'He is in serious jeopardy': Legal expert warns Trump his back is against the wall
'He is in serious jeopardy': Legal expert warns Trump his back is against the wall
Should Donald Trump fail a second time to be re-elected he faces the very real possibility of jail time and massive financial penalties due to the sheer volume of criminal cases and civil lawsuits that are on hold until after the election. That is the opinion of Syracuse University law professor ...
Should Donald Trump fail a second time to be re-elected he faces the very real possibility of jail time and massive financial penalties due to the sheer volume of criminal cases and civil lawsuits that are on hold until after the election.
That is the opinion of Syracuse University law professor Greg Germain who explained in an interview with Newsweek that the former president's only path to get out from under the federal cases he now faces is to beat Vice President Kamala Harris in less than two weeks and then push the Department of Justice to drop the cases filed against him.
As Germain stated, the multiple federal cases Trump is facing are solid and his only path to victory may be having them shut down.
Newsweek source: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-legal-cases-georgia-washington-florida-new-york-stormy-daniels-chutkan-cannon-1974406
You're viewing a single thread.
Why exactly are they on hold until the election? Shouldn’t it be like really important to determine if he’s guilty before they crown him?
Corruption, pure and simple corruption.
So a corruption that will exist after the election as well
We have but to wait and see. There are new and perverse forms of corruption recently enabled. We've always had and will always have corruption. If he doesn't get it, I give it 50:50 they'll still let him off.
The humans who implement the judicial system are likely fearful of the purge that would come following a Trump victory.
I felt the same for a long time, but as much as I hate to admit it, it does kind of make sense in an abhorrent kind of way.
The hierarchy in a democracy is supposed to go...
Voting Public ➡️ Representatives ➡️ Laws ➡️ Courts ➡️ Rulings
That being the case, a Court shouldn't really hear cases that might undermine the will of the Voting Public.
If courts are empowered by the Voting Public, then a Court should not be in a position to make a Ruling the Voting Public does not want, despite that Ruling being correct in the context of the Law.
Another way of saying the same thing, is that if the Voting Public want's Trump to have a fair trial they would obviously not elect him as President.
I understand your viewpoint, but disagree.
By that argument any criminal ever could argue against prosecution because they intend to run for a public office. Ridiculous exaggeration of course, but if Trump gets this chance, everyone else should too.
Not really, as you said it's just not within the realm of possibility for anyone else.
Trump stands a good chance of being elected in a few weeks. An unfavourable court ruling would undermine that. Do you want to live in a country where courts are more powerful than the will of the people?
Also, imagine what would happen if he did get locked up now. It would be pandemonium, and not without reason.
The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote against him, then watch him fade into irrelevance.
It's not just. He should be locked up for his crimes. If people would want him released, they'd have to vote for a candidate who promises to do that. Just being a promising candidate isn't a reason not to be prosecuted. There is simply no law for that.
The justice system is being intimidated by an angry mob into waiting out the situation. This is against everything what the justice system is supposed to do.
It's not the will of "the people", it's the will of a minority. He HAS been voted out. Courts should indeed be more powerful than that.
Of course there's "a law for that" - it's the basic paradigm of democracy.
You feel that it's unjust, but half the country apparently disagrees with you.
I absolutely understand the feeling - he deserves to be locked up and to become irrelevant, and it would seem to be a convenient escape from this nightmare.
The uncomfortable truth though, is that if a court does anything to diminish Trump, he will become a martyr.
The voting public needs to decide they want him held accountable.
The half the country that disagrees isn't disagreeing with the laws Trump broke and voting to repeal them. If they were, your argument would have standing. Trump wins, those laws get repealed, no one ever has to be subject to these unjust laws. In a scenario where someone was campaigning to legalize pot nationally but was in court for possession you would be 100% correct.
However, this half the country wants those laws to continue to apply to everyone else, but not to apply to Trump, one of the most corrupt, self serving people ever to hold office. The whole country agrees that those laws should exist (fraud, sexual assault, corruption, election interference, insurrection). Half the country thinks Trump should just be above the law, and you can't have democracy when the law treats people differently.
Your argument sounds logical on the surface, but it's deeply flawed to the point where it's almost suspicious in its dishonestly.
suspicious in its dishonestly
What is suspicious or dishonest about my argument? What are your suspicions?
You're correct that the voting public wants all those laws, but just doesn't want them to apply to Trump.
The point of my illustration layout out the manner in which the voting public controls the courts, is merely to show that the court must be subservient to the will of the voting public.
Not hearing the cases against Trump is problematic, but it's less so than a situation where cases against candidates are allowed to undermine elections.
The "voting public" deciding a candidate is above the law isn't democratic.
The courts are not a democratic institution, they're there to apply the laws passed by a democratically elected government in a fair and impartial manner.
Sure the laws should be subject to the will of the people, but the application of the law should not. That's nonsense.
Saying it's dangerous to apply a law everyone agrees with to a politician who committed crimes is absurd.
Thanks for the response, now I KNOW you're just a Trumptard playing "Devils advocate".
Sorry chief, you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam so you're welcome to keep thinking that I'm a Trumptard and that I (along with every judge in the US) am mistaken about the role of courts in democracy and more specifically in elections.
