769
Jack Smith Asks Court To Jail Trump If He Keeps Yapping About Witnesses
(www.huffpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
769 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2598 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My theroy on why judges are reticent to place him in jail for these violations simply comes down to not having a protocol for how the secret service would interact with prison staff.
Which isn't just or fair, it is however comprehensible. I'm sure this was brought up in a meeting and then laughed off for being far fetched.
But... lol...
Do it anyways. Get a special spot in history for instruction on how to detain former presidents.
MCC Manhattan is closed for upgrades, but MDC Brooklyn is equipped to handle high profile inmates. They can absolutely sort this is out. It's not that difficult of a problem.
Though it is a bit sad there's no chance they could jail him in the same cell his buddy Epstein spent his last nights. I'm sure that would give him lots of constructive things to think about.
I'd say just stick him in a solitary housing prison like pelican bay in California
It's too bad: There used to be a great submarine that he could've been held in.
But the article is about the federal case in DC, so if he were jailed, presumably it would be there, not NYC.
Nah. It's not a process thing. They don't have the balls unless people are relatively poor and defenseless.
This is influenced heavily by the expected pushback and political reasons, not some procedural thing that could be worked out pretty quickly.
The reason judges aren't putting Trump immediately in jail for violating a gag order is that they don't usually put other people immediately in jail for violating gag orders. They usually fine other people several thousand dollars for the first violation, with an even bigger fine for the second violation.
I know we all want to see Trump in jail, but it doesn't take a special theory to understand why he isn't there yet.
And if there are enough violations to finally provoke a judge into jailing Trump, that judge will give zero fracks about a "protocol for secret service interaction", because judges don't run jails. That will be the jail administrator's problem.
I agree with your points, but Trump's violations endanger people's lives in a way no one else has. He bad mouths them and he has 100,000 crazies ready to harm those people and their families, and millions of others who would support the action. It can't and shouldn't simply be treated like everyone else. That flies in the face of equal treatment under the law, but only because there's no one else in the U.S. who has been in a similar situation.
You may be right. But if the judge said he "shouldn't simply be treated like everyone else" then that would basically guarantee that his rulings would be overturned on appeal. Our SCOTUS is waiting for the judge to slip up like that.
In our legal system, the only way to hold Trump accountable is to treat him like everyone else. That's why everyone is playing it by the books.
@ZoopZeZoop is right, but also a little bit wrong. Trump’s violations endanger people’s lives in a way few others have, but there is precedent.
Specifically, they need to be treating Trump like the mafia boss that he is.
They should fine him a percentage of his (claimed) net worth.
That would be amusing, but it's not how US judges usually impose fines so they aren't going to start doing it now.
One argument against using net worth is that someone could claim a very low net worth and escape a heavy fine. After all, calculating net worth is not straightforward (note that the previously claimed net worth is not necessarily the current net worth). Of course, the judge could open an investigation into the actual net worth in order to determine the fine. But that would take time and now the original trial would be delayed - which is what Trump wants. Not only that, but (unlike a standardized fine) a determination of net worth would open multiple avenues to appeal, meaning further delay. So in most cases the process would likely be more trouble than it's worth.
Chances are that if he’s jailed he would be segregated from all other inmates. Segregating him would also make it far easier to allow the Secret service limited access for their needs.
Why would the Secret Service need to do anything if he's in a supermax with 23h isolation (for his own safety, of course)?
People also seem to forget that the secret service protection is granted by Congress as a privilege. It's not a right.
Congress can (theoretically...) amend any laws governing protection to not extend to those imprisoned.
I'd also wager that the secret service can assess what protection looks like. If they feel they can meet their obligations leveraging existing prison protocols, seems to be solvable (select only specific guards, certain cell blocks, etc).
I don't think this is the logistical nightmare people make it out to be.
Yeah it seems like a pretty easy gig: make sure no one hurts this guy who's in an 8 by 8 cell by himself.
Isn't that how Epstein died?
Would you complain?