Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.
Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he’ll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it’s currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he’s elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president’s relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that’s a given. Anyone that’s flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.
People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they’re probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he’s a dumb, vindictive sonuvaremoved.
Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn’t the same as what I get from news sources. There’s a lot that I’ve seen that simply isn’t going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.
If I was a defendant in this case, I’d say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn’t be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I’d end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren’t great odds when you’re talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.
Let me refute the central claim of the article, e.g., that the evidence is so strong that co-conspirators might wish to take a plea and coopoerate.
Right now, Trump is leading the race for the GOP nomination. It is likely that he’ll be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee, it’s currently a coin toss on whether or not he gets elected. If he’s elected, all federal criminal cases against him will evaporate the second he takes office, because Garland is out, and the arms-length doctrine about the president’s relationship with the Justice Dept. is too. Jack Smith is going to be fired, and the person that comes in is going to file a motion to dismiss. IF Trump is elected, that’s a given. Anyone that’s flipped on Trump at this point is going to be hung out to dry.
People that are part of the RICO case in Georgia run similar risks, e.g., if they flip on Trump and he wins the presidency, they’re probably going to end up getting screwed for pissing off Trump, since he’s a dumb, vindictive sonuvaremoved.
Even if Trump loses the election, Jack Smith still has to present a strong enough case to convict. While that seems likely to me, what evidence a jury can hear and consider isn’t the same as what I get from news sources. There’s a lot that I’ve seen that simply isn’t going to be admissible, and that could be enough for a jury to find Trump et al. not guilty on most or all charges.
If I was a defendant in this case, I’d say that there was roughly a 50-50 chance of getting pardoned outright if I kept my mouth shut, and a 25% chance that Smith wouldn’t be able to prove his case. That works out to be a roughly 38% that if I kept my mouth shut, I’d end up in convicted and possibly in prison. Those aren’t great odds when you’re talking about a few years in federal prison. But weighed against 30% of the whole country viewing you as a traitor if you take the deal, and having a target on your back for the rest of your life? I might take that risk.