• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and Jail

Thermal said:
I've been 100% confident he would be indicted, and 50% sure it would make it to trial. Just like I was 100% sure that Roe was not bulletproof.

Keep in mind, I think he should have been in cuffs for inciting imminent lawless action on J6. But I don't trade my cynicism for innocent idealism because I Iike the probable outcome. He won't be in a cell. His underlings might do a symbolic stretch or two. The betting window is open.
Click to expand...

One of those things where I might make a hedge bet. If Trump doesn't see the inside of a jail I win money. If he does see the inside of a jail cell, I lose money, but I'm happy.
 
Hercules56 said:
Former Presidents are entitled to SS protection unless they reject it. That includes in prison.
Click to expand...

The secret service is not entitled to go wherever it pleases. Hunter Biden has secret service protection. If he started swinging a machete at bystanders in Times Square, the NYPD isn't going to let secret service agents share a cell with him after he gets arrested.

EDIT: I strongly encourage you to take three or four steps back and interrogate the assumption that sent you down this road of believing that all kinds of agencies are required to bend to the whim of the secret service.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Incompetent, OK. Corrupt, demonstrably not since she got smacked down the first time. Those notorious centrists on MSNBC generally praised her scheduling decision, for instance, as a balance between what the prosecution wanted and the defense wanted.

I'm happy to move towards corrupt if you can point to decisions since her previous smack-down by the district (appellate?) court. I might be unaware of them.
Click to expand...

She just issued an order to for a public review of CIPA documents. These are supposed to be secret.
 
Stacyhs said:
This sounds familiar. Reminds me of all those declaring Trump would never be indicted or tried for anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was nestled in between all the "Trump will never get elected" and "SCOTUS won't overturn Roe V Wade."
 
Paul2 said:
Incompetent, OK. Corrupt, demonstrably not since she got smacked down the first time. Those notorious centrists on MSNBC generally praised her scheduling decision, for instance, as a balance between what the prosecution wanted and the defense wanted.

I'm happy to move towards corrupt if you can point to decisions since her previous smack-down by the district (appellate?) court. I might be unaware of them.
Click to expand...

Judge Cannon's scheduling decisions may have been reasonable (although we will have to see if she delays the trial when the date gets closer).

But, she also demanded that the prosecution explain why they are using multiple grand juries in different jurisdictions. This was something that not even the defense brought up. (Some suspect that she got the idea from a talking head on fox news who raised the issue.) It should be pretty obvious why they have multiple grand juries... The crimes involved multiple geographic locations, and demanding answers from prosecutors because of it is strange to say the least.

ETA: I do think that there comes a point where if you are incompetent enough but you refuse to recuse yourself, staying on the case is itself corrupt.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I've been 100% confident he would be indicted, and 50% sure it would make it to trial. Just like I was 100% sure that Roe was not bulletproof.

Keep in mind, I think he should have been in cuffs for inciting imminent lawless action on J6. But I don't trade my cynicism for innocent idealism because I Iike the probable outcome. He won't be in a cell. His underlings might do a symbolic stretch or two. The betting window is open.
Click to expand...

There is something in-between cynicism and innocent idealism. Rigid cynicism and idealism are both forms of self-protection and black and white thinking.
 
I Am The Scum said:
The secret service is not entitled to go wherever it pleases. Hunter Biden has secret service protection. If he started swinging a machete at bystanders in Times Square, the NYPD isn't going to let secret service agents share a cell with him after he gets arrested.

EDIT: I strongly encourage you to take three or four steps back and interrogate the assumption that sent you down this road of believing that all kinds of agencies are required to bend to the whim of the secret service.
Click to expand...

All former Presidents have lifetime Secret Service protection. I see no location limits on this protection. They are bound by Federal law to protect ex-Presidents from harm, until they are releived of such duty by the ex-President. Why does it bother you that he is entitled to SS protection even in prison? All I care about is that he is punished for his crimes, either with prison or house arrest.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah it was nestled in between all the "Trump will never get elected" and "SCOTUS won't overturn Roe V Wade."
Click to expand...

Run that down:

"Trump won't get elected." The horrible undesired outcome happened.
"SCOTUS won't overturn Roe". The horrible undesired outcome happened.
"Trump won't walk away from this". Fill in the blank: _____________
 
Segnosaur said:
Judge Cannon's scheduling decisions may have been reasonable (although we will have to see if she delays the trial when the date gets closer).

But, she also demanded that the prosecution explain why they are using multiple grand juries in different jurisdictions. This was something that not even the defense brought up. (Some suspect that she got the idea from a talking head on fox news who raised the issue.) It should be pretty obvious why they have multiple grand juries... The crimes involved multiple geographic locations, and demanding answers from prosecutors because of it is strange to say the least.
Click to expand...
That was not a good move on her part. Incompetence explains that.

ETA: I do think that there comes a point where if you are incompetent enough but you refuse to recuse yourself, staying on the case is itself corrupt.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Hubris and publicity can explain it. But her previous corrupt actions should make one very careful. I think we're not quite there, but close.
 
Yeah everyone wants to be the "I told you so guy" we're all aware.

It doesn't mean pessimism is never the same thing as realism.
 
Thermal said:
Run that down:

"Trump won't get elected." The horrible undesired outcome happened.
"SCOTUS won't overturn Roe". The horrible undesired outcome happened.
"Trump won't walk away from this". Fill in the blank: _____________
Click to expand...

"Trump won't be re-elected in 2020" The desired outcome did happen.
"Trump packed SCOTUS will back up Trump in the 'rigged election' cases" Didn't happen.
"Trump will never be indicted!" He has been...multiple times.
"The 2022 midterms will be a red tsunami!" Didn't happen.
"The GOP will take the Senate in 2022!" Didn't happen.
 
Stacyhs said:
Sounds about right. Some people consistently look at things negatively because they can then better emotionally deal with a disappointing outcome: "See? I told you so! I knew this would happen!"
Click to expand...

Big difference between emotionality and observation of patterns. It's emotionally satisfying to picture Trump behind bars. Not how I've seen the world to work in the last few decades.
 
Stacyhs said:
"Trump won't be re-elected in 2020" The desired outcome did happen.
"Trump packed SCOTUS will back up Trump in the 'rigged election' cases" Didn't happen.
"Trump will never be indicted!" He has been...multiple times.
"The 2022 midterms will be a red tsunami!" Didn't happen.
"The GOP will take the Senate in 2022!" Didn't happen.
Click to expand...

All as I expected, except more of a coin flip on the midterms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom