Do you think Trump will be found guilty and go to prison for the January 6th alleged insurrection?

[sage2021]

[exitseven]

No, the so called Jan6th committee was nothing but a show and not a very entertaining one judging by the TV ratings it got. They can ask the DOJ to indict him but there is no evidence that he did anything wrong. So what else is new?

[exitseven]

Alan Dershowitz was on TV last night and illustrated that the Jan6th committee was not a real legal proceeding. There was no cross examination from the defense. There was no defense at all. He said it would take a lawyer no time at all to get all these bogus charges dismissed. Most likely there will be no indictment.
When might happen is that this thing can be dragged out until 2024 when Trump will be running for president.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Sixgunsound]

The precedent that would set would put Obama and Clinton and W and Carter in jail too so they will never allow it.

[nightdrot]

While not impossible, it is highly unlikely. In part because of the ham handed way the response to January 6th was handled by the Democrats in Congress and in part because, oddly enough, it may not be to the advantage of those very same Democrats. This leaving aside the charges against the former President, which are problematic.

Please note, the following I write as a Republican who has worked in politics for over 40 years and who is no fan of the former President. In fact, I did not vote for Mr. Trump in 2016, though I did - reluctantly - vote for him in 2020. This because I had long seen Mr. Biden as a Senator and had been, frankly, seriously unimpressed. Basically, the nation was trading a populist with a tendency to bombast for one with a tendency toward peevishness and petty corruption.

In any case, the recommendation of the House Select Committee on January 6th has no force of law. Indeed, it is problematic. As former Rep. Trey Gowdy recently put it, the FBI - which is supposed to enforce the law - is playing politics with Twitter while the Congress - which has no law enforcement authority - is making law enforcement recommendations to the Department of Justice. So much for the separation of powers.

In any event, the Congressional committee's recommendation was tainted from the outset. It was stacked with anti-Trump Democrats and, in a break with all precedent - when the GOP minority leadership offered its candidates for the committee, Speajer Pelosi vetoed them. Appointing in their place anti-Trump Republicans - see also Rep. Lynn Cheney of Wyoming.

The net result was a kangaroo court that was less interested in getting the facts - which one would have thought would have been damning enough - than in getting an intended outcome. It not being helped when the House Democrat leadership took the positive weird action of hiring a known Hollywood director to orchestrate the committee's hearings.

Suffice to say, the committee's hearings were predictable and had a bad habit of making mountains out of molehills. Such that even normally sympathetic television networks - see also CNN - did not really bother to cover the hearings nor the committee's other activities. The outcome was simply too predictable to be newsworthy.

The committee's recommendations, to be sure, will now go to the Department of Justice, which has been conducting its' own investigation of January 6. That is a DoJ that is currently under a Democrat administration and that, therefore, might have an incentive to prosecute.

Two problems with this. First, as a cold political calculation, Mr. Trump's popularity in the GOP has been on the decline. Now only about 34% of Republican voters want to see him run for re-election. Make Mr. Trump a martyr and that may change the poll numbers to the former President's advantage - with consequences that are, at best, difficult to assess for the Biden team.

More to the point, the case has been so tainted by obviously biased things like the House January 6 committee, that it is not impossible that a court would toss it out without so much as a "by your leave." If not in the first instance, than certainly on appeal. Thus suddenly Mr. Trump would be a hero - with VERY negative consequences for the Democrats.

The Biden administration will have to balance all of this out and they may go forward with a prosecution. However, that would be unprecedented in American history and would further divide an already divided country, with negative implications for Mr. Biden's already ten thumbed administration's ability to forge a governing consensus.

Bottom line, while not impossible, the consequences are unpredictable and the courts, if not the Administration, will likely not want to go there. This not to mention that, frankly, the direct evidence against Mr. Trump is pretty thin.

Yes, he should have called on the rioters to stop earlier than he did. Yes, it can even be argued that he egged them on. However, unless there is evidence of direct collusion - i. e., pre-planning of the riot and of Mr. Trump's direct involvement in that pre-planning - the case against the former President is pretty weak as a legal matter.

As a political matter, Mr. Trump has been a divisive and net negative figure in American politics, governance and history. However, that is a decision to be left to the ballot box - as it seemingly was in 2020 - not to a court of law.

