn't needed or called for.

Your argument is weightless.

 

[Lesh]

Don't give up your day job....folks still want burgers, dumbass.

So he can run for President but can't vote?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your argument is weightless.

No it's not weightless. It is however my opinion based on reading the law. : shrug : I could be wrong, I could be right.

If we were acquaintances IRL, I'd bet you a six-pack of Smithwicks (Irish Red Ale) that as a result of the DocGates proceedings if he is found guilty, it would not be a basis for barring him from office under the United States Code.

(The J6 proceedings will be a different matter depending on how they are charged, but we'll have to wait on that.)

WW