Why can't a president convicted of felonies can be incarcerated?

Actually they are patently idiotic. Bragg's cases rests on an interpretation of election law that is not only novel it is legally quackery. And trying to insist that calling a payment to a lawyer for services rendered what ever those services are as long as the service itself is legal and NDA's are, a legal fee is fraudulent.

 

That charge sir was not listing Trump's payments as income on his taxes. That in no way can be construed as Trump's fault.

 

both are true, we believe Trump is not good for the country

 

Cohen plead guilty to an excessive campaign contribution. How could that be a crime that Trump committed?

 

When Orange is in prison , do you think Cohen will visit to laugh at him ?

 

Better yet how can it be a contribution if Trump paid him back?

 

Well if Trump is murdered in prison, show me I'm wrong.

 

The short answer is they're entitled to secret service protection so they have to be on house arrest if that's the case. They don't go to prison that's not how that works.

 

If the bull frog had wings. Sorry you hypo will never happen.

 

You have your facts crooked. Cohen was not convicted of the Stormy Daniels "crime." He pleaded guilty hoping for some relief from his other real crime prosecutions. The SDNY petitioned the court to apply one sentence for all crimes put together. The court agreed. This was because of they thought that the judge would not give Cohen any prison time for the Daniels "crime", and he would not have because no crime existed.

 

Sounds good to me. I cant think of a better metaphor for the current state of our nation's govt being captured by corrupt criminals than to have the POTUS serve from prison.

So does his SS detail get keys to his cell?

Would you have him address congress or the UN in a jumpsuit and chains, or a business suit?

What happens when he appoints a new director of the DOJ and orders himself released?

I actually would enjoy finding out

 

Uh, no, that's not quite right.

First, it is not accurate to say that there was no crime associated with the Stormy Daniels payment. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including those related to campaign finance violations, which stemmed from payments made to silence Stormy Daniels and another woman prior to the 2016 presidential election. These payments were deemed illegal contributions to a federal campaign because they were made to influence the election outcome.

Regarding the claim that Cohen pleaded guilty in hopes of receiving relief from other crimes, it's important to understand that while Cohen did plead guilty to several crimes including tax evasion, making false statements to a bank, and campaign finance violations, these were all part of a broader pattern of illegal activity that Cohen admitted to in court. The plea was not a strategy to avoid punishment for other crimes, but rather an acknowledgment of his illegal actions across several areas noting that most guilty pleas are an attempt to get a lighter sentence, overall, not just admitting to one for a lighter sentence on others, as you are claiming. There is no way anyone can plead 'guilty' to a non crime, so your premise is absurd.

The SDNY did handle the sentencing, where the court decided to give Cohen a three-year prison sentence, which was to be served concurrently with a sentence for lying to Congress, which was part of a separate charge brought by the Special Counsel’s Office. This sentencing approach is typical in cases where a defendant faces multiple charges to ensure the punishment is proportionate to the overall criminal conduct.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-sentenced-3-years-prison

https://www.courthousenews.com/sentencing-imminent-for-ex-trump-attorney-michael-cohen/

 

In the scenario you described, where a president might attempt to appoint a new "Director of the DOJ" (you meant AG) to order their own release from incarceration, there are several constitutional and legal constraints that would prevent this from being straightforward or viable.

First, the appointment of an AG requires confirmation by the Senate. This process includes hearings and a vote, during which the nominee's qualifications and intentions are scrutinized. If the Senate believes the nomination is being made for improper purposes, such as personal benefit to the president, they could choose to reject the nominee.

Second, even if the President were to successfully appoint a new Attorney General that is a loyal sycophant, the idea that this Attorney General could then order the President's release from incarceration overlooks several layers of legal procedure and judicial oversight. The President's criminal charges would have been adjudicated by the judiciary, not the DOJ. The DOJ cannot override a judicial sentencing decision; such actions would likely be challenged immediately in court and deemed unconstitutional.

Now, I was thinking of the of the idea for the Speaker of the House having standing to sue to force the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment (who, I would imagine, is a timid sycophant given what we now know about Trump and who he would appoint), but, after some thought, no, this is also not straightforward. The 25th Amendment is invoked at the discretion of the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments, or by another body as Congress might by law provide. So it looks like there is no legal mechanism currently in place that allows any individual to sue to force this invocation. Standing to sue in federal court requires that an individual or entity has suffered a concrete and particularized injury, which would be difficult to establish in this context purely on institutional grounds. Maybe congress could force the VP to invoke, I don't know.

In general, if a president were to be incarcerated, the more likely and constitutionally appropriate responses would be for the Vice President and the Cabinet to consider whether the President is capable of fulfilling his duties, potentially leading to the invocation of the 25th Amendment. Alternatively, Congress could consider impeachment proceedings if they believe the President has committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

But, all this assumes Trump appointed someone to VP who isn't a total timid sycophant, and who would act in good faith, which is highly unlikely. So, it would be up to congress, the senate, and the public and media at large to put a ton of pressure on the VP to invoke the 25th amendment, which would be his duty, and, if he refuses, then he could be impeached and the Speaker of the house would take over. "I think". Sheesh, it's complicated.

It would be one helluva constitutional mess, that's for sure. But, I think we need to go through this, to force congress to make legislative solutions in case it ever happens again.

 

There are higher standards for a President, or former President.

It's said that the highest officials in the land are still under the law, just like everyone else, equal application of the law. But that's not really true, nor should it be true.

To be sure, a President or former President surely could be convicted and imprisoned for some crimes. But that is only if they are serious enough and obviously indisputably wrong. And even then, some exception might be made.

 

Weeeeellll, when much of that suffering can be attributed to the one man because of his lies, thefts, evil....Get rid of him and both sides will see a resurgence in sanity.

