The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What If Trump is Convicted?
My new article in the print issue of Reason on how things could get weird
It has been awhile since I've had a piece in a print issue of Reason, and I'm particularly delighted that this time I get cool cover art. The article is now available digitally (but of course you should also subscribe to the print magazine, if you do not already do so).
From the article:
It is a decent bet that none of his criminal trials will reach a conclusion before November. But there is a genuine possibility that one or more of his trials could reach a verdict by Election Day. No doubt some of these prosecutions were brought with the hope of knocking Trump off the ballot, or at least damaging his candidacy, and some resemble more of a political Hail Mary than an ordinary criminal prosecution, but Trump faces a serious risk of conviction in at least some of them.
. . . .
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a current inmate of a state or federal penitentiary from running for or winning the presidency. Unsurprisingly, the constitutional framers did not anticipate the possibility that the American electorate might make such a choice, and so did not think to account for the possibility. Thus, we must now consider what would happen were Trump to be both criminally convicted and elected president.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The second Biden administration would be more than happy to assign the Trump Secrete Service duty well outside the prison Trump's term of confinement.
You don't understand the USSS -- the President really doesn't have that kind of control over the USSS.
You mean they're like the FBI and CIA and don't answer to anyone?
Treasury department, of all things.
LtbF, USSS hasn't been in Treasury for more than 20 years, when it moved to Homeland Security.
Moreso -- you don't question the people who are keeping you alive.
How on earth do you figure?
So, add Authority and Responsibilities of the Executive Branch to the long list: Things Ed Doesn't Understand.
I assume if he's convicted and elected, he can be released on habeas on the ground that the confinement of POTUS violates the US Constitution.
If he's convicted and not elected, the Secret Service will coordinate with the Courts and the BOP as to where he goes and how he serves his time.
Which section of the Constitution precludes the confinement of the President of the United States? Please note that I'm not saying it's a good idea; merely that I don't see anything in the Constitution that precludes it.
In a sane, rational world, the Congressional Republicans would acknowledge that having a jailed felon as president is untenable and the impeachment and removal votes would be near unanimous. But, that is not the world in which we live, and the mere fact that Congressional Republicans would happily allow that shitshow to play out rather than ring down the curtain on it is sufficient reason to vote Democrat straight up and down the ballot all by itself.
In a sane world the R's would already have rid themselves of the Orange Putz
In a sane World the D’s would already have rid themselves of a POTUS with Parkinsonian Dementia(ICD-10 G31.83). This is supposed to be a legal Blog, isn’t there some Amendment that covers a disabled/demented POTUS?
Frank
There are 27 amendments. Nos. 2 and 25 are ignored by Democrats. Is it just coincidence that 2 + 25 = 27?
I think not.
You've said in the past that you are a doctor. Isn't there some ethical consideration or other against diagnosing a patient you've never examined?
I'm pretty sure JFK died of a massive head wound and not only did I never examine him, I was only 1 year old when it happened.
That didn't answer my question.
Plus, we have the word of doctors who actually did examine JFK that he died of a massive head wound. So far as I know, no doctor who has examined Biden has said that he has either Parkinsons or dementia.
Pssst. Dr. Jill isn't really a doctor.
Jill Biden is not an MD. She is entitled to use the title Doctor. Obsessing about trivia like this just underlines Republicans' lack of anything serious to offer, proposals or criticism. Thank you.
Someone is obsessing but it isn't me. Fuck you very much.
The obsessing works both ways. Republicans wouldn't have had anything to obsess over if the Democrats hadn't obsessed over it first.
That's why you're called reactionaries, I suppose.
There was also that 16mm movie filmed by Dr. Zapruder. And there's not a blood test or scan for Parkinson's Disease, which is what happens when the Dopamine producing cells in the Substantia Nigra go Ka-blooey, it's diagnosed "Clinically" which means by looking at somebody. See how Joe shuffles like Shaggy from Scooby Doo? Face that barely moves?, (barely? the statues on Easter Island show more expression) the incoherent babbling? (OK, that's been Joe since the 1980's)
Frank
Pretty sure that was good old Kodak regular 8mm film. Super 8 was released in 1965.
16 mm would not have been common for home movies.
Biden apparently won't take their cognitive tests. When a patient refuses to take a test, that's not very good proof of not having the condition.
What are the odds he remembers when Bo died? He certainly didn't remember where he died.
"R’s would already have rid themselves of the Orange Putz"
His standing was weakening, then the Dems indicted him and the polls showed his support increased and solidified.
So Dems contribute to the insanity.
The polls I've seen indicate his support is increasing and solidifying among Republican voters who weren't like to vote Democrat anyway.
Sure. But there was a moment when it was possible that a GOP challenger might chip away. That moment passed a the first indictment, his polls rebounded and that was it.
Trump's support among the base has consistently been strong enough that I don't think anything would have deprived him of the nomination (up to and including a criminal conviction). OK, so maybe Haley had a 1 in 5 chance before and only has a 1 in 10 chance now, but the outcome will be the same. He's going to be the nominee and was always going to be the nominee.
As for what this does in November, we'll find out. I can't imagine the swing voters who actually decide the election are all that thrilled with another four years of him, but time will tell.
As Bob points out, the first (NY) indictment really sparked Trump's popularity. Before that, there were roughly 15 points between him and DeSantis, for most of the beginning of 2023. After that indictment, Trump's polls went up, and DeSantis's dropped pretty quickly, first to a 25, then a 30 point gap in the next 2-3 weeks.
The indictment acted as media attention, and acted as a "Trump is the victim" type moment, which was difficult for the other Republicans to effectively campaign against. No indictments...put Trump up there actually talking policy against the other GOP candidates...maybe something else happens.
No other Republican candidates could touch him in 2016 either, and there were no indictments.
Not quite.
2016 was very different with many, many, more GOP candidates. Trump didn't take a lead in the polls there until July of 2015. Before that Bush was leading (before that was Walker, then Bush again, then before than was Paul, Huckabee, then Christie).
Trump, by many reports, got more than $2 Billion worth of free media attention in that nomination, in a very crowded field. Undoubtedly those two items... Billions in free media attention and the super-crowded field allowed Trump to come out on top.
2024 is a different beast.
You mean, immediately after he entered the race?
That's two 'it's not our fault we don't have agency or volition' whines, and the thread is barely started.
In a sane world, being indicted would be a political liability. Or at most neutral.
"So Dems contribute to the insanity."
If the r's were smart they would have let the Dems do the putz in.
The place where the prez serves the term of confinement could be the White House.
No. He'd have his own airplane plus one provided by us taxpayers, along with helicopters. I assume he was bright enough to hide some cash oversees. (That may be a bad assumption.) He has, in the Secret Service, his own cops. In addition to flight crews, he'd legally be commander in chief of anyone in security at Joint Base Andrews. He has, or believes he has, powerful friends in foreign governments. If anyone was ever a flight risk, he'd be.
Please contribute to the Tin Foil Fund for gVOR08.
Picture this.
POTUS Trump would be behind bars in an Orange suit with a military officer at his side at all times holding the nuclear football.
And here, all you guys thought that it was illegal to have a weapon when you are in prison.
In a sane, rational world, the Congressional Republicans would acknowledge that
Every single charge against Trump is complete bullshit, and so treat them all with the contempt they deserve.
FIFY
I'm a Democrat. If Joe Biden were headed to prison, even if I thought the charges were all complete bullshit, I would nevertheless acknowledge that the country can't take having as president a convicted felon who is headed to prison. And if he refused to resign, I would say that Congress should impeach and remove him from office for the good of the country, no matter how unfair I believed it to be. And I'll bet most congressional Democrats would take the same view.
Because at some point you have to put the interests of the country first. Something Trump has never and will never do.
But here's the thing. The Trump supporters and even marginal Republicans believe that Trump is being politically persecuted specifically to keep him off the ballot. This is untenable and unacceptable in any way.
How can we have a Democracy if politicians will create flat-out fictional laws to attack their political opponents? This not only cannot be allowed to stand, but more importantly cannot be allowed to spread. Because if it ever works, it will be done in every critical election going forward, and that's realistically the end of our Republic.
There may even be a charge or two that I think is legitimate against Trump, but the largest and most prominent are so clearly politically targeted that we cannot let ANY of them go forward.
So, I have to throw my lot in with Trump. Because this tactic cannot be allowed to work.
“There may even be a charge or two that I think is legitimate against Trump, but the largest and most prominent are so clearly politically targeted that we cannot let ANY of them go forward.
So, I have to throw my lot in with Trump. Because this tactic cannot be allowed to work.”
Pretend harder that you’re conflicted about any of it. Your position is what a Trumper says, not what someone with a sense of morality says.
'I know he murdered that girl, but they’re adding bullshit charges of jaywalking, so I say let the murderer go free!'
What a stand-up guy you are.
More like a rapper is indicted on multiple murders, based on an argument that his lyrics somehow inspire people to commit murder.
I assume you're a-ok with impeaching secretaries over policy disagreements and basing congressional inquisitions against political opponents on misinformation provided by Russian intelligence.
Who was okay with impeaching Trump?
The Trump impeachments had evidence. But ignore that even. They had allegations of crimes. Which until last month, everyone though was necessary.
"flat-out fictional laws"
Which laws are those, Ben?
I am among those people. We see this lawfare as being committed against us. This is why the scenario described will never occur. Voters simply won't allow a Trump conviction, for if there were one, that would be the final indication that law and order had broken down in this country, and people would feel under no obligation to it. Nobody would be fooled by the formalities of law, and we'd go back to more informal ideas of justice and fairness in which technicalities, i.e. the entire law profession, would go out the window for at least a generation.
Another possible explanation for a Trump conviction is that he actually broke the law.
"And I’ll bet most congressional Democrats would take the same view."
LOL Such BS.
You're projecting again. Just because the GOP has sold its soul to Donald Trump does not mean the Democrats would do the same for Biden.
Franken, Edwards, Blagojevich... Dems love to cannibalize our own. We think it shows integrity. I think we tend to overdo it, if anything.
