Witness Tampering!! Trump Faces IMMEDIATE Imprisonment

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Hard to say.  Each charge carries 1 to 20 years, but he isn’t likely to get maximum sentence for everything. So who knows.  

I think it would be reasonable just to have him there until he dies.  Let's face it, with his mouth, it probably won't be long.

[OftenWrong]

25 minutes ago, Rebound said:

he isn’t likely to get maximum sentence for everything.

I say by the visceral reaction he is, very very likely.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

He has been indicted for 91 felonies in four separate cases.  

You can indict a ham sandwich.  When he goes to jail call me.  And we've been hearing that' it's going to be tomorrow or the next day at the latest for the better part of a decade.

Now - i'm not saying that he's never going to go to jail ever - god knows he puts in the effort.

But i'm saying that based on his track record vs what people who don't like him have been CLAIMING is going to happen....  i'm not prepared to put my money on that number anytime soon.

And - this just seems to drive his popularity up.  Like trump himself said - he's one indictment away from a landslide victory next election.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So why hasn't he?  I mean - if what you're claiming is true, why hasn't he been arrested?  No offense but you don' t even link to the actual tweet.

If i had a dollar for every time someone on the left states "trump is going to prison" i'd have enough for his bail   So why haven't they locked him up?

Good question. He's already violated the terms of his bail, so if he was anyone else, he'd be in the slammer already.

But he has a way of INCITING the CULT to violence, so they're being extra careful about making sure his violations are OBVIOUS.

AKA, they're giving him enough rope to hang HIMSELF. ?

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can indict a ham sandwich.  When he goes to jail call me.  And we've been hearing that' it's going to be tomorrow or the next day at the latest for the better part of a decade.

Now - i'm not saying that he's never going to go to jail ever - god knows he puts in the effort.

But i'm saying that based on his track record vs what people who don't like him have been CLAIMING is going to happen....  i'm not prepared to put my money on that number anytime soon.

And - this just seems to drive his popularity up.  Like trump himself said - he's one indictment away from a landslide victory next election.

You can’t convict a ham sandwich. Federal prosecutors have a 98%+ conviction rate. 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you're already making excuses?  It kind of sounds like "if i lose the election it's because it's rigged'  

These things are worth looking at and discussing but you ruin your credibility when you make definitive statements, especially if they don't prove out.

Informing your IGNORANT ASS is NOT "making excuses." Trump won't go to prison until he's convicted.

But he very well might be held in JAIL for violating the terms of his BAIL if he doesn't shut up about threatening witnesses, judges or prosecutors. Duh

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's not a threat, dumbass. 

Trump's MAGA CULT OFTEN BELIEVES OTHERWISE. Duh.

It doesn't matter what you believe, since you're FAR AWAY from the action.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

this does not seem like witness tampering to me. Trump is just running his mouth out in the open. Witness tampering occurs when you do it in private and apply some sort of leverage to the person.. Empty rantings on social media are not exactly leverage

When the king says, "who will rid me of this troublesome priest," his servants (MAGA CULT) know exactly what he means.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yep. Any day now...  

Been hearing that one for years. But Trump just keeps on going, like the terminator.

"Trump can't be bargained with, can't be reasoned with, doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stop… EVER!"

He also haunts their dreams.

Do criminals get convicted more expeditiously in Canada? It takes a long time here, esp if the perp is wealthy.

There is a saying in the US: "you get as much due process as you can afford to pay for." Lawyers are expensive, but Trump is getting the MAGA RUBES to pay his bills.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Good question. He's already violated the terms of his bail, so if he was anyone else, he'd be in the slammer already.

But he has a way of INCITING the CULT to violence, so they're being extra careful about making sure his violations are OBVIOUS.

AKA, they're giving him enough rope to hang HIMSELF. ?

If they give him any more rope he's likely to start a rappelling business.  I think hes got good lawyers who probably tell him how to skim the law technically and he's managed to walk that wire.

[robosmith]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If they give him any more rope he's likely to start a rappelling business.  I think hes got good lawyers who probably tell him how to skim the law technically and he's managed to walk that wire.

Word is, his lawyers are telling him to STFU, and that's why he canceled his news conference to present his supposed proof of election fraud analysis in GA.

Maybe the first time he's listened to his non-shopped lawyers. ?

 

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If they give him any more rope he's likely to start a rappelling business.  I think hes got good lawyers who probably tell him how to skim the law technically and he's managed to walk that wire.

If he were listening to his lawyers, he wouldn’t be charged with 91 felonies. It’s getting very late for him to start behaving himself. 
 

Do you think he checked with his lawyers before he posted: IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Caswell Thomas]

Don't know why the Republicans still push this false threat if Trump running for President again anyway;  he CAN'T run, he doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment and that's according to the Federalist Society membership who are Republican conservatives! 

