Will Democrats put Trump in jail on the 26thNov & in a coup install Kamala as president overturning Democracy?

[Gwendoline]

A lot of Conservatives in America seem to be worried about this. One I know said.

"The FBI, CIA, NSA, DA's, the DOJ, all spying and investigating, with millions and millions of dollars, corrupt fishing expositions, most scrutinized man in history, and these BS cases was all they could drum up?

Could find more illegal shit on me lol"

Personally I don't think it would be a good thing for democracy if an elected president was jailed before taking office. It's like something you might see in africa or Asia.

[jshm2]

Meh, Trump DOES have 35 felony charges that the judge is ruling on.

But the other charges can potentially be put on hold until after he serves his time in office. Hence the fear he will not leave office.

He cannot "pardon" the federal charges, even if he gets into office. So he will either need to give up his seat to Vance, else ask the judge for special depensation due to his age, or suspend sentence to serve after office.

The Democrats need do nothing, as it's all up to the GOP and Trump to fuck up as well as they do.

[Gwendoline]

Why can he not pardon it? Ford pardoned Dixon of any wrong doing and Bill Clinton pardoned his brother and friends of his that had been convicted and jailed in schemes the Clinton's were part of?

[LiamJHayden]

It does not work that way. Even if he were ineligible, Vance not Harris would assume office.

The chatter about getting Sotomayor to resign is highly unlikely. There is no filibuster, but do they really want to risk McConnell's procedural mastery and wildcards like Manchin and Sinema keeping the seat open till January? Too dangerous, and Sotomayor is only 70.

Probable: Kamala is coming back to California, and will likely run for the governorship in 2026, just like former VP NIxon did in 1962 after losing to JFK in 1960.

[Anonymous]

Jan 6 was the kind of thing you see in Africa. Trump belongs in jail. It would be great if he was put in there so we don't have yet another example of rich people being let off easy for crimes. As a convicted felon in jail though, he can still be president so this is just silly fearmongering.

[Gwendoline]

Don't know. I've seen a lot of protests since moving to the US. They are very intimidating, especially the ones that block the roads.

[katiesmuff]

You must have taken a double dose of your stupid pills this morning. Shut your fucking facebook, Twitter and the other bullshit useless social destruction sites you spend 20 hours a day looking at OFF and see what is really happening in this world.

[goaded]

Excuse me, he's been convicted by a jury of 34 crimes. Do you think people should be allowed to get away with crimes without any punishment?

He was also indicted for stealing national securitry government documents and sharing them with, among others, his new chief of staff who has no security clearance. The "judge" he appointed helped him avoid conviction three times and is now in consideration for the AG post.

If I were the judge, I'd sentence him to prison until January 20.

[Avicenna]

Goaded Xi, this isn’t your native China where mere allegations suffice.

As for the jury verdict, it was obtained by illegally charging a federal crime in a local jurisdiction under state law, and there were many procedural errors during the trial that mean the verdict will be thrown out on appeal. And the jury was composed of Manhattanites who hate Trump, meaning there was no fair trial. Finally, the judge’s daughter has a political consulting business with Democrats as clients, which is an enormous conflict of interest for her father.

You may not like a judge’s rulings, but that’s what happens when you don’t have the Democrats controlling the process with a corrupt, conflicted leftist judge. Coming up with conspiracy theories doesn’t help your case, either.

[Gwendoline]

What crimes was he convicted of and why is he not in jail for them?

[goaded]

@gwendoline Are you serious? Falsifying business records to cover up a crime, which you know, because you wrote this question about the date of his sentencing.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York

@Avicenna There's nothing invalid about the indictment or conviction, the rule of law still occasionally comes through for the victims in the US, even when it's your dear leader in the dock. We all know he'd be convicted if any of the other cases finally came before a jury as well. The fact that you can spend millions delaying trials is a shameful aspect of the US criminal justice system.

[Gwendoline]

Doesn't seem like a big deal especially when you go through all the stuff the Clinton's got away with

[goaded]

Electing a convicted felon (under indictment in three other cases) for president sounds like a big deal. It's almost as if you don't give a damn about the rule of law.

[goaded]

By the way, this "Pop Flop" is lying to you. There is no "loophole".

Trump was indicted by a grand jury of citizens, convicted in a court by a jury of the crimes he was accused of, and had every possible advantage money can buy in the US justice system. November 26 is simply the date set for sentencing. The crimes carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

In addition, Republican elected representatives are calling for the judge in the case and his daughter to be prosecuted. Tell me that's reasonable.

[Gwendoline]

Seems to be a political witch hunt in new York. In Britain we'd call that extortion or black mail.
If the judge in the case acted based on political views or at the behest of a special intrest should he not be prosecuted. For intrest when kamala was a prosecutor she tried to have evidence related to an innocent man in jail suppressed to keep her prosecutor record, in Britain or any other country that would be criminal

[goaded]

No, we wouldn't, we'd call it the rule of law. Again with the "If...". Do you have any actual evidence that "the judge in the case acted based on political views or at the behest of a special interest"? The appeals court found he had no conflict of interest.

