David’s thoughts re the Mar-Lago are wrong procedure-wise. tl;dr: Trump will run the clock every way possible ie appeal everything up to and to including SCOTGOP. That, BTW, applies to all the cases. So the odds of any resulting in final determinations before 20 Jan 2025 — after that, if elected, Trump pardons himself — is ~0.
Then there’s a risk trying any of these cases: Any one acquittal is extremely beneficial to Trump, possibly the crucial factor in getting elected. In case of an acquittal, there is no good for the Dems, just an enormous disaster.
Better, to paraphrase Tricky Dick Nixon, is to “let him twist slowly in the wind” with all these cases hanging over him through the election. The presumption of innocence would be inoperative given the factual record. Having all trials delayed til after the election likely would have huge benefits for the Dems, at best, mixed for Trump: the story doesn’t die. Meanwhile, Republican politicians will be forced to defend Trump — if lucky, in a few cases, the Dem candidate will push their GOP opponent to address how Trump isn’t a national security risk. Of any, the NY case is the only one worth bringing since an acquittal there would bring of minimal benefit as that case involves a fairly minor state law. But we’re to be an acquittal in any of Smith’s cases… [shiver]
David’s thoughts re the Mar-Lago are wrong procedure-wise. tl;dr: Trump will run the clock every way possible ie appeal everything up to and to including SCOTGOP. That, BTW, applies to all the cases. So the odds of any resulting in final determinations before 20 Jan 2025 — after that, if elected, Trump pardons himself — is ~0.
Then there’s a risk trying any of these cases: Any one acquittal is extremely beneficial to Trump, possibly the crucial factor in getting elected. In case of an acquittal, there is no good for the Dems, just an enormous disaster.
Better, to paraphrase Tricky Dick Nixon, is to “let him twist slowly in the wind” with all these cases hanging over him through the election. The presumption of innocence would be inoperative given the factual record. Having all trials delayed til after the election likely would have huge benefits for the Dems, at best, mixed for Trump: the story doesn’t die. Meanwhile, Republican politicians will be forced to defend Trump — if lucky, in a few cases, the Dem candidate will push their GOP opponent to address how Trump isn’t a national security risk. Of any, the NY case is the only one worth bringing since an acquittal there would bring of minimal benefit as that case involves a fairly minor state law. But we’re to be an acquittal in any of Smith’s cases… [shiver]
Thank you David for an entertaining MM. 2 more
indictments definitely being
loaded up. I frankly don't care
which one, or all of them, land the orange slime and
his game players in lockup.
Democracy MUST be preserved! We, the people,
have a choice.
Uhh… you want the cases to appear to be the witch-hunt Donnie rants and spews about? You seem to be looking for having the cases rigged.
If there are any trials before the election, they have to be as perfect as possible and perceived as fair.
Oh, I agree. I'm merely saying, I
don't have a preference if 1 or
all of the indictments and eventual trials send Trump to
prison. Of course, the sooner the better.
""Alabama On Collision Course With SCOTUS""
It sounds like they have already collided.
As in Andrew Jackson's defiant response:
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."