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Don't know why the Republicans still push this false threat if Trump running for President again anyway;  he CAN'T run, he doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment and that's according to the Federalist Society membership who are Republican conservatives! 

They're not going to quit until the SCOTUS says he can't take office; and no one knows which way this SCOTUS will rule.

They can't be counted upon to enforce the 14th amendment disqualification.

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, robosmith said:

Word is, his lawyers are telling him to STFU, and that's why he canceled his news conference to present his supposed proof of election fraud analysis in GA.

Maybe the first time he's listened to his non-shopped lawyers. ?

 

And where is this 'word' from?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Don't know why the Republicans still push this false threat if Trump running for President again anyway;  he CAN'T run, he doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment and that's according to the Federalist Society membership who are Republican conservatives! 

What, are you talking about section 3?  Please, that is beyond a stretch.

[robosmith]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And where is this 'word' from?

News reports. 

Trump cancels press conference on election fraud claims, citing attorneys' advice

[Caswell Thomas]

In response to CdnFox, Section 3 is still as valid as the First Amendment. If you decide the 14th Amendment doesn't count, then you must also claim the 1st Amendment is equally worthless, in which case all of Mr. Trump's claims of its defense of his speech and his many lies goes out the window also.  Won't that be interesting?!

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Don't know why the Republicans still push this false threat if Trump running for President again anyway;  he CAN'T run, he doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment and that's according to the Federalist Society membership who are Republican conservatives! 

When he files to be on the ballot, someone will likely sue to block him. An officeholder in the southwest who participated in Jan 6 has already been removed from office because of the 14th Amendment. 

[herbie]

Change his name to Trumpoli.

Then and only then will witness tampering and Rico laws apply to him.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

In response to CdnFox, Section 3 is still as valid as the First Amendment. If you decide the 14th Amendment doesn't count, then you must also claim the 1st Amendment is equally worthless, in which case all of Mr. Trump's claims of its defense of his speech and his many lies goes out the window also.  Won't that be interesting?!

Did someone claim it wasn't valid?

It's not applicable.  He didn't lead an insurrection.  Even the dems say he encouraged one at best.  Has he ever been convicted of leading an insurrection? It's just a patently ridiculous argument.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Did someone claim it wasn't valid?

It's not applicable.  He didn't lead an insurrection.  Even the dems say he encouraged one at best.  Has he ever been convicted of leading an insurrection? It's just a patently ridiculous argument.

If he participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who did, the Constitution forbids him from holding office. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Did someone claim it wasn't valid?

It's not applicable.  He didn't lead an insurrection.  Even the dems say he encouraged one at best.  Has he ever been convicted of leading an insurrection? It's just a patently ridiculous argument.

What Trump incited was an insurrection. AKA, a rebellion against Joe Biden's legitimately elected government.

That is the meaning of his "stop the steal" LIE.

Quote

Insurrection

“What happened here today was an insurrection,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, on Wednesday night.

Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.

Smith decided not to charge that particular crime in order to help ensure the trial would be completed before the next election. ?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

If he participated in or gave aid and comfort to those who did, the Constitution forbids him from holding office. 

Well we know he didn't participate.  And he obviously didn't "give comfort.".

Those are both fairly high bars to pass.  It's not casual.

There's no way any sane judge or person is going to say that applies here unless some RADICALLY new information comes to light  - and if it was going to it would have by now.

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What Trump incited was an insurrection. AKA, a rebellion against Joe Biden's legitimately elected government.

Incited is not the same as lead or participated in.  Sorry.

Further - while i would tend to agree with the use of the word for casual purposes it may not meet that bar legally.  An insurrection tends to attempt to overthrow a lawful gov't - not just a single individual.  Had they succeeded the gov't of the united states would still have been there. Further - they would claim they were DEFENDING the "lawful" president of the united states.

So - you've got a thin string tied to a thinner string tied to an even thinner string.. no way that's going to hold up under load.  IT's as much of a crack pot theory as the whole 'electric voting box stole my election' theory.

 

Quote

Smith decided not to charge that particular crime in order to help ensure the trial would be completed before the next election.

That is very blatantly and obviously nonsense. If you think there's even a sliver's chance you charge for everything and then drop what you need to before the trial.  IF he didn't charge, it's because he thought there was zero chance of conviction. Or such a slim one as makes no difference.

In my mind it meets the definition of 'insurrection' loosely, But the legal bar is higher.

? 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well we know he didn't participate.  And he obviously didn't "give comfort.".

Those are both fairly high bars to pass.  It's not casual.

There's no way any sane judge or person is going to say that applies here unless some RADICALLY new information comes to light  - and if it was going to it would have by now.

He told his mob that he loved them.  That’s comforting. He organized the event. He funded it. He coordinated with other groups to move their dates from Jan 20 to Jan 6.  As commander in chief, he refused all calls during the insurrection and did not issue any orders with law enforcement, the national guard or the military.