You're describing why convictions shouldn't bar people from voting or running for office and deciding it means the powerful should be above the law.
Not really.
Are you suggesting that a guilty verdict wouldn't effect the result of the election?
It should when they're guilty, great mind.
The problem, of which I'm sure you're aware, is that courts in the US tend to be partisan, so guilt will be determined according to the ideology of the accused.
It might feel great when Trump is on the pointy end, but how would you feel if a corrupt court was hearing a case against Harris? I'm quite sure you would feel as though the court shouldn't hear a case that can influence an election.
You're just not operating on good faith, huh.
Good luck with that, I don't think you're being paid enough to be a class traitor but whatever.
Ad hominem, the hallmark of lazy thinkers with nothing to say.
Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it wrong.
Can the press be above the voting population? Surely not. So they shouldn't be allowed to publish articles with uncomfortable thruths about a candidate? Also the democrats, they say bad thruths about trump. They shouldn't be allowed to say that.
Sorry I'm struggling to understand your meaning.
That figures.
Witty.
Thanks.
Well, if the voting public has ultimate say than why are there rules on who can become president in the first place?
The public electing representatives who make these rules is one thing. Courts undermining elections arbitrarily is entirely another.
The public needs to decide whether they want Trump to be held accountable for his crimes.
Arbitrarily? They have pretty good indications that trump has committed multiple crimes.
The public should not be the ones who decide if someone is accountable. This is not a direct democracy. (Hardly a democracy at all)
I agree that the public doesn't have adequate skills, experience, or knowledge to determine whether someone should be held accountable.
I also agree that Trump has undoubtedly committed multiple crimes and deserves to be penalised, probably by being incarcerated.
The problem is that the electoral college is likely to have sufficient votes to elect him regardless.
The core problem is that courts shouldn't influence elections. It seems like a great idea now because the "baddies" will be on the pointy end of that stick, but undoubtedly it would be turned against us later on.
While you make a point to consider, an educated and informed electorate is bedrock to a democracy.
Maybe the results of the Discovery process should be public record before a vote.
Yeah but also nah.
Airing dirty laundry in discovery is tantamount to an unfavourable ruling - its still the courts undermining a democratic process.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot - a republican judge digging away for dirt on Kamala during "discovery".
You would feel that unfair, and that's exactly how republicans world feel about Trump going through some kind of discovery process now.
If there is evidence of a crime involving the canidate or campaign, the voters being kept unaware is also a crime.
Sorry, that's quite simply untrue. There is no law that says you must finalise a case against a candidate during the campaign.
Another way of saying the same thing, is that if the Voting Public want’s
If winning the vote entailed an actual public majority, you might have some argument there. But that's not what we have.
I acknowledge that the electoral college misrepresents the popular vote, but that is the mechanism by which the will of your voting public is polled.
That's not really relevant to my point, which is simply that in a healthy democracy courts need to avoid influencing elections.
So your argument is right, but completely not based on our current reality?
I'm struggling to understand what you're saying.
Yes the electoral college is shit. That's not a reason to allow courts to manipulate elections.
They're already doing that through deliberate inaction. Lock his ass up, already.
Do you want to live in a country where courts incarcerate the candidates they don't like? I'm sure that will work out very well.
Letting guilty insurrectionists run for re-election in clear contravention of the constitution isn't affecting the election in any way in your view?
If you mean I influence the traffic outside my house by not standing in the middle of the road, then sure the courts are influencing the election.
This is more like you're a traffic warden and when people park across the middle of a busy intersection, you do nothing and then claim you don't want to affect the traffic.
If you're a teacher and you let the kids play on their phones all year, have you influenced the learning?
Inaction is a choice and has consequences.
The purpose of traffic wardens is to direct traffic. The purpose of teachers is to educate children. The purpose of courts does not include influencing elections.
Anyone would agree that courts deferring rulings is not ideal, but it's better than a situation where courts are influencing elections.
Do you have any other explanation as to why every judge in every court hearing a case against Trump has expressed reluctance to take any action that might undermine the election?
he purpose of traffic wardens is to direct traffic. The purpose of teachers is to educate children. The purpose of courts does not include influencing elections.
Actually, the purpose of courts is to enforce the law. It's only of influence in the election because Donald Trump is a 44-time convicted felon and an insurrectionist who is barred from the presidency by the constitution. He brought that all on himself, and didn't think of the consequences.
This is so tedious.
Please, by all means, continue wishing that you lived in a country where courts are used to subvert democratic processes.
I find it tedious too that the Republican party would pick an insurrectionist and serial bankruptee as their candidate and then get butthurt if the courts do their job, somehow believing that Trump's electoral desires outweigh the legal process. I bet if it were a Democrat who was up on felony charges you'd be demanding that they be denied bail!
I want to see that orange turd locked up as much as any rational levelheaded person, but my fear is that it would set a dangerous precedent to convict and jail during an election.
Because all the batshit bonkers right-wingers in politics would use it as a baseline to file court cases against any of their political opponents during election season, find some Uber corrupt right-winger judge and miraculously the only ones left on ballots are the repubs