[BeMuse]

You realize they already tried to legally go after him for "incitement of insurrection" with the second impeachment attempt right? Obviously there was no evidence to back their fraudulent claims so no prosecution could occur. Now they are trying to go after him again for the same accusation... The Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The relevant part of the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall. . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Not only do they not have any evidence to use against him, they are violating his constitutional rights because they are a lawless government.

[sage2021]

@BeMuse I thought Double Jeopardy was used in murder cases. Is it for any crime? 🤷🏼‍♀️

[BeMuse]

Double jeopardy applies to all criminal cases. I guess you could fudge it on interpretation if you are a seedy bastard and say impeachment is a "quasi-criminal" not a "criminal" case that is punishable by removal from public office, but when it comes to claims of "insurrection" which the Democrats did label it, a political figure could be sentenced up to 10 years in prison. Thus, I think it is justifiable to argue that Double Jeopardy applies being that life or limb is being put in jeopardy twice. You don't just get removed from office and get told to go play golf for insurrection. It is a serious crime with serious consequences.

[sage2021]

@BeMuse thank you for explaining this to me. You are always so knowledgeable about a lot of different things. 🌹

[AimeeKyle]

The answer is no. The House Committee on January 6th’s vote today, to refer criminal charges, mean nothing…. They are not a part of the judicial branch and have no authority….. They ultimately had to do something as this is the committee’s last meeting before losing power / being disbanded. It has always been and continues to be political, right up to the end. (These types of activities should be handled within law enforcement/presented to DOJ/prosecutors (who decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute) and then move on.) Unfortunately the law enforcement agency we would be relying on in this case is the FBI. And unfortunately, from my POV, the FBI has credibility issues.

What they should have been researching is the FBI and their involvement in politically motivated actions….. and refer their findings to the DOJ…. Why…. the FBI isn’t going to research/investigate itself or hold itself accountable.

[Anonymous]

Yes.. while Pelosi, Harris, Newsome, Waters and others like them that said things like "we will burn this city down", violent protestors literally killing people and burning buildings down "should not let up", "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the nation but there will be" will be overlooked and falsely justified by dems. Do you realize how many murders and crimes have been committed against right leaning people because of those comments? But of course violently rioting, murdering, or being a criminal is just fine by democrats and you'll most likely get out of jail that same day and let off because the judge or jury is too afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot.

[goaded]

"Pelosi, Harris, Newsome, Waters and others like them that said things like "we will burn this city down","
No they didn't.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded let me get this straight.. you actually believe that Hawk Newsome and other Liberals didn't say anything LIKE that? So are you saying that all the videos and eye witnesses that prove they did are all either fake, paid actors, or whatever else the Kool-aid is making you believe? Typical Liberal, deny or deflect

[goaded]

Why don't you show me a video or news report of any of them saying anything like "we will burn this city down"?

I know, it's rabidly liberal to expect evidence.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded here are few that were still up and not censored by big tech yet. I did not include fox news but you should really look at those as well. I am not surprised most of the other protest videos and online posts inciting violence are no longer available or not on CNN or other MSM. My friends and I have personally witnessed him in person making threats but obviously you won't believe it. Pay attention to the threats that his sister also made in the videos. It is interesting how he has flip flopped and made excuses for his threats many times. If republicans made these same threats against federal and state systems, or literally burned, looted, and destroyed cars, buildings, businesses and personal property liberals would be up in arms to make sure they were all arrested. Oh wait corrupt courts are already doing that. Let's just ignore the calls to kill cops as well as the data showing the rise in cop deaths. I suggest you do your own research and stop watching MSM.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Maybe go to a NYC blue run ghetto and pay attention to who is really killing who. Go to all of their riots, or protests as you call them, and see the disregard and hate they have for anyone that disagrees or anyone that is simply doing better than them. It is funny how they cry that police won't help them in their self inflicted crime ridden neighborhoods but then violently riot when the solution is crime fighting cops. Apparently they just want free reign to be criminals, and they have it now. They ruined NYC. Most of their riots have been violent. I have seen it firsthand. Don't believe me, that's fine. I know the truth, as do many others. Unfortunately, big tech, MSM, and a corrupt court and govt are on your side and you are a zombie that drank too muck Koolaid. This discussion obviously will go nowhere and I will not discuss with a closed minded trolling fool. The evidence is there, the question is, are you going to believe the truth or keep believing the brainwashing rubbish that promotes violence only when a liberal wants it. can't wait to read the left talking points and excuses for protests (violence). I suggest you don't use google or similar searches. There are also a ton of videos and screenshots of call to violent actions on TOR sites. Less MSM control.. for now. www.google.com/.../...some-not-burn-Big-Apple.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...h-rioting-violence.html

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded here is good article that is conservative biased but worth reading even though I know it won't open your eyes. amac.us/.../

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I want you to read this article and replace biden with trump and liberal with conservative and so on. I can assume what your opinion would be. Think about it.

