'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 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
Why are they on hold? It's insane it's taken so long to push those cases, and it's even more insane if they are on hold.
Trump is a normal citizen, and shouldn't enjoy special privileges.
Except USA is no-longer a country of law, it's a corrupt oligarchy.
Always has been but normal people just finally starting to understand how bad it really is.
Modern oligarchs dont even pretend anymore and they dont have since peasants are fighting each. They dont care who wins elections for the most part as they will mostly get what they want either way
it always has been lol originally only white property owners could vote
Merrick Garland is a failure of epic proportions. It is a small silver lining that the Repugs blocked his Supreme Court nomination, not that their picks were better.
It's always been this way. The internet just does a better job of propagating information about it.
No, Nixon stepped down because of Watergate, you won't see similar honesty from Republicans today.
They are exploiting the judicial system, and to Prosecute Trump for things he did in the open as president to enrich himself and his family isn't pursued, even now after 8 years.
After Nixon the Republicans decided to try to control the courts and the political narrative, so they never would lose a case either legally or in the public eye like Watergate again.
Republicans have been systematically undermining USA for 5 decades now.
It's way past the time to stop it, If Harris doesn't win, and start the process towards legal and political normalcy, it could easily be to late.
that's why they banned tiktok
I get the frustration, but I also get where the authorities are coming from. Imagine if precident gets set that a political candidate can be mired down in lawsuits, regardless if they're plausible or not. Then someone like trump comes along and says cool that worker great against me, I'll just throw a shit ton of made up lawsuits and cases against all my future opponents.
Except that he's explicitly choosing to be a political candidate for the purpose of avoiding the lawsuits. A lot of these allegations occurred before he announced he was re-running, and then the lawsuits got put on hold.
Your scenario creates a method for anyone to delay consequences by running for office. Although we both know it wouldn't really work for anyone. Trump gets his special treatment.
I don't think the lawsuits are his major problem, and they're not a good example of badness in the system. Civil suits are often delayed if one of the parties has unavoidable scheduling conflicts, because they can be solved by money, and a month or two here or there doesn't make a big difference to that, at least not most of the time.
There can be corruption in civil suits, and there are reasons to use delay tactics if you're trying to spend your money or shift it to offshore accounts, so rich people certainly can and will gain the system. But simply getting your court dates scheduled in November instead of October is not in itself nefarious on the civil stage.
No that's a false narrative, the criminal cases are based on public prosecutors running them.
What you are claiming is for civil suits, of which a couple have been settled, despite obstruction attempts by Trump.
If it gets to a point where a politician can ask public prosecutors to put opponents in jail, USA has long ceased to be a democracy.
Trump is already a convicted criminal, and cannot vote in several states, still he can run for president, and enjoy privileged treatment.
Where an ordinary person voting because she was told she could, got 5 years prison for voter fraud!
*ceased to be
Thanks, brain fart. 😋
In your scenario, do you imagine that all the Trump-appointed prosecutors and the Trump-appointed judges will willingly delay the cases of Trump's "enemies of the state" until after the election out of some respect for the sanctity of the democratic process?
It is a horrible, dangerous precedent to say we can't justly hold the guilty accountable because some bad actor in the future may unjustly hold the innocent accountable.
Not everything is on hold. The dates and deadlines are simply not right now. Lawyers are preparing motions and the like in the background. Work continues. Of course that varies by case.
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.
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.
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?
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!
It's not Trumps electoral desires that outweigh the legal process. The electoral process is the core of democracy, and it can't be subverted by a public institution.
If the electorate is stupid enough to elect an insurrectionist and serial bankruptee then public institutions including courts must allow them to do so. That's a fundamental inescapable component of democracy.
Yes a Trump presidency will be a disaster for everyone. Yes Trump deserves to face the consequences of his many crimes. Yes the American public is about to make a terrible mistake.
However, the dirty complex unsolvable problem is that Trump may have enough support to be elected President. The court is not the right tool to address that issue, because the court is empowered albeit indirectly by the electorate.
It natural to want court processes to expose Trump as the fraud he is and cut his chances at a second presidency. It wouldn't necessarily work out that way though. Courts are regularly used in faux-democracies to empower autocrats. That would be the perception amongst Trump's base and really, if we're allowing courts to influence elections then the only thing separating us from "autocrats" is that we think we're the goodies and they're the baddies which is obviously a furphy.
The only way to get rid of Trump is at the polls. Beat him in the election, send him to jail, watch him disappear into his worst nightmare of irrelevance.
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
How many times over the last 4 years have I been told "Oh, they really got him now!" Do any wealthy politicians face consequences for the shady stuff they do( I include democrats in this category)?
And then I think about George Floyd who tried to buy a pack of smokes with a phony $20, and possibly didn't even know it was counterfeit, but was killed shortly thereafter.
This is not the America I want
Four out of the past eleven governors of Illinois did prison time. I think most of those were Democrats.
Well that's something I suppose.
Yeah, how is being ahead in the polls, with an inherent electoral college advantage, a Congress that's willing to bend the rules and a supreme court that thinks laws can just be changed depending on the court case 'having your back against the wall'?
Even if he loses the election he's still going to be able to pay lawyers to keep him out of jail until he
chokes on a Big Macdies of natural causes.He has a conviction in one case and is awaiting sentencing. The system has been moving during those 4 years.
It has been maddening watching Teflon Trump dodge and evade sentencing, by blatantly cheating the system using pawns he installed.
Not quickly enough.
It's not, but if you follow federal cases much, this sort of thing is normal. Takes ages to get anything done. Doubly so because when you're moving on a major figure, the method is to hit the low level people, give them plea deals to turn them against the people above them, and so on. Trump is at the top of that pyramid of cases. You couldn't get to him before going through the rest. This particularly affects the Jan 6 case.
One big thing that goes beyond Trump is the size of the federal bench. With number of cases judges are seeing, we could easily quadruple the size to bring caseload down to something reasonable. This is only going to get worse with the destruction of Chevron Deference, which opens the floodgates to companies suing to shut down federal regulators.
This also has a more direct effect on Trump. First, it would undo all the bench stuffing he did in the lower federal courts. Second, IIRC, if he files something in the southern district of Florida, he has a out of three chance getting Aileen Cannon. Quadruple everything, and that becomes one in twelve.
He should already have been in prison by now!
I for one am livid that I'll have to wait until after the election to see the disappointing wrist slaps he might get from whichever cases don't get sabotaged by sympathetic judges.
It really is outrageous.
I suppose "I'm running for president, let me go" is the new thing to say if you don't feel like going to prison right away. /s
Trump, his back against the wall.
The Tamarian phrase for important things that need to happen but won't happen in time.
2024, when the walls fell
Harris, with her arms wide
America, when the Universal Healthcare arrived
Trump, in an orange jumpsuit
Diaper full
We don't get to have nice things.
Not only is he going to win, by ratfuckery or otherwise, he's going to jail people like Kamala and Schiff for made up nonsense... We sat through almost a decade of bullshit delays and everybody treating Trump like a king, but he's going to have his sycophants lay the hammer down immediately on his opponents...
I really really really really hope I get proven wrong...
all thats needed to make that image sweeter is a blindfold, a cigarette, and a line of 9 infantrymen with rifles loaded and ready
...and the soap is on the floor
I wish it was his brain.
The information is true but the article is thin. There's no new information or interpretations in it.
Desperation and weakness linked to shittiness.
Vote.
He'd rather be on Wheel of Fortune anyway.
::: spoiler Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Raw Story:
::: ::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.rawstory.com/trump-legal-peril-2669486881/? ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support