By law, ALL former presidents receive 24/7/365 Secret Service armed protection.
There is NO provision in law that eliminates or stays that protection if a former president is jailed and the current judge has no jurisdiction to change that.
I agree with others here that the likelihood of Trump being jailed is less than zero, but the logistics of SS protection, and a number of other special considerations, is amusing to ponder.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-30-2024).]
In this wonky farce, if convicted, he will get an immediate pardon so he can not appeal and showcase this farce.
You know, that is evil, but it may well be the truth.
However, the Constitution (as always) has the answer. His sentence is clearly spelled out in Article 2, section 1, clause 8.
To wit: "I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I don't know if he even gets convicted on this one. If so there is a good chance it is just a misdemeanor.
Even if he does it will not move the needle with the voters. Extramarital affairs don't matter to voters and everyone understands why he would try to hide it.
The Georgia and Florida cases are much different. Those have to do with actual governmental issues and much worse crimes.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-30-2024).]
By law, ALL former presidents receive 24/7/365 Secret Service armed protection.
There is NO provision in law that eliminates or stays that protection if a former president is jailed and the current judge has no jurisdiction to change that.
I agree with others here that the likelihood of Trump being jailed is less than zero, but the logistics of SS protection, and a number of other special considerations, is amusing to ponder.
SUCKS TO BE HIS ss GUY'S 8 HOURS IN THEN THEY GET TO GO HOME
"Boo-hoo. Its not fair. Only Republicans are allowed to chant about "locking up" their political opponents. When Democrats do it is evil and wrong and a threat to democracy.".
There is a very interesting portion within the article that compares the governing styles of the previous and the current administrations.
Let's take the little test
Which candidate is more likely to:
Deploy the criminal justice system to punish his enemies?
THE CANDIDATE WHO HAD CHANTS AT EVERY CAMPAIGN RALLY CALLING FOR THE IMPRISONMENT OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
Censor speech he does not like?
THE CANDIDATE WHO ADMITTED ON TAPE THAT HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF THE PANDEMIC IN ORDER TO HIDE THE TRUTH. THE CANDIDATE WHO WITHDREW FEDERAL FUNDING FROM PROGRAMS ON DIVERSITY AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY. THE CANDIDATE WHO ALTERED A WEATHER MAP WITH A MARKER TO HIDE THE TRUTH. THE CANDIDATE WHO PAYS PEOPLE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HIDE THE TRUTH. THE CANDIDATE WHO WANTS TO REMOVE PROTECTION UNDER 47 USC 230 (a) AND MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE REGULATOR OF CONTENT ON PRIVETLY OWNED SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES . Selectively decide which laws he wants to enforce?
THE CANDIDATE WHO DECIDED HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RE-WRITE ALL THE RULES ON HOW A PRESIDENT IS SELECTED. THE CANDIDATE WHO STOPPED ENFORCING A POLICY THAT PROHIBITED RELIGIOUS ORGANNIZATIONS FROM PROVIDING PUBLICALLY FUNDED SERVICES IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS. THE CANDIDATE WHO TELLS HIS SUPPORTERS THAT HE WILL PAY THEIR LEGAL FEES IF THEY COMMIT AN ASSAULT FOR HIM.
Use the powers of government to transform the everyday lives of Americans – whether or not they support his programs?
THE CANDIDATE WHO VOWED TO REPEAL THE POPULAR ACA (OBAMACARE)
Finally, whose supporters are more likely to engage in sustained and perhaps violent dissent if their man loses – not just for a day or a week, but for four years?
THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAS A HISTORY OF HIS FOLLOWERS ENGAGING IN VIOLENT DISSENT AFTER HE LOST AN ELECTION.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 05-31-2024).]
Just wait 'till you see the polls over the next few days.
I don't think they will change much at all. The people who already thought it was rigged won't change their minds. And a guilty verdict does not change the minds of the people who thought it was a fair trial.
When all of these people in right wing media claim "everyone" knows something, they really just mean the people on their side. To them a guilty verdict was evidence of corruption simply because it is impossible for Trump to do anything wrong. Trump has even bragged about what blind sheep his followers are. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters. It's like incredible!" But to the general public it takes more than a conviction of a proven con man to convince them the system is corrupt.
Robert De Niro won’t be receiving the Service to America Leadership Award from the NAB Leadership Foundation after all.
“While we strongly support the right of every American to exercise free speech and participate in civic engagement, it is clear that Mr. De Niro’s recent high-profile activities will create a distraction from the philanthropic work that we were hoping to recognize,” said NAB spokesman Alex Siciliano in a statement, confirming that the award has been rescinded.
“To maintain the focus on service of the award winners, Mr. De Niro will no longer be attending the event.”
I have heard reports of impromptu "Trump Flash Mobs" gathering in several cities tonight including Scottsdale, AZ.
I can't confirm this.
mobs are a sign of who the supporters are
like the rump lawless gangs trying to get over on others like the criminal 1-6 mob now mostly jailed the deplorable core of the support for the rump
btw the more the fool claims the courts are fixed/rigged against him the long the sentence he is actively earning for himself judges for good reasons hate that kind of BS and he will pay for it
HE WOULD NOT BE THE RUMP IF HE DID NOT DO STUPID CHIT
LAW- FAIR is more like it cheat and get caught and even the rich can be jailed
Do you even know what crime was committed? Jury instructions said the jurors could decide different crimes were committed but so long as all twelve of them thought any crime happened then the judge would count it as unanimous. Is that how justice is supposed to work? Throw everything at the wall and let each juror pick and choose one to get an conviction.
UNDERLYING CRIME DODGING TAXES [STATE] BY CLAIMING A BRIBE WAS A REAL EXPENSE FEDERAL TAXES ALSO BUT THAT IS AN OTHER TRIAL ON AN OTHER DAY
became a felony when done to influence an election JOE COULD be behind a fedtax trial but none has been filed ny state has zip to do with by or for joe you do get how this works ?
I guess not
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-01-2024).]
UNDERLYING CRIME DODGING TAXES [STATE] BY CLAIMING A BRIBE WAS A REAL EXPENSE FEDERAL TAXES ALSO BUT THAT IS AN OTHER TRIAL ON AN OTHER DAY
became a felony when done to influence an election JOE COULD be behind a fedtax trial but none has been filed ny state has zip to do with by or for joe you do get how this works ?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/robert-de-niro-5c31182a63f0490e83f90d7a992e56cb.jpg)