[Gwendoline]

Quid pro quio isn't a thing in Britain and kamala would have gotten jail for trying to suppress evidence in Britain or in Europe.
I'm sure if there's evidence that the judge acted incorrectly or influenced by a governor it will come out

[goaded]

If, if, if, if... There isn't any evidence, but Republicans are urging that the judge (and his daughter!) should be prosecuted.
www.politifact.com/.../

[Gwendoline]

www.nytimes.com/.../...arris-criminal-justice.html

[goaded]

"Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’"
So she was more like a Republican? That would have been bad.

Using the DoJ as a weapon against people you don't like is OK with you, then?
"Florida Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Cory Mills floated the idea that criminal charges could be brought against Judge Juan Merchan and his daughter Loren Merchan, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith"
www.independent.co.uk/.../...ey-case-b2644660.html

[Gwendoline]

To be fair if this happened in the UK there certainly would be an investigation of the judge and his daughter's involvement if a conviction of a politician was biased due to political connections to rival parties or politicians. And if the judge and daughter had been following direction or influenced by biased political opinions the case would be thrown out and them both convicted.

[goaded]

If, if, if... "if a conviction of a politician was biased due to political connections". Have you seen one iota of evidence that that's the case? No. All you've seen is Trump and his minions whining about being caught falsifying business records (nobody claims he didn't do that, just that he should be allowed to get away with it for no good reason).

Remember, in the US, prosecutors have to convince a grand jury of citizens to indict someone and send them to trial, specifically to avoid abuse of power like that.

[Gwendoline]

The judge's daughter worked on the Biden campaign, in Britain that would definitely raise some issues. In Britain a judge would recuse himself

[goaded]

I've never heard of a single case where a British judge was required to step down from a case because of something a family member does for a living. I'd be amazed if you can come up with a single example. Let alone one being prosecuted for it.

In the US, supreme court justices and judges on the right don't seem to see the need to recuse themselves even if they were given that position by the defendant or offered the chance of becoming the top DoJ official in the country by him.

A jury of citizens convicted Trump (after a grand jury of citizens decided there was a case to answer) based purely on the evidence in the only trial not to have been delayed into irrelevance by obviously corrupt and incompetent judges who should have recused themselves.

An appeals court found that the judge's daughter's activities did not create a conflict of interest for the judge. Another appeals court TWICE found that Judge Cannon exceeded her authority in the Trump case when she delayed proceedings before corruptly dismissing it. That third act of corruption is under appeal.

Are you familiar with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam ?

[Gwendoline]

A UK judge would not have taken the case if his daughter was an actor on the other side.

Psalms 94:20-22 GNBUK. You have nothing to do with corrupt judges, who make injustice legal, who plot against good people and sentence the innocent to death. But the LORD defends me; my God protects me

[goaded]

So not a single UK example, thought not. Do you know the politics of a single UK judge? No? I'd be willing to bet most of them are Conservative, but I'd still trust them to try cases impartially.

Merchan's daughter worked for "a communications firm that provides services for progressive campaigns" and on Harris' presidential campaign. That just means she's a Democrat, it's her political leaning. So you're saying a judge should recuse themselves if their daughter's politics align with the defendant's, even if an appeals court agrees that it does not present a conflict of interest.

Now Republicans want them both prosecuted for doing their jobs.

On the other hand, a justice's wife who was part of the planning for Jan 6 doesn't have to recuse. Another, whose wife flew an American flag upside-down after Trump's loss in 2020 doesn't have to recuse. A judge who was appointed to her position by the defendant doesn't have to recuse. Not even, in another case involving Trump, when Trump is listing her as potential AG.

[Avicenna]

I would be shocked if trump doesn’t get sentenced to hard time on 11/26; however, there is nothing in the Constitution that says he can’t serve as President. Case law would also be favorable to the argument that the people made their choice.

The Democrats could of course try to impeach trump or convince his cabinet to use the 25th Amendment, but I suspect those attempts would fail.

[sawno]

I wouldn't be surprised if they did something like that but its also something the country would suffer probably permanent damage from. Lets hope they are wise enough not to try anything like that.

[LiamS95]

Actually it's the Biden-Harris Administration and the rest of the Democrsts thst should be very worried about ending up in jail on facts not fake accusations.

[goaded]

Tricky, considering they didn't commit any crimes. Fascist, in fact.

Don't you recall what happened to Clinton? Nothing. Because Trump was full of shit.

[Gwendoline]

@goaded perhaps when his term is over charges may come in regards to perverting the course of justice regarding hunter Biden.
There's also talk of kamala as a prosecutor deliberately trying to keep a man in jail despite his innocence to protect her record as a prosecutor. If true that in itself is a crime in most other countries at least.

[goaded]

Seems unlikely, since the president had nothing to do with the case and Hunter was convicted in a court of law. "If true" is doing a lot of work there, too.

You've got one party working for the rule of law and the other, you, saying it's "no big deal" when Trump breaks laws.