[goaded]

So, all in all, you've got nothing that says Pelosi, Harris, or Waters said "we will burn this city down", just the one "Black Lives Matter (BLM) activist Hawk Newsome", who nobody's heard of and who doesn't speak for Democrats in any way?

As to the killed guy, have you kept up with events? "Originally, troopers said the incident was a political fight. In the months since, they and prosecutors have said that was not the case. " www.inforum.com/.../listen-entire-911-call-shannon-brandt-made-after-allegedly-running-over-and-killing-cayler-ellingson

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I can give you more from all of them. I was focusing on Hawk because his words were closely similar to the phrase you quoted specifically. He absolutely speaks for many democrats. He may play the "both sides suck" card, but his values align with many leftist policies and views. Many people have heard of him, especially people that support blm or watched MSM before he started to get into heat and they realized they shouldn't be supporting him like before.
You do realize corruption in US govt and courts can be done on all sides? I am not surprised at all the narrative changed.. mob rules, may the loudest and most corrupt win.

[goaded]

Please do provide examples of Pelosi, Harris, and Waters saying anything like "we will burn this city down" (your phrase, not mine).

I note your equating of democracy with "mob rule", it seems to be popular in certain circles these days. Among people who don't want democracy. (What do they want instead, I wonder.)

[purplepoppy]

He should have been sent to prison a long time ago. In my country, the news today reported on several young men getting sentenced to 4-6 years for encouraging a riot and they did a lot less motivating than Trump.

The simple fact is he inflamed an angry crowd that he had spent weeks dripfeed lies. The matter should have been taken out of the political arena and investigated by the police.

Given his status as president he needs to be held to a higher standard and the sentence should reflect that. 10 years minimum.

[BillyBalls]

What are you babbling about?

[WhiteBoyChill]

Thank God you’re a whole ocean away from me. I wouldn’t want to be around your intelligence level

[goaded]

He really should do. Anyone trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that taking Trump to trial and showing the evidence against him would make him a martyr to anything but his rabid base is crazy.

The first ever trial of a US president would focus the attention of every American on the mountain of evidence that has been collected about his involvement in Jan 6, and also not look good for the Senators who chose not to convict him two years ago.

Having SCOTUS, including three Trump nominees, acquit him on appeal would do the same for SCOTUS and the matter of the lack of ethics in the highest court in the land. Thomas is not recusing himself from cases where his wife is clearly involved, and was even the lone vote against her (among others') communications being released to Congress.

[LiamJHayden]

No. His actions do not in my opinion fit the legal definition of incitement, and in fact his statement to protest peacefully creates clear reasonable doubt. An unbiased DOJ would not even file charges, but as the FBI obviously conspired with social media to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, which polling shows actually did alter the election outcome of the 2020 election, this DOJ is hardly unbiased.

[DarkWinterNights]

We all knew this is exactly what they were going to try to do. The entire committee was a partisan garbage-dump of blind idiots masquerading as an investigative entity. It’s about as legitimate as a police department investigating itself and finding no wrongdoing.


Whether or not the justice department decides to go down that path is another story. I don’t think they’re that stupid, but nobody seems to have any concept of foresight these days.

[Twalli]

It wasn't alleged. It was, it also failed, but it was an insurrection. The real question that the jury must answer is whether or not he is responsible for it. In other words, if Trump hadn't told them to march on The Capitol, would they have? If Rudy or another person other than the former president asked them to do it, then Trump can't be charged for causing it. If it can be proven that he was the one that lit the fuse and the only one who could, then he's guilty. I think he's at fault for making it happen, but I don't know if his speech on January 6 was necessary for it to happen. I think almost any speech by a known associate could have lit that fuse, but he's responsible for that being possible.

