What if?

[daytripper]

While I absolutely do not see it happening, what if a president/ex president is sentenced to jail time? Does the secret service go with him?

[easyrider16]

I am not all that sure about this potential indictment relating to the Stormy Daniels payment. It seems like a slap-on-the-wrist type of offense at best, and it also seems likely to result in an acquittal. Of course I haven't seen what they presented to the grand jury, and maybe there's more there than we've seen in the news. But if this is really about Trump not filing the proper paperwork, I don't think that's going to be worth the massive effort, expense, and political trouble of indicting a former president and future candidate.

I think Trump's stealing classified documents is also a little underwhelming, but the evidence is pretty straightforward and pretty damning - especially considering the government asked for the docs and he lied about keeping them. But I guess that case is probably complicated by finding classified docs in Biden's old offices, which is going to make that kind of prosecution look a little bit like a double standard.

But if they're going to go after him, they should go after him for the big thing that he did wrong - trying to overturn the election by illegal means. I think they probably have a solid case that he tried to overturn the GA elections, especially with all the new phone calls. I still think they should go after him for the Jan 6 / fake electors plot, too. The integrity of our elections is way more important than making sure billionaires properly disclose hush money payments or a public official trying to hold on to documents that don't belong to him.

Sheesh... three potential criminal indictments for this guy. What a terrible, corrupt President he was.

[daytripper]

Ok, but you totally ignored my question, theoretically speaking, what would happen? Presidents get SS protection for life, how would that work if the president was incarcerated?

[easyrider16]

The president's secret service protection is a function of the executive branch. So the answer is, whoever is President gets to make that call. If it's an ex-president who's not in office, my guess would be the sitting president would have the secret service work in conjunction with the facility in question to take adequate security measures. It's still a security risk to have even an ex-president be subject to potential criminal intimidation or pressure.

If the current sitting President were incarcerated, and he didn't resign or wasn't removed from office, I think we'd have a Constitutional crisis on our hands. I have to think though that even Republicans would cave and vote to impeach (or force him to resign) if a sitting president were convicted and sentenced to jail time, but who knows at this stage.

Thinking about this a bit, I suppose the executive branch could invoke the 25th amendment, as I don't see how a sitting president could execute the duties of the office from prison. So I guess that would be an option.

[Stormchaser]

In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted...

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees...

[easyrider16]

The next AG could easily repudiate those memos, and probably wouldn't even need the President's authorization since they aren't executive orders, but memos from past DOJ officials.

As to the substance of the memos themselves, I think they are horse sh!t. There is nothing that grants the President such immunity in the Constitution. No one is above the law, not even the President. SCOTUS has ruled such many times, forcing sitting presidents to appear for deposition in civil lawsuits, among other things. You think SCOTUS would be cool with the President ignoring an indictment in a criminal case, when they aren't cool with him ignoring a civil suit?

[Stormchaser]

Could... But 50 years of precedence suggests otherwise. Mueller wouldn't go there. I don't expect we'd ever see a sitting President thrown in jail (impeached, removed, and then jailed, maybe). As to a former President being jailed, I assume they'd just be confined and have SS acting as duty guards.

As to Presidents being immune to prosecution, they shouldn't be. Based on current policy, why can't they just be charged after they leave office?

[Bubba]

I am not all that sure about this potential indictment relating to the Stormy Daniels payment. It seems like a slap-on-the-wrist type of offense at best, and it also seems likely to result in an acquittal. Of course I haven't seen what they presented to the grand jury, and maybe there's more there than we've seen in the news. But if this is really about Trump not filing the proper paperwork, I don't think that's going to be worth the massive effort, expense, and political trouble of indicting a former president and future candidate.

I think Trump's stealing classified documents is also a little underwhelming, but the evidence is pretty straightforward and pretty damning - especially considering the government asked for the docs and he lied about keeping them. But I guess that case is probably complicated by finding classified docs in Biden's old offices, which is going to make that kind of prosecution look a little bit like a double standard.

But if they're going to go after him, they should go after him for the big thing that he did wrong - trying to overturn the election by illegal means. I think they probably have a solid case that he tried to overturn the GA elections, especially with all the new phone calls. I still think they should go after him for the Jan 6 / fake electors plot, too. The integrity of our elections is way more important than making sure billionaires properly disclose hush money payments or a public official trying to hold on to documents that don't belong to him.

Sheesh... three potential criminal indictments for this guy. What a terrible, corrupt President he was.

I too hope the NY prosecutors leave the Stormy Daniels thing alone. It seems so minor relative to other potential offenses and could generate sympathy for Trump where none is warranted otherwise. Unless there's a whole lot more we don't know, it seems absurd to charge. Frankly, I think Trump may have gotten wind of there being no charges and said otherwise just to gin up support and a supposed "win" by saying he "scared" prosecutors into not charging. His supporters would love that and it would lay the groundwork for more demonstrations should he be charged in other cases.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Unless there's a whole lot more we don't know, it seems absurd to charge.

Must be more than we know ... why is Costello testifying today when he had nothing to do with the initial hush money payment/reimbursement?

[easyrider16]

The thing is, they convened a grand jury, and it's the grand jury that issues the indictment. As a prosecutor in NY, you generally don't convene a grand jury unless you plan to bring charges. Add to that the conventional wisdom that as a prosecutor, getting a grand jury to issue an indictment is relatively easy - you're the only one presenting evidence, you have no opposition, and the standard is low (probable cause). If a prosecutor can't get a grand jury to indict after going through all the time and effort of convening a grand jury, it's kind of an embarrassment, not to mention a waste of resources. If the grand jury does indict, the prosecutor can't just unilaterally decide not to proceed - he has to make a motion to the court and get the judge to dismiss the case.