 

What on Earth are you talking about? In the performance of their duties they are given a great deal of leeway but not to commit personal crimes. I'll always remember a visit to DC and I was stopped at a 4 way stop sign. I waited my turn and as I went through there was Bush Sr. in his limo waiting his turn just like everyone else.

As to the second part, yes, trials will determine if his crimes warrant jail time. This first one probably not but the next three yes.

 

Uh, no, that's not quite right. Cohen pleaded guilty to a campaign related non crime in hopes of getting leniency for the other actual crimes he would go to trial over. He thought it might help because the SDNY was still frothing at the mouth to get at Trump even though they had not found any criminal activity in the Stormy Davis/campaign financing arrangement..

The normal procedure if a defendant is found guilty of multiple crimes is sentences are handed out for each crime, although it is not uncommon for some or all of the sentences be served concurrently. The SDNY knew that Cohen would not receive a sentence for the Stormy guilty plea because judges are fraught to sentence anyone to prison for a non crime even though they, as they can, pleaded guilty. The SDNY did not like those optics in the least so they petitioned the court to make one sentence to cover all crimes, which courts often agree to.

It was after the trial and sentencing of Cohen that the SDNY informed the judge they were no longer pursuing any criminal activity in the Stormy case.

 

OMG, are you kidding? Didn't I point this out to you the logical inconsistency of that claim?

Once again, wrong:

The argument you've presented suggests that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to what you describe as a "campaign-related non-crime" primarily to obtain leniency for other, more serious charges he was facing. You believe that this was part of a strategy, motivated by the SDNY's keen interest in pursuing actions against former Trump, despite not finding any criminality in the case involving Stormy Daniels and campaign finance.

I find it amusing the absurdity in your claim. First, the idea of pleading guilty to a "non-crime" is legally and logically inconsistent. I already pointed this out to you so why are you ignoring it?

If a court accepts a plea, it's based on the premise that the act confessed to meets the elements of a criminal offense under the law. In Cohen's case, the charges related to campaign finance violations, which are indeed recognized as crimes if they involve the willful flouting of legal campaign financing rules, such as exceeding contribution limits or misreporting expenses.

Regarding the sentencing, it's not unusual in the U.S. legal system for sentences for multiple convictions to be served concurrently, especially if the convictions relate to the same set of circumstances or behaviors. The decision to seek a unified sentence would typically be motivated by considerations of justice, efficiency, and the specifics of the case, rather than the optics you suggest the SDNY was trying to avoid.

Furthermore, the SDNY's decision to inform the judge after Cohen's sentencing that they were no longer pursuing the Stormy Daniels matter could be seen in various lights. It might suggest a conclusion that the prosecutable evidence was insufficient or that pursuing further would not be in the best interests of justice—a common prosecutorial decision not necessarily indicative of any prior misconduct or bias against Trump.

So, my question to your claim would be, 'you know this, how?'.

 

You're doing a bit of flailing about trying to put lipstick on this pig. Cohen was not by a long shot the only accused to plead guilty to a non crime in the hopes of gaining some leniency.. It is not prevalent, but not uncommon. I find nothing amusing about it.

Insufficient evidence in plain speak means it did not happen. However, prosecutors never ever use the words "innocent" or "no crime was committed." Surely you are joking about the possibility of "best interests of justice."

 

I think you have shown your true colors and why you are so biased. It explains a lot.

 

YOU are the one who claimed Cohen 'pled guilty to a non crime' (and the reason you suggest is moot because that is impossible).

I'm going to repeat, one more time, which you do not seem to understand:

No one pleads guilty to a non crime (for whatever reason).

Not only is that in defiance of logic and consistency, it's impossible.

If there is no crime, how does one plead because one cannot be indicted for a crime that does not exist. A prosecutor cannot charge someone for a crime that does not exist.

Are we clear on this point?

 

Of probably the thousands over the years two high profile cases come to mind. There was a guy in the Enron case who pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit (cajoled by Mueller's later pit bull Weissmann), and the judge curiously asked him about that but accepted the plea none the less. General Flynn with Mueller is the other high profile case that comes to mind. People do that to get leniency in other cases because the prosecutors strike a bargain. The prosecutor might have scant evidence of the crime but wants a conviction anyway and so leans on the accused with a plausible excuse that no one is ever 100% certain (and prosecutors never believe) that a crime was not committed -- 2% possibility it was is close enough for the prosecutor to sleep nights. In Flynn's case Mueller said if he plead guilty he would not go after Flynn's son.

But believe whatever you wish.

 

Excuse me, you said Cohen pled guilty to a non crime.

There is no such thing as 'pleading guilty to a non crime'.

You did NOT say he pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit, which is an altogether different statement.

Please learn to articulate what the f*ck you are saying because, as much as I would love to be, I am NOT clairvoyant.

 

I don't think it's as complicated as people imply. Two or more secret service agents babysitting him at all times? Yes. General population? No. House arrest wouldn't be too surprising, either. Prison is a controlled closed environment. No more complicated of an issue than anything routine for the secret service.

What I'm not sure about is what happens if he gets sentenced to prison and then elected president. Do they delay his prison time until after his term as president? He might die of natural causes by then.

 

I should think it would depend on whether his conviction occurs before, or after, the election day. If before, and goes to prison, and then wins, then I should think there would be pressure on the VP to do a 25th amendment.

If before the election, and he is convicted, they will probably delay the sentence until after he is out of office. Thing is, once convicted, it can't be reversed unless he appeals and wins. In other words, he can't direct the DOJ to reverse the conviction, he has to do it like anyone convicted has to do it, via the courts, parole boards, etc.