Take Santos. There's no way Democrats would've protected him for nearly a year. He would've been out in February as a Democrat with a Democratic majority.
Just like Bob Menendez, right?
"We think it shows integrity."
Nah, it just shows inbred blood lust.
You must not know many real-life Democrats.
Hah, virtually every one is know is a Democrat.
Maybe it is not blood-lust, but rather a competitive holier-than-thou spirit. The result is the same, cannibalism (your word, not mine).
That seems accurate.
Also ironic, that it turns out that Democrats are actually the ones who are much more invested in meritocracy and personal responsibility than Republicans are in practice.
Exactly. And what’s wrong with Nikki? If these prosecutions were a Democratic plot, we’d be shooting ourselves in both feet.
First, as was pointed out above, Trump was busy fading into Mar-a-lago oblivion until the FBI raid and all these indictments catapulted him back into his favorite place, the media cycle.
Second, Trump is the best candidate for Democrats. Nikki would win easily. Trump will lose… and take the Republican field down with him and is daughter-in-law. (No other candidates are going to get any RNC love as the entire Republican apparatus gets reoriented around paying Trump’s legal bills and fines.) Why would Democrats be trying to sabotage Trump?
Maybe it’s a double-fake-out! Those two mistakes sort of cancel out… maybe we’re using these indictments not in the hopes of conviction but simply as a way to piss MAGA off enough to nominate Trump again so we can wipe the floor with him one more time in November!
Haley is unpopular, and would win only on the basis of being less bad than her opponent. Trump has a lot of enemies, but there are a lot of voters who actually like him and vote for him rather than merely against his opponent.
Biden probably would not have won the nomination in 2020 had it been known far enough in advance that he'd be running with Harris, who is widely despised. He got the nomination on the basis of being relatively acceptable compared to other Democratic candidates (especially Harris) and because a lot of voters hoped he'd die or become recognized as incapacitated shortly after taking office, and that a more reasonable VP would assume the presidency. Instead the Democrats acceded to nominating his insurance policy, Harris. But nobody really likes Biden. Even in terms of personality, he's at least as nasty as Trump but not nearly as witty.
Back in the real world, no.
This is dumb. The FBI search of Mar-a-Lago isn't what put Trump in the news. Trump running for president is what put Trump in the news.
Perhaps. Though I'm not 100% sure he would've run otherwise. The indictments forced his hand, and the renewed media presence whet his palate and demonstrated his popularity.
Have you met Donald Trump? The man craves attention. There is no way he wasn't going to run again in 2024. (Barring medical reasons, and maybe not even then.)
Burn, baby, burn...
https://www.themirror.com/news/politics/cpac-donald-trump-voters-warn-355149
Grab another half-pint of Jagermeister and go clean your long gun.
You cartoon.
We all know you have these murder fantasies, it's not surprising that others of your kind do too.
But... a revolution? For what? What would you change? You need some principles for your new government, what are they?
Without that, it's an empty bluster. And we all know that's what it is.
I think the intention is to ban contraception, recreational sex, lgtbq relationships, and fertility treatments, for some reason. That's a kind of revolution, I suppose. Oh, and mass deportations and concentration camps and red states invading blue states. I wish I was making this up.
So like, forcing a MAGA constitutional amendment at gunpoint?
Wouldn’t we just repeal it right away afterwards? Would SCOTUS even enforce it?
Calling this revolution "half-baked" would be overselling it.
If they half-bake all that it's still a fucking diaster. It's incredible that these people can openly declare who they are and what they want ad all everyone talks about is whether Biden is old or not.
You forgot establishing a state religion, although the specific flavor of Christianity is unsettled, as is the question of whether Jews will be tolerated.
Politely asked to convert or go to Israel for the Final Battle. Then less politely.
Someone did a thing about the mighty Mobility Scooter-driven Revolution in the style of a letter from the Civil War documentary.
It was a thing of beauty.
Burn, baby, burn…
The most likely outcome of something like that would be the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Which section of the Constitution precludes the confinement of the President of the United States? Please note that I’m not saying it’s a good idea; merely that I don’t see anything in the Constitution that precludes it.
Good luck with that position.
Pardon power is plenary; it is, as they say, a mute point.
Pardon power only applies to federal prosecutions though. If he is convicted in state court, it's a 2254 petition.
Do'oh. That's fair.
"If he is convicted in state court, it’s a 2254 petition."
Right. And before filing such a petition, he would have to exhaust the available state court remedies. That would mean pursuing all available appeals in the state court system.
"That would mean pursuing all available appeals in the state court system."
Always? Have there ever been any exceptions to this rule?
Yes, there have been exceptions before. But not currently.
Exceptions will be made here.
That would require an act of Congress. An act to benefit Donald Trump specifically could not get 60 votes in the Senate.
Nope. Exceptions will be made, there will be no act of Congress, and you will scream about how the decision violates the text of 2254 and nobody who matters will care about what you think about it.
The President of the US doesn't have the ability to "encourage" a Governor? I'd think that closing the Atlanta airspace to all civilian planes would work. If not, a sonic boom from a military plane every 15 minutes all night long should.