All that to say, I think there will be an indictment, and I hope there's more to it than an improperly-reported hush money payment.

[easyrider16]

Could... But 50 years of precedence suggests otherwise. Mueller wouldn't go there. I don't expect we'd ever see a sitting President thrown in jail (impeached, removed, and then jailed, maybe). As to a former President being jailed, I assume they'd just be confined and have SS acting as duty guards.

As to Presidents being immune to prosecution, they shouldn't be. Based on current policy, why can't they just be charged after they leave office?

A President could be indicted, tried, and sentenced by a state government. That takes the DOJ out of the loop and the memos become irrelevant. As to waiting to charge a president until he leaves office, why would we do that for a President when we don't do it for any other citizen? He's not above the law, and there's a VP waiting right there to take over for him.

I actually think the problem is practical, not theoretical. Since the DOJ falls under the President's authority, he can try to tamper with the investigation (as Trump did numerous times by replacing personnel). Thus as a practical matter, it's not likely a DOJ official would ever try to indict a sitting president, because the President could just fire that official. I think that's what those memos are really about - they are self-serving statements by administrations that were under suspicion.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Smerconish making a ton of sense this morning and lays out why Bragg's case is a weak one ...

https://twitter.com/smerconish/status/1 ... 19201?s=20

[asher2789]

I am not all that sure about this potential indictment relating to the Stormy Daniels payment. It seems like a slap-on-the-wrist type of offense at best, and it also seems likely to result in an acquittal. Of course I haven't seen what they presented to the grand jury, and maybe there's more there than we've seen in the news. But if this is really about Trump not filing the proper paperwork, I don't think that's going to be worth the massive effort, expense, and political trouble of indicting a former president and future candidate.

I think Trump's stealing classified documents is also a little underwhelming, but the evidence is pretty straightforward and pretty damning - especially considering the government asked for the docs and he lied about keeping them. But I guess that case is probably complicated by finding classified docs in Biden's old offices, which is going to make that kind of prosecution look a little bit like a double standard.

But if they're going to go after him, they should go after him for the big thing that he did wrong - trying to overturn the election by illegal means. I think they probably have a solid case that he tried to overturn the GA elections, especially with all the new phone calls. I still think they should go after him for the Jan 6 / fake electors plot, too. The integrity of our elections is way more important than making sure billionaires properly disclose hush money payments or a public official trying to hold on to documents that don't belong to him.

Sheesh... three potential criminal indictments for this guy. What a terrible, corrupt President he was.

I too hope the NY prosecutors leave the Stormy Daniels thing alone. It seems so minor relative to other potential offenses and could generate sympathy for Trump where none is warranted otherwise. Unless there's a whole lot more we don't know, it seems absurd to charge. Frankly, I think Trump may have gotten wind of there being no charges and said otherwise just to gin up support and a supposed "win" by saying he "scared" prosecutors into not charging. His supporters would love that and it would lay the groundwork for more demonstrations should he be charged in other cases.

i think youre onto something, and also, yikes. his supposed arrest that was planned for today he came up with on his own. hes trolling.

[easyrider16]

As far as I know, the grand jury is still reconvening and considering evidence, so no decision has been made yet. Trump's line about being arrested Tue is probably something his lawyer suggested *might* happen, which he probably exaggerated in typical Trump fashion into something much bigger and more definitive.

I think Trump wants to make this a spectacle to rile up his base of support. Not sure that's a great move, but might be the only move he has. It's not going to win him points with the overwhelming majority of Americans, only the handful of nuts that are his hard core base.

Trump has told associates that he “wants to be handcuffed” when he’s arraigned in court after being indicted, the Guardian reports based on anonymous sources, noting the ex-president’s “increasing insistence that he wants to be handcuffed behind his back for a perp walk.”

The Times, also citing anonymous sources, reports Trump “welcomes the idea” of being led past the media and has considered whether he should “smile” for the cameras, noting he’s described the media circus as “a fun experience.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA18WgH9

[Mister Moose]

As far as I know, the grand jury is still reconvening and considering evidence, so no decision has been made yet. Trump's line about being arrested Tue is probably something his lawyer suggested *might* happen, which he probably exaggerated in typical Trump fashion into something much bigger and more definitive.

I think Trump wants to make this a spectacle to rile up his base of support. Not sure that's a great move, but might be the only move he has. It's not going to win him points with the overwhelming majority of Americans, only the handful of nuts that are his hard core base.

Trump has told associates that he “wants to be handcuffed” when he’s arraigned in court after being indicted, the Guardian reports based on anonymous sources, noting the ex-president’s “increasing insistence that he wants to be handcuffed behind his back for a perp walk.”

The Times, also citing anonymous sources, reports Trump “welcomes the idea” of being led past the media and has considered whether he should “smile” for the cameras, noting he’s described the media circus as “a fun experience.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA18WgH9

From your article:

Neither the Guardian nor the Times’ sources were certain how serious Trump’s comments are and whether they’re just “bravado,” with the Guardian noting his advisors are “unsure whether [Trump] actually grasps the enormity of what an indictment might mean for him legally.”

Not even the publisher wants to own this story. Wake me when you have something better than gossip about a case going nowhere. This says more about the New York Times than it does about Trump.