[Anonymous]

No president has ever been jailed. The only president ever to be convicted of anything outside being president was Bill Clinton for perjury. If you convicted Trump you'd leave it open for other former presidents to be convicted like Bush and Obama

[goaded]

Only ones that break the law. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded but they've all broken the law. Clinton committed perjury, try doing that yourself and see what happens. Obama had two US citizens executed without trial. Bush lied about WMDs to launch an illegal invasion. Biden there's the whole hunter Biden laptop. Hillary was making deals with foreign governments for donations to the clinton foundation. On and on.

[goaded]

OK, fine, so wouldn't it be better if they were charged with crimes and sometimes even convicted? Maybe now is the time to start, considering the massive crimes against the country that Trump has committed. What if the next president sees inaction as an opportunity to do more?

I've still to see anything on "the whole hunter Biden laptop" that proves Joe Biden did anything wrong.

Hilary deals with foreign governments might have been shady, but not illegal. And when was she president, anyway?

Obama wouldn't have had to make that decision (assuming he personally was involved) if Bush hadn't told the lies about WMDs that kicked off the invasion. (I have to say the decision would probably been cheered by the people "upset" about Obama if it had been Trump doing it, like when he had the US citizen and BLM murder *suspect*, Michael F. Reinoehl, gunned down on US soil.)

Clinton did commit perjury, and was sanctioned for it. Arguably, he should have been convicted when impeached. That would have shown the country how petty the GOP was, and given Gore a couple of years to prove himself and win a couple of terms (possibly even avoiding that whole 9/11 unpleasantness, and certainly not invading Iraq).

Clinton wasn't convicted because extra-marital sex had nothing to do with his job and no reasonable investigator or prosecutor would have taken it to court. (One of the people determined to find anything they could was called Brett Kavanaugh.) Trump's impeachments were both very much to do with his actions as president.

By the way, why stop at Clinton? Bush Sr. was Reagan's director of the CIA when they illegally implemented Iran-Contra. Something tells me Carter was the last POTUS with a totally clean conscience.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Bill Clinton committed perjury in a court of law while president, that's nothi6to do with smashing a fat intern, that's perjury. Try it and see what happens. Bearing false witnesses in a court of law if caught is a serious crime.
Obama was aware.
Hillary was bribed many times.
Bush was aware.
The Hunter Biden lap top is very real and they are all criminals.

[goaded]

Did you read the part of what I wrote where I said: "Clinton did commit perjury, and was sanctioned for it. Arguably, he should have been convicted when impeached."?

You're ignoring my main question, which is why do you think that this should be allowed to continue? Why not convict Trump? Especially as, like you say, Clinton was convicted of his crimes. Trump's crimes are far more serious than lying in court.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded @goaded being sanctioned not the same thing as being convicted, what would happen to you if you got caught committing perjury? sure he was disbared from practicing law buy he was never going to practice law again.
I dont think it should be allowed to continue but from LBJ, to nixon (baring Jimmy Carter) no president has or will be convicted of anything they did in office as that sets a precedent for them and other politicians, one hand washes the other.
Eve all this stuff with Trump is more political than actually to do with his crimes, to stop him running.

[goaded]

"being sanctioned not the same thing as being convicted"
Clinton was found in contempt of court and fined nearly $100,000.

"I dont think it should be allowed to continue but from LBJ, to nixon (baring Jimmy Carter) no president has or will be convicted of anything they did in office as that sets a precedent for them and other politicians, one hand washes the other."

The current precedent, that POTUS is practically above the law, is a much worse precedent.

I don't think the potential indictments of Trump are political at all. In fact, the Democrats would be far better off running against Trump than almost anyone else in 2024. The more time goes by, the more facts come out about the attempt to steal the election, and the fewer votes Trump gets (and the more people turn out to make sure it doesn't happen again). Most election denying Republican candidates lost in 2022 for a reason.

What is political is Liz Cheney's insistence that the committee's report focus on Trump alone, ignoring the dozens of Republican lawmakers who aided and abetted his illegal actions.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded if you committed perjury you might get 5 years in jail, not a $100 fine.
I'm not saying Trump shouldn't be prosecuted just that he won't and like Joe Biden will probably die of old age before he sees a jail cell.
The thing with Trump definitely is political. They ramp up the accusations again when they know he's going to run again. The fbi are carrying boxes out of one of his residences and so on. They did the same in 2015 when he dared to run against Hillary. Trump was everywhere in Hollywood b4 hand and then all of a sudden he was sexist and racist like it didn't matter to anyone before. Thing was when he run against hillary for the 2016 there was so many false allegations and bullshit that it just became white noise in the background

[goaded]

Maybe, but Clinton's fine was $100,000, not $100.

