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

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Not really.

Are you suggesting that a guilty verdict wouldn’t effect the result of the election?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It should when they’re guilty, great mind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Sorry I’m struggling to understand your meaning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That figures.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 470K

    Comments