“Given the importance of the trial schedule, the key practical question is whether the court focuses solely on Trump’s case or endorses immunity in other instances. Smith’s gambit is a fallback that would let the court order the trial to proceed even if its opinion extends to broader principles of immunity.”
Again, what if they hadn’t crossed all of their t’s and dotted all of their i’s for that one charge? Look at all of the stunts he has pulled so far. There’s a lot that goes into making charges stick. This is how the justice system works for big cases, not just for Trump. You’re right about him being free all this time, though. That was an injustice against the American people. If most people did what he did, we would have been waiting in jail. That’s where his money and influence really aided him. Although, putting him in jail may have caused his supporters to try again, and in far greater numbers, to bring down democracy. That’ll probably happen anyway, but him being free has delayed that inevitability.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting we have to like how it has unfolded. I am suggesting that if it had happened some other way, it had a good chance of failing or leading to the fracturing of our democracy.
Many changes need to be made to prevent this from happening again. He’s a buffoon and his tactics are obvious to everyone except his biggest supporters. It’s almost better that he has done this and exposed many of the flaws in the system, because a competent person would have been successful and wrested power during the last presidential election and there wouldn’t be another this year.
I wouldn’t even go that far. He’s innocent until proven guilty, just like anyone else. Bail exists for a good reason, as it has for centuries. You pay a deposit that makes it worth your while to come back for trial, and you stay out of jail in the meantime. Do that, and you get your money back. If you don’t, that money is forfeit.
What we’re seeing is how it should work for anyone accused of (but not yet found guilty of) a crime. If there are people unable to afford it or whatever, that should be addressed - it is in our constitution, after all.
Then when he’s convicted, lock him up like anyone else.
Bail is allowed for folks who are not likely to reoffend/commit other crimes while they wait for trial. I would say he is likely to reoffend/commit other crimes. So, bail should not have been offered. If you or I did what he did, we’d be in jail.
As an aside, paying for it just means rich people have it easier than poor people. So, again, if he were like us, he’d probably still be in jail.
If you search “factors in setting bail” you’ll see 5 or so recurring things, and that is not one of them. Closest thing would be danger to community, but we’re generally talking murder and such.
Even then, he’s no longer president; he’s probably not taking any more documents from the White House. The election is a way off (and was further away when he first left the White House, as this conversation started with) so he can only do so much to be fraudulent with the results. There is a campaign going now. Could he be using those funds to pay off a porn star? I suppose, and so might a judge, but they need a lot more than the prosecution saying “I would say yes, your honor” (but again, it’s all a moot point when reoffending is not really a factor)