Not if he's doing time on state charges in New York or Georgia. Kathy Hochul ain't gonna pardon him. I would bet against Brian Kemp doing it either.
A safe bet, since Georgia doesn't give pardoning power to its governor.
Awwwww, you made Krychek look stupid.
As opposed to you, who actually are stupid?
Not a heavy lift.
Not being familiar with the details of Georgia law does not make one stupid. But then, you knew that, and as usual you're grasping at straws.
Just to let you know, February has 29 days this year, I might be a little late with the rent check (For the space I'm obviously taking up in your head)
My comment was actually directed to Bumble; everything isn’t about you.
A few million irate citizens would encourage someone to pardon him.
Even if the EBT $$$ somehow doesn't come through?
You said that confinement of the President violates the Constitution. Where does it do that?
It does not appear to forbid the President pardoning himself, which would take care of any federal convictions. But if Georgia or New York were sufficiently stubborn to continue to imprison him? I suppose he could invoke the Insurrection Act and call federal troops to free him, but that doesn't seem like an outcome the Constitution requires.
Sigh. Constitutional interpretation is not simply a matter of reading it and saying "I don't see it in there".
Think about structurally, what it means for the executive power to be vested in a President. Think about the impeachment provision, as Bob from Ohio adverted to. Think about the longstanding DOJ position that you can't indict a sitting President.
Now tell me any federal court is going to seriously say that a state has the power to imprison the elected President.
You still need some sort of theory. DOJ policy isn't going to cut the constitutional mustard as they say. It can't be just "hm, seems like probably."
The theory is that a prisoner is not going to have the nuclear football, which must be with POTUS at all times, by law.
They can put him and the football in solitary. Problem solved.
That is not the law. The military officer is to be at his side.
Try to be serious rather than argumentative.
Try to be serious...
I seriously don’t think the nuclear football is the reason that incarcerating the President is a problem.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Armchair has the better argument: that incarcerating the President generally impedes the execution of federal laws.
Randal,
I also agree with Armchair that "incarcerating the President generally impedes the execution of federal laws."
Having said that, I still would find it emotionally satisfying to see him behind bars.
Does anyone seriously see this playing out legally? If it came close enough, it would break down to force of arms. What people here are speculating about reminds me of the scene in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: "Last time we surrendered to you, so this time it's your turn to surrender to us."
People submit to law only because they perceive a reasonable chance they'll be treated fairly. We're already seeing that perception in the USA break down, with the spreading fear of doing any large scale business in New York City. It's like the reason nuclear war hasn't broken out: No nation sees itself as losing badly enough. But no nation will submit to a harsh enough defeat without using nuclear weapons, because nothing left to lose.
There is of course no such "fear," let alone a "spreading" one.
Even if you granted that, what is to prevent him from pardoning himself as his first action with the justification of it being required to facilitate his to carrying out his oath of office.
"Which section of the Constitution precludes the confinement of the President of the United States? "
Its a de facto removal from office. So the impeachment clause is implicated.
Even White House confinement impacts his functions.
Are you arguing that a sitting President is immune to state criminal prosecution, and must be impeached and removed from office by Congress (or leave office at the end of his term) before any case can proceed? Because if you are, I think I agree.
Except I thought we were talking about the scenario where he was convicted and imprisoned before he took office.
James Michael Curley served from jail.
"Which section of the Constitution precludes the confinement of the President of the United States? "
There's two parts to that answer, because there are two types of confinement. State level and federal level.
State level is actually easier. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution precludes a state confining the POTUS. Really, the case law there is McCulloch v. Maryland.
Marshall concluded by saying that “the states have no power,
by taxation or otherwise, to retard, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress." I can reasonably conclude that a state imprisoning the POTUS would retard the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress, given the POTUS's role in executing those laws.
The Federal level is a little different. Beyond the pardon power, the POTUS is head of the Executive Branch, which controls the BoP. So, in an odd twist, the President being imprisoned would be like the warden of the prison...imprisoning himself. Which...he could presumably reverse. Since...he's the warden. And if he felt that he needed to be freed to properly execute the laws, then he may have that power.
Do prison wardens have the discretion to free prisoners?
Which section of the Constitution precludes the confinement of the President of the United States?
The executive office?
The Bureau of Prisons is under the DoJ, which is under the office of the President. Essentially, the president would be in charge of the prison that is holding him, so he could just let himself out.
I suppose that wouldn't apply to state prisons, which is where things would get strange.
Unsurprisingly, the constitutional framers did not anticipate the possibility that the American electorate might make such a choice, and so did not think to account for the possibility
The constitutional framers did, however, anticipate, no, that's the wrong word. Observed over and over again those in power through all human history turn the power of government against political opposition, and sought to minimize that ignoble impulse of anti-democratic legions of dictators by building in protections.
No fishing expeditions until you find something to tag the opponent with, which, as these are often powerful and rich people can almost certainly be found, more guaranteed than a cop following a driver around until they don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. You must have a warrant, and it can't be a general warrant.
Nobody is above the law, but that's a subset of everyone is equal before the law, which includes not singling out political opponents for constant investigations until you find something.
No expropriating the estates of recalcitrant noblemen.
Yet all of these things happen, and wouldn't have but for him being an irritating opponent who didn't give up.
Evidence:
1. Many statements that make more sense if it's about getting a political opponent, like trials must be completed before the election. One professor, not a poster here, even said it was vital for speedy trial, not for the usual reason of protecting the accused against government indefinite delays, but so the people could see a rapid resolution to the crime charge. This guy probably has no problem in endless delays for capital cases. I am opposed to them in practice, but I do not practice situational ethics, the high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided-upon position, and the low valuation of it when it gets in the way of a different one.
2. During impeachment, his opposion gleefully mentioned it was purely political, and opposition had the honor of going against an opponent because he was an opponent. The curtain was pulled aside, and the little man standing there had a purple face of rage.
3. The sheer number of government initiatives starting long before Jan. 6, indeed, before Jan. 6, 2016.
Donald "Lock her up!" Trump deserves this in a cosmic sense, but The People do not. Stop violating their rules in principle and in spirit as, transparently, you feel you've done successful workarounds. (Yey, we seized the estate of an opponent!)
And here's a great reason not to elect him, better than any of yours. We don't need him standing there somewhere west of Poland waving a checkered flag as Putin's tanks cross the finish line.
Or Finish line.
Difference is--Hillary deserved to be locked up.
Funny thing is her side got so angry at Comey for not indicting her.
1. Vibes
2. Not true
3. government initiatives?
Eugene Debs ran for President while in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary after being convicted of sedition. Do you really think that Trump wouldn’t do the same?
Eugene Debs had no real chance at actually getting elected.
According to you, neither does Trump.
I've never said Trump has no real chance of getting elected. One fear that I have is that given the realities of the electoral college he just might pull it off. In which case a minority of people who think it's just fine to have a jailed felon for president will have imposed one on the rest of us.
Lighten up. It's a long way to November and given Biden's rapidly accelerating decline you should be more concerned with finding an alternate candidate for the Ds.
What makes you think an alternate isn’t already in place?
I’d offer him a choice of the sentence or permanent exile. The Romans knew how to deal with these kinds of situations.
If we're going to go all Roman Empire I'd cut off your hands and nail them to the door of the Senate.
Lol good one
Estragon : “The Romans knew how to deal with these kinds of situations”
Aquae et Ignis Interdictio : Debarred from fire and water – which in Trump’s case might mean a fast food ban. That said, my layman’s understanding of Ancient Roman law is that it was a kind of formless thing, a hash mixture of traditions, customs, and performance art from the advocates of both sides. It also helped to ring the trial site with heavily armed soldiers.
Yet the threat of exile was enough to get Caesar across the Rubicon. People forget all he wanted was the chance to run for consul again, yet his oligarchic enemies were determined to destroy him. I blame Cato the Younger, the most overrated figure in all of history.
As I draw/design/process submittals & RFIs, I listen to audiobooks. Over the past month or so, I’ve gone thru nearly the entire oeuvre of Lindsey Davis mysteries set in the Flavian dynasty. I won’t say she’s the greatest writer in the world, but I heartly recommend the books. They often focus on one unique aspect of Roman life back in the day, so you get a feel for the times. Plus they star one of the all-time greatest couples, Falco & Helena. One book was called “Time to Depart” and highlighted a criminal banished into exile.
The Romans, particularly during the Byzantine era, seemed to favor permanent blinding as an effective method also. Always seemed weird to me.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a current inmate of a state or federal penitentiary from running for or winning the presidency. Unsurprisingly, the constitutional framers did not anticipate the possibility that the American electorate might make such a choice, and so did not think to account for the possibility
You mean, "Unsurprisingly, the constitutional framers did not anticipate the possibility that one side would become so utterly corrupt that they'd abuse the criminal justice system to successfully prosecute political oppents for the 'crime' of being political opponents".
Or are you really trying to pretend that you're so stupid you "believe" that ANY of the charges against Trump are even remotely valid?
Go back to 4chan. Around here, even the people on your side aren’t that dumb.
You really think the NY prosecution is legit?
He said
ANY
andremotely
.Even the NY ones are more than
remotely
valid. One person already went to prison for the same crime, so they clearly have some significant validity from that fact alone.First of all, in NY you have a SOL problem, and using federal campaign finance law is just ridiculous--especially given the fact that Hillary and her lawyers did the exact same thing--and got a fine.
Second, it's not clear that calling a payout, "legal expenses" is really "falsification of business records?"
Third, Trump was being blackmailed. So we prosecute a victim? Well, maybe if it's that scumbag Hastert.
Trump was being blackmailed.
Hahahaha oh good one there. That's pretty funny. Always the victim, that Trump!
Stormy Daniels said "pay me or I talk"--that's blackmail.
She did, did she? I like how you assume she's a dumb bimbo just because Trump slept with her.
Yes she did==why else would he have paid her, and he denies having done the deed with her.
I think you just answered your own question! My work here is done.