Trump decided to announce a run for office far earlier than anyone else would have in the hope that it would help protect him from imminent indictments, not the other way around. It won't work.

The FBI found what they expected to and got a warrant to search for - stolen government documents.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded $100,000 is pocket money to bill.
It's all very convenient. Often it seems more as a distraction to other major problems

[goaded]

The biggest problem facing the US today is that people are trying to end its democracy. It hasn't faced a larger one since the civil war, arguably not even then.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded but who is doing that democrats or republicans?

[goaded]

Who decided beforehand to declare victory on election day?
Who tried to get voting stopped on election day?
Who brought and lost 60 court cases alleging non-existent voter fraud?
Whose lawyers are losing their licences for bringing frivolous lawsuits?
Who reached out to around 200 state officials, to pressure them to change the results?
Who considered imposing martial law?
Who considered sending the military to seize voting equipment?
Who called a mob to DC on Jan 6th?
Who sent that mob to the Capitol saying Pence was the reason they were going to lose their country?
Who watched for over 3 hours to see how it would turn out before ordering the mob to disperse?
Who voted not to accept certifications of elections with no evidence of problems?
Who is pushing the idea that state legislatures should have the right to decide elections without the courts getting involved?

Republicans.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded yes true but then you get into all the democrats stuff. All I know is that politicians are bought by big companies to promote their intrests and these corporations fund both sides.

[goaded]

Oh, come on, that's not on the same level as trying to steal the presidency. Deal with the existential threat, then the corruption. If you lose democracy, you lose the chance to do anything about corruption.

[Lliam]

I doubt it. Then again, the Democratic party and FBI will do everything in their power to destroy Trump. They have a vendetta that has nothing to do with Jan 6.
In collusion with their globalist masters, the Democrats are working to overturn the constitution and bring about a dictatorship that merely has some superficial trappings (appearance only) of democracy.

[Revvl6pro]

Why do you think Pelosi is retiring? What's going to happen when the Republican congress forces her to answer under oath that Trump never offered the 20,000 national guard troops to protect the Capitol?

Why do you think that the police are refusing to show the police body-cam footage of Paul Pelosi and his gay lover? That footage belongs to the public that paid for it.

Jan 6th was nothing but a hoax.

[AviatorTom]

Nope. In the end, politics will win out and it will continue that no former President has ever been convicted.

[AviatorTom]

A further thought... where could an ex-President be housed in a jail, noting that he would still have to have Secret Service protection? He won't serve any jail time.

[joeldalton]

Nothing would surprise me with this shit-show of a government going on right now.

[Anonymous]

No. FBI appear to have behaved appallingly in recent times, and Elon has been busy unearthing the lies. Trump may have plenty of questions to answer but I don't know if this is the hill upon which he'll die.

[TotallyAlmost]

Of course not. It's all political theater to hobble Trump in the general There was no insurrection and those behind the partisan witch hunt know it.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I have no idea since I haven't been following the case.

If Trump didn't violate any laws or proven he violated laws then you can't convict him.

[Katyalov]

noand if you think he’ll get arrested your a moron

[FunkyMonkee]

No, he didn't do anything! That was all antifa dressed up like Trump supporters.

[Brando10222]

Nah, he's a politican. The case will mostly be closed saying "not enough evidence to prove him guilty".

[worldscolide]

No, he literally did nothing. And there isn't a single shred of evidence that proves otherwise.

[Anonymous]

No and the democrats know it. But it wastes taxpayer money and keeps it in the news so as to try to smear the Republican party.

[KrakenAttackin]

That would be a great way for democrats to start a civil war.

[nawtee_me]

No, that is just how scared the dems are of Trump becoming president again...

[Summeroflove]

Probably not and if he is totally false pretenses

[slatyb]

I wish, but I'm not hopeful.

[Dargil]

Nope. I do not.

[Razp_Sorbet]

Go to prison? No

[Jennz6]

Nope

[Iron_Man]

No, I do not

[WhiteBoyChill]

Nope.