Remember: Mueller documented ten separate obstructions of justice committed by Trump. Trump is clearly guilty of taking and hiding and disclosing national security documents (not even his judge who threw out the case says he didn't). And Trump conspired to steal the presidency in 2020, going so far as to incite an attack on the Capitol, ending an unbroken run of peaceful transitions of power in the US.

In any sane country, he'd have been indicted, tried, and convicted well before now. Hell, Republican senators justified their votes not to convict Trump by pointing to how the law should deal with him inciting the attack instead.

[Gwendoline]

@goaded the general view of most is that the hunter conviction was to down play the rest of his crimes and that Biden is involved in suppressing evidence, we will just have to see how much comes out about hunter Biden after the election.

[goaded]

No, it's not "the general view of most". Most people don't care at all, those that do realise that people usually aren't charged with that particular firearm offence unless they've committed some other related crime, and Republicans wasted two years failing to make any kind of a case against either of the Bidens, and embarrassed themselves by relying on criminals and liars.

[KostasKouvalis]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Why are you telling them? Delete this! If that happens all hell will break loose! I knew we shouldn't do what the NFL does and celebrate victory too soon, because 2 and a half months is too long to get sworn in. In that amount of time, anything can happened.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

There are cushy jails in America, but only rich people get them. He could serve his term behind bars just as comfortably as in the white house—just with deserved less dignity.

[Gwendoline]

Jailing political opponents that have been elected democratically?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Being elected doesn't mean you should be exempt from the law. And Biden wouldn't be sentencing him, a judge would be. Same as any other criminal. If it makes you feel better maybe Trump and Hunter Biden will end up in the same prison?

[sage2021]

Kamala can't win by default and get herself into White House - period.

[exitseven]

nope. all these chicken shit cases are falling apart.

[goaded]

How? He was convicted by a jury.

[exitseven]

@goaded it will not even be overturned on appeal. There will be no sentencing. It will just be forgotten because it was not even a real case.

[goaded]

He was convicted by a jury. Guilty on all 34 counts.

He would have been convicted on all the other cases, had he not spent millions delaying them, with the aid of a corrupt judge and SCOTUS. Nobody even says he didn't illegally take those government documents, illegally and knowingly kept them, and showed national security documents to people with no right to see them, not even his pet judge (who, surprise, surprise, is on the short list for AG) who suddenly decided that special counsel are not a real thing, despite having been used for centuries to protect against political interference in the criminal justice system.

[msc545]

It is a real case. It is not a fantasy. What will happen with it is anyone's guess at this point.

[RedInnocent69]

Of course not. Don’t be ridiculous. Trumplicans win and still can’t handle their shit

[msc545]

oh sure. We REALLY want a civil war. What have you been smoking, and can you tell me where I can get some?

[Sevenpointfive]

it's right on the corner next to the gun store. i'm out of ammo, but i'll show you if you wait out next to the shooting range.

[Lliam]

Democrats should stick to sucking dick. It's all they are good for.

[impalabill77]

I it would by his just rewards for starting the assault on the capital for January 6th 2020.

[Jersey2]

I am a Conservative and I am not worried at all. This is just mental masturbation material for Progressives.

[Anonymous]

assassination attempts is all the Democrats have left because it's permanent

[Jerre]

No, I don’t think Trump will be put in jail on Nov 26th or any other date.

[DryGermanGuy]

😂😂😂😂😂

[Gwendoline]

Being German surely you recognise the danger in this given the events of the 1930s

[DryGermanGuy]

Indeed I do. Project 2025 will bring it all out in the open.

[msc545]

yes we know and we cannot stop it.

[Jennz6]

No, Kamala will be on the Supreme Court

[DryGermanGuy]

You mean she will change the roof shingles or something?

[Jennz6]

@DryGermanGuy she’s trying to get one of the Justices thrown out and Biden will appoint her while they still have the power in Congress. She has no place to go now.

[DryGermanGuy]

Babe, have you fever? Do you know how long the confirmation process of a SCOTUS judge is? That's completely impossible.

[Jennz6]

@DryGermanGuy democrats have the power right now. Kamala was a prosecutor, Attorney General of California, Senator and Vice President. She has reached the “Peter Principle” no where else to go

[DryGermanGuy]

Peter, Schmeter... have you checked the careers of SCOTUS nominees? They all worked long and successfully as judges. Which Kamala Harris never has. She will not be nominated and would never see herself in that role.

[Jennz6]

@DryGermanGuy well I just have heard talk about it and personally I think it’s over for her but nothing would surprise me.

[DryGermanGuy]

Whoever talked about it has no clue about the mechanisms of the upper echelons of a U. S. administration. Harris has a law degree and could always return to private practice. Other than that, maybe she would want to go for a governor or senator position. Time will tell.

[msc545]

@DryGermanGuy Also, even if that happened, so what? Republicans have the majority anyway.

[Anonymous]

Nope. Let em try.

[Dargil]

Impossible.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Lol, no.

[Dongie]

No!!

[Slim57]

They wish