That still makes no sense. Sentencing is sentencing, and the Georgia charges, if he’s convicted, come with a 5 year minimum prison sentence. The judge can’t factor the how into the how long. Nor should she; it is an entirely separate problem for a different day and different department.
16 Likes
i read somewhere that there’s the possibility a federal court might pick up the case, which apparently is a thing they can do
that also might change how sentencing works, and the whole process. although i don’t really understand the mechanics of it at all
5 Likes
Given the mandatory prison sentence for the case in Georgia, it would be less about the trial judge (whose hands are tied in that respect), and more about appeals judges and the judges in the other cases - I could absolutely see someone ruling (i.e. overturning the conviction or in sentencing) not based on the merits of the case against Trump, but because they thought he couldn’t be (safely) sent to prison. I.e. the sort of thing that happens with police officers on trial all the time.
3 Likes
Could you kindly put a Tile or AirTag on these goalposts? I don’t want to lose track of them as they move around.
9 Likes
Since I’m obviously not being clear, my point was just this: there’s a tendency to not want to prosecute/jail Trump because of various issues, including those created around the possibility of incarcerating him. It’s unprecedented, there’s no agreed upon place to put him. He obviously can’t get put in a county jail, in state prison, nor even a normal federal prison. We all know that. That being the case, it specifically also creates issues for the judges involved (in all the cases) because they can’t wave their gavel and have an appropriate place to put Trump magically appear. (And the idea that the existing prison system isn’t the appropriate place to put figures of authority has driven all sorts of judicial decisions for figures of very little authority, comparatively.)
I’m not claiming these are insurmountable problems. Of course they’re not. But they are issues that contribute to the general unease around holding a president accountable. (Hell, just the perception, true or not, that there are issues around incarcerating Trump adds to this unease.)
1 Like
By whom? Because it seems to only be a problem imagined by the media and being propagated by some members of the public, not the actual prosecutors and judges handling these cases.
And even if it was, it is not the justice system’s problem: it’s T****’s. He’s the one who crimed - if how his potential incarceration is handled isn’t to his satisfaction, that’s on him.
That still sounds like a him problem, not the judges problem.
11 Likes
We don’t know that. Who gives a shit that he’s a former president. Who gives a shit that he’s rich and powerful. He tried to turn our country into a dictatorship. Maybe we need to stop clutching our pearls about how this is gonna work out, and just let it happen and let the people who make these decisions on a daily basis figure this shit. We really don’t spend so much time and effort thinking about the teenager down the street who gets throw into jail for some pot, so why should we worry so much about this asshole who just happens to be the former president. I’m much more concerned with the how jails treat regular defendants as opposed to how this jackass is going to get treated. Seriously… He can fuck right off…
24 Likes
Yesterday — after Trump posted on his social media website that authorities were going “after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!” — Advance Democracy noted that Trump supporters were “using the term ‘rigger’ in lieu of a racial slur” in posts online.
7 Likes
Found this bit of info a little earlier:
8 Likes
I dunno, all he probably needs is a suave lackey feeding him shit like, “this is going to be great for your ratings; your base will buy all of it!”
7 Likes
We put Manuel fucking Noriega in jail, we can put 45 in jail. This isn’t rocket surgery. Worst case, for his alleged safety, send him to Supermax in Colorado.
I’d like to think we’re Americans not Americants. 
15 Likes
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m just talking about issues caused by the Secret Service having a legal requirement to protect him (and the federal government being obliged to allow them), something that most regular prisons aren’t set up to accommodate. Like I said, it’s not exactly an insurmountable problem, it’s just something that creates a wrinkle in the proceedings that give some people - wrongly, I think - pause about prosecuting/jailing him.
To be absolutely clear: DONNIE NEEDS TO BE IN PRISON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE OR WE WON’T HAVE A FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY. And I mean a real prison of some sort, not “house arrest.” (A regular prison would be funny, but a “VIP inmate” prison where he would hardly be able to talk to anyone, much less “hold court” is better.)
4 Likes
It’s really not a problem, but something can be worked out… but let’s focus on what’s in front of us, maybe?
14 Likes
um why not
he’s not currently a public official of any kind
there are lots of famous people in jail
16 Likes
9 Likes
Who thought it was a good idea to record this? Why? I believe it’s true; I don’t understand the thinking.
12 Likes
Yeah. The only problem is that people see it as a problem. Everything I was reading, all the lawyers and prosecutors and legal commentators (before the Georgia announcement, anyways) were saying, “He won’t go to jail, of course.” And my response was always - why the fuck not?
Because having the Secret Service also in jail, trying to protect him, is too much like the plot of a bad sitcom. Which is a very good argument why it should happen.
5 Likes
It looks like 18 U.S. Code § 3056 seems to authorize the Secret Service to protect ex-Presidents, but doesn’t appear to require it.
There was an article in the Washington Post about this where they said the Secret Service would probably insist upon doing so anyway though, but presented a number of options from handing off security to a detail in the Bureau of Prisons to getting the Bureau of Prisons to enforce a sentence at his home (build a cell at Mar-a-Lago?)
They’ll work something out.
Annoyingly, he’ll still get his pension and possibly all his other perks for life though and I don’t think those can be taken away because of the prohibition on ex post facto laws.
9 Likes
You’re seeing a reflection of bad media coverage. The need to create content all the time, to drive engagement, to create issues out of even mundane things. Mix in misdirection talking points created specifically to distract and this is what you get. You’ve got news stories talking about if it’s possible to put him in prison instead of talking about the actual merits of the case. This is classic misdirection designed to create attention on the wrong thing and ignore the actual issue.
Much of the media falls for it, since it can drive engagement. They’re not in it to tell the news. Don’t let them pull you in and loose sight of the actual issues instead.
Somewhere a producer in a news room is deciding if they should cover the legal details of the case. Get into the laws and specific charges, what the laws mean, and the nuance around how the charges are filed. It sounds like trying to sell a boring law class to the public. In walks a GOP talking point that it was all just talk and he’s having his first amendment infringed, that this is about stifling political speech, and that anyway there’s no way to put him in prison, think of all the logistic problems. People like sensational stories and can picture a prison movie and how it would look with a president in them.
Don’t let them pull you in to focus on the wrong thing. It’s not an issue and doesn’t impact anything.
17 Likes