Your argument does not play: 'I was being blackmailed, that's why I robbed the bank. I'm the victim here'
You’re confusing cases. He robbed the bank in the Wakeron case.
You elect someone vulnerable to blackmail?
Yes. He really did do what he was charged with in New York. You can argue he's being selectively prosecuted for political reasons, but he really did do the crime.
4chan . . . Volokh Conspiracy . . . what's the difference?
I guess Volokh was kind enough to transparently include
Conspiracy
right in the name.These guys also put "libertarian" in their motto but don't mention the movement conservatism.
They are disingenuous hacks, polemical partisans, and disaffected right-wing culture war casualties.
He's not going to prison no matter how many convictions. The secret service agents won't like staying overnight in a prison.
House arrest at worst.
Looks like the only one going to prison in Ga. is Fani Willis. I truly hope her life is completely ruined.
Rabid partisan says what?
Prosecutors who lie under oath are a huge problem, and they deserve severe punishment. That shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Ha. I almost made a Fani reference.
She's certainly got the personality to do well in prison, although she might run into some trouble with Bee-otches she sent up the river (in Jaw Jaw it's more accurately "Down the River". Watching her testimony, if I didn't know who she was I would have guessed she was the manager at a Ghetto Popeye's Chicken, with all the "mmmhmmm"s and "You Lie!"s.....
Frank
The bigotry is never more than a fraction of an inch below the surface at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Carry on, clingers.
Ahh, bigotry, the last refuge of Kirklands.
Bigotry . . . the first instinct of the Volokh Conspirators and their carefully cultivated collection of racist, misogynistic, immigrant-hating, gay-bashing, antisemitic, Palestinian-hating, transphobic, theocratic, white supremacist fans.
You guys really seem to get cranky when someone points out the level of bigotry that permeates this white, male, conservative blog.
Every. Single. Day.
Carry on, bigoted clingers. So far as better Americans permit you to do anything.
He’ll pardon himself. Who has standing to contest it?
True, but then people could ignore it also.
Look at what happened to Fani. A prosecutor lying on the stand in a criminal case. She should spend a very very very long time in jail. She should also be forced to pay attorneys fees. Ha ha ha. Ruin this woman's life!!
Trump just ruined her life today, he proved she lied about when the relationship started. Not only is she going to be barred from the case, and almost certainly lose her job, she will have her law license suspended, and could even be disbarred.
"the filing claims show that Wade visited the home of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis approximately 35 times during an 11-month period in 2021."
The investigator, Charles Mittelstadt, claimed he analyzed "all interactions" between Wade and Willis's phone during this time, which he said revealed over 2,000 calls and nearly 12,000 texts messages during that 11-month period -- most of which would likely have been before Wade was hired."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-submits-cell-phone-records-allegedly-showing-nathan/story?id=107488801
But due to her political party, she will not spend a day in jail. A prosecutor lying on the stand is just so problematic. If there were any justice, she would spend the rest of her life in prison.
You overlook two mitigating factors:
Black
Woman
I don’t think that’s going to help her much, Fulton county voters are predominantly black, why would they support someone self interested and incompetent when there are other qualified blacks who want the job. Those who want Trump persecuted will elect someone more competent, those that want more law and order and.don’t care about the politics will have a candidate too.
Don’t underestimate the tendency of people to turn upon their own when they screw up, especially publicly, and when they can replace them with one of their own.
See Andrew Cuomo as an example.
Or ReaderY’s comment below.
Google ReaderY's comment.
It is (D)ifferent, Kaz.
Your resentment toward your betters has made you a whining, paranoid, partisan loser.
The important mitigating factor:
Regime stalking horse.
Yeah, when you think Trump and his legal team have assuredly pulled something off, you are being as touchingly naive as when you believe Comer has the goods on Biden.
I think Willis has screwed the pooch big time, but let's just say that MAGA notions of whether something has been "proved" are rather selective.
Shoot her!
We’re not going to have arguments with these people. No, shoot her here, on my authority.
That fits with the "History and Tradition" standard in Georgia.
Here is the filing submitted on behalf of Donald Trump regarding the motion to disqualify Fani Willis. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24439581/trump_fultoncellphone.pdf
Why was this information not offered at the evidentiary hearing on February 15 and 16? Steve Sadow, counsel for Donald Trump, cross-examined Nathan Wade about what phone records would show, which indicates his awareness of this line of inquiry. He now belatedly seeks to offer an affidavit from defense investigator Charles Mittelstadt certifying the CellHawk analysis and reports which are purportedly attached to the affidavit.
There is no explanation as to why this information was not offered at the evidentiary hearing, where it could have been cross-examined. In the words of John Henry Wigmore, cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923).
Mr. Mittelstadt’s affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. The affiant is not the custodian of AT&T’s records, so the content thereof is both unauthenticated and hearsay within hearsay. Mr. Middlestadt admits in his affidavit that he is not cell phone tower engineer or expert.
This filing should be regarded at most as an offer to reopen proof in the evidentiary hearing. Judge McAfee has scheduled arguments for March 1. Perhaps the Court will inquire further then, but I will be surprised if he lets this information in the back door.
Did this "data analyst" offer $5 million to anyone who proves him wrong?
Grasping at straws still.
In your vast experience, if a judge becomes aware that an attorney or witness may have lied to the court, but didn’t find out they lied because there was no evidence of the lie presented at that hearing, does the judge just pass on it and let the lie stand?
Is the standard that Trump’s attorneys should have assumed Wade and Willis would lie in their testimony and then when Wade and Willis did lie and they should just let it go and move on? How was Trump’s and Roman’s team supposed to know Willis and Wade were going to lie and be prepared to rebut it. Is it just par for the course for attorneys to lie to the court and the Judge to just move on?
Learn something new everyday.
I would just assume a judge is like most people that when he thinks he’s been lied to, he will spend at least a modicum of effort to learn the truth if its significant at all.
An attorney lying to the court may result in professional disciplinary sanctions for the attorney. It could possibly constitute criminal contempt. Whether the attorney did or did not lie must be shown by admissible evidence. The accused attorney would be entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend against the allegation of lying.
Dismissal of a criminal indictment found by a grand jury is not an available sanction. Disqualification of the offending attorney presents a closer question, but it must be resolved on the basis of admissible evidence, including an opportunity for cross-examination of the accuser.
'but didn’t find out they lied because there was no evidence of the lie presented at that hearing,'
It is genuinely astonishing how often you lot go back to the 'evidence that has not been presented in court' well.
I'm not sure what your point is. If the evidence indicates that she perjured herself, McAfee is not going to say, "Well, you should have submitted this a week ago, so I'm not going to disqualify her now."
Steve Sadow's examination of both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis indicates he had some familiarity with this line of inquiry. He specifically asked Wade about phone records. He could have subpoenaed a custodian of records from AT&T and offered the records into evidence into the evidence at the hearing, rather than trying to get them in the back door after the hearing as hearsay within hearsay.
I'm not saying that Judge McAfee should not reopen the proof, so that live witnesses can be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination. I'm just observing that the timing here has a malodor about it.
The District Attorney's response to Trump's motion is here. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24439923/state-motion-to-exclude-cell-phone-records.pdf
Yes. To the whooping and hollering of GA defense lawyers, who are now going to throw the DA's words back at them when they try to use cell phone records to convict ordinary criminals based on proximity to crimes.
I just recieved my mail in primary ballot and I am casting it for Nikki Haley, but I can't think of a sentence more calculated to make me change my vote to Trump:
"No doubt some of these prosecutions were brought with the hope of knocking Trump off the ballot, or at least damaging his candidacy, and some resemble more of a political Hail Mary than an ordinary criminal prosecution, but Trump faces a serious risk of conviction in at least some of them."
What's Whittington trying to accomplish here?
What are any of these right-wing law professors trying to accomplish here? He seems little different from the others.
What if a meteor destroys the continent before the elections?
What then?
By comparison with the crimes of Biden, the crimes of Trump seem penny ante because Biden is almost certainly a perpetrator of the US federal capital crime of genocide.
Biden is not helped by Hur's report which tells us Biden's senile dementia is so severe that it probably precludes criminal prosecution.
"US federal capital crime of genocide."
Got a cite for that?
18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide
Because Biden was the lead Senate sponsor of § 1091, the importance of trial, conviction, and death sentence of Biden cannot be overstated.
Biden can become an example to a future president that considers the abuse of his office by the use of presidential powers to commit a US federal capital crime.
Biden's Death Day should become a day of celebration and of commitment to the Constitution.
Beware of late night knocks on your door.
Garland and Hur probably watched the Oakland ATS genocide hearing. They seem to have crafted an argument for prosecutorial discretion not to charge Biden with the capital crime of genocide when Biden leaves office.
Trump is mean and vindictive. If he is elected president, he is likely to order his AG to prosecute Biden and to seek the death penalty.
The text of 18 U.S.C. § 1091 is here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091
What facts support your claim that Joe Biden has committed this offense? Please be specific.
The ICJ has already issued a ruling that asserts SA's accusation of perpetration of genocide by the State of Israel is plausible on the basis of facts that were presented at the initial hearing and in SA's Application.
The international legal definition of genocide differs only insignificantly from the US federal definition of genocide while the US federal crime probably only requires express malice even if the international crime of genocide requires dolus specialis (a specific malicious strategy).
We already have the equivalent of a Magistrate's Report and Recommendation that found plausibility by the heightened standard of international law. South Africa made its application on Dec 29, 2023, and the initial hearing took place on January 11 and 12.
Zionism is an unabashed ideology of genocide. When Biden declares himself to be a Zionist, he legally admits depravity of mind. Biden visited Israel Oct 18, 2023 when there was already tremendous evidence of express malice and dolus specialis of the Israeli government.
Biden has lied about US law of hostage taking since the initial reports of al-Aqsa Flood. In US law hostage taking during war for the purpose of prisoner exchange is not a crime. See 8 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes. The US supported the Israel proposal of displacement of Palestinians until Egypt and Jordan absolutely rejected any assistance to Israeli plans of genocide. Biden repeated the 40 beheaded babies accusation, which is genocide incitement and which US intelligence told him was unsubstantiated. Biden has twice explicitly stated that the IDF carried out indiscriminate bombing. Wanton destruction with express malice or with dolus specialis of destruction of the physical Palestinian group is genocide. Over the weekend Biden met with Democratic donors that espouse genocide of Palestinians. Biden has provided circumstantial evidence that indicates he conspires in genocide in return for campaign contributions.
I’ll bite. What facts evince Joe Biden’s specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group? Which specific group? Where and when did he kill members of that group? Where and when did he cause serious bodily injury to members of that group? Where and when did he cause the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques? Where and when did he subject the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part? Where and when did he impose measures intended to prevent births within the group? Where and when did he transfers by force children of the group to another group? Whose death resulted from any of Joe Biden’s actions?
If your theory is that Biden conspired to commit genocide, who are his co-conspirators? What is the specific objective of the conspiracy? What facts evince Joe Biden's agreement to achieve the conspiratorial objective?
Please show your work.
Please read the statute.
18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide (c) Incitement Offense.
[Incitement is not an offense that includes the death penalty.]
18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide (d) Attempt and Conspiracy.
[Conspiracy is an offense that includes the death penalty.]
For the good of the nation and for the sake of the Constitution, Biden must be tried, convicted, and hanged.
Even someone, who hates and abominates Trump, cannot legitimately accuse Trump during his presidency either of genocide incitement or of genocide .
As I wrote, in comparison with the crimes of Biden, the crimes of Trump are penny ante.
Biden is the Hannibal Lecter of presidents.
Biden conspired with Netanyahu, with the State of Israel, and with a hyperwealthy Zionist oligarch like Haim Saban.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act pierces the sovereign immunity of the State of Israel.
I have read the statute, thank you very much. Where do you think I got my questions?
I asked you for facts which you contend support the various elements of the crime. Your ipse dixit assertions are not facts. Man up and admit you've got bupkis.
A Zionist invariably tries to nitpick to death. We at the investigation phase. SA has already provided evidence of plausibility of the accusation that alleges the State of Israel perpetrates genocide.
The US president cannot abuse his powers to aid and abet an ongoing genocide. The crimes of genocide incitement and of genocide conspiracy are more serious. Maybe a few FOIA requests would be helpful at this point, but they are probably not necessary.
Biden has already made a legal admission both of depravity of mind and also of explicit malice.
For Biden to commit the capital crime of genocide conspiracy, he does not have to participate in the planning in detail whether the conspiracy is a chain conspiracy or a wheel conspiracy.
Biden only needs to leave office so that he can be arrested, indicted, and arraigned. In comparison with convicted Nazi perpetrators of genocide, Biden’s criminality is far clearer especially in the US where only explicit malice seems to be required and not dolus specialis. Biden may not be subjection to conviction for perpetration of genocide, but conspiracy in genocide is enough to stretch Biden’s neck.
Even if the USAG fails to indict Biden as the USAG’s oath to the Constitution requires, Biden can always be nailed in a civil trial.
Hey I was hoping to vote for the Sweet Meteor of Death in the 2016 election but xe* was not on the ballot.
https://sweetmeteorofdeath.com/
*It seems most of the standard pronouns are not in the android spellchecker, what's up with that?
You keep voting for climate change. Slower, but still does the trick in the long run.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/23/farms-flooding-rainfall-winter-nfu-conference
Do you remember Maraxus?
Because I will never forget Maraxus. He wrote in defense of prosecuting Rick Perry.
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=161693&sid=bf1e964b2d36e629e063999b4953f65a
Back in 2014, this was an extremely fringe belief. There was no way Maraxus’s ideals could become mainstream.
Now it is clear that the Democratic Party adopted Maraxus’s ideals.
The Democratic Party is the party of Maraxus, now.
In the animated series Gargoyles, there is a character called Demona, whose schtick was vengeance against those who hurt her and her kind.
To deal with Maraxus, we must become the party of Demona!
If only in State prison, could not releasing the sitting President perhaps be considered insurrection or rebellion against the federal government by the State? Invocation of the Insurrection Act to have federal officers storm the prison, arresting the guards and releasing the president might be an option. I'm reminded of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, at one time he imprisoned King Edward IV at Warwick Castle and was later exiled for his rebellion.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
Now, if a federal judge ordered said president released, and state officials refused and used force to prevent federal marshals or secret service or the national guard from getting him, then that could be insurrection, yes.
David,
All the key terms in the insurrection act are essentially undefined in federal law. Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827) leaves it the President alone to determine when the provisions of the Act are violated when enforcing the terms of the Act so I’m not sure where another court decision is needed to invoke the Act in this hypothetical case. Or in a more general case perhaps in the future where a rogue State Prosecutor has a President arrested while visiting a State.
Even if we don’t believe it rises to the level of insurrection or rebellion against the federal government to keep in prison the chief executive officer, 10 USC 252(2) also allows the law to be invoked if the imprisonment, which could be considered a form of domestic violence against the person elected President, “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States”.