USA What if Donald Trump is indicted by a Democrat prosecutor?

[Lees]

That's worth mentioning. If Trump were to step aside, the conclusion that those people would reach would certainly be that their election interference had worked. Then the same strategy would be employed against the next Republican candidate.

A companion gameplan has been followed faithfully (and each time in almost identical form) whenever a strong Republican candidate or nominee threatens to advance in some pivotal role.

Recall that Justice Thomas was targeted with unproven charges of sexual misconduct during his confirmation hearings; Judge Roy Moore, the favorite to win an Alabama seat in the closely-divided US Senate was accused on dubious grounds of sexual impropriety; Herman Cain was the surprise victim of similar allegations after he shot to the top of the Presidential polls during the run-up to the elections of 2012; Judge Kavanaugh was almost denied confirmation to the Supreme Court when a previously unknown woman charged him with a rape about which she could provide almost no specifics; and then there have been the several attempts to destroy Trump with sex-based charges.

In short, when a successful gimmick works, or even comes close to succeeding, you can bet on it being used again.




.

And when you have the F.B.I. and the media at the liberal democrats beck and call, you can perform home invasions as at Mar-a-Lago. And they can provide whatever is necessary to further the Russian collusion lie. All is legal because...well...'we did it', so it must be. Plus the false flag produced on Jan. 6 is a common thing with the F.B.I. Make a group you don't like appear evil by infiltrating and doing evil. They have done it for years.

And don't forget how they flood the country with third world immigrants, which is flooding the country with liberal democratic votes.

It's all about power. They were threatened by Trump and conservatives. And they will never let it go again.

Try and do away with the Immigration law of 1965 and see what happens. That law specifically gave precedence to third world people over Europeans immigrating. Thus we are becoming a third world country. Surprise, surprise.

But keep singing that song..."diversity is our greatest strength'. As diversity destroys us. What fools.

Lees

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because this development is expected in New York in the near future (and might be repeated a number of times in other states as the 2024 election draws closer)...

What do you think the effect upon voters in the upcoming primaries and the general election will be?

1. Trump is humiliated and destroyed politically?

2. Many Independents and Republicans who had been cool towards Trump because of his personality, or who thought a "new face" as the next nominee would make sense, will feel morally obligated to vote for Trump after such an attack upon democracy as prosecuting the likely nominee of the "out of power" party" would be?

3. Some of the above, something else, or none of the above?

What a guilty verdict may mean for Donald Trump in the 2024 election:

A guilty verdict in any of the four indictments that Donald Trump is facing could have serious consequences for his political future and his chances of winning the 2024 presidential election. Depending on the severity and nature of the charges, a guilty verdict could result in fines, prison time, loss of voting rights, or even disqualification from holding public office. A guilty verdict could also damage his reputation, credibility, and popularity among his supporters and the general public. A guilty verdict could also embolden his opponents, both within and outside his party, to challenge his leadership and legitimacy.

However, a guilty verdict is not a foregone conclusion, and Trump may still be able to overcome the legal hurdles and run for president again. He may appeal the verdicts, seek pardons, or claim political persecution. He may also use the indictments as a rallying cry for his base, portraying himself as a victim of a witch hunt and a corrupt system. He may also leverage his media influence, financial resources, and loyal allies to mobilize his supporters and discredit his accusers.

Therefore, the outcome of the indictments against Trump is uncertain and unpredictable, and may depend on various factors, such as the evidence, the jury, the judge, the public opinion, and the political climate. The indictments may pose a serious threat to Trump’s political ambitions, but they may also serve as a catalyst for his comeback. The indictments may also have implications for the Democratic Party, which may face a more unified or divided Republican Party depending on how Trump’s legal battles unfold.

 

[Albion]

Yes, all those things and more "could" happen, but the OP asked for our guesses about what WILL happen...and that only so far as an indictment is concerned.

I doubt that many of us would think that he is likely to win the 2024 election if he's actually jailed, even if that development were widely believed to be another example of what's already happened in other countries and usually calls forth the term "banana republic."

 

[MoreCoffee]

our guesses about what WILL happen...and that only so far as an indictment is concerned.

This is a sentence that expresses the speaker’s uncertainty about the future outcome of a legal process. The speaker is making guesses, not predictions, about what will happen. The speaker also limits the scope of their guesses to the issue of an indictment, which is a formal accusation of a crime. The speaker implies that there are other aspects of the legal process that they are not guessing about, such as the trial or the verdict. Evidently not knowing what WILL happen is our common lot. So, do not complain when I speculated about why might happen.

 

[Albion]

This is a sentence that expresses the speaker’s uncertainty about the future outcome of a legal process. The speaker is making guesses, not predictions, about what will happen. The speaker also limits the scope of their guesses to the issue of an indictment, which is a formal accusation of a crime. The speaker implies that there are other aspects of the legal process that they are not guessing about, such as the trial or the verdict. Evidently not knowing what WILL happen is our common lot. So, do not complain when I speculated about why might happen.

The fact remains that the Original Post asked what we think would be likely to happen in the event of an indictment and, if there is one, how that would impact the voters.

It's not more complicated than that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The fact remains that the Original Post asked what we think would be likely to happen in the event of an indictment and, if there is one, how that would impact the voters.

This is a question that asks for an opinion on a hypothetical scenario involving a legal and political issue. There is no definitive or objective answer to this question, as different people may have different views and expectations. However, based on some relevant information and sources, here are some possible ways to approach this question:

• One way to answer this question is to look at the historical precedents and examples of how indictments have affected the public opinion and voting behaviour of citizens in the past. For instance, one could examine the cases of former presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, who both faced impeachment proceedings due to criminal charges. According to a [survey] by Pew Research Centre, Nixon’s approval rating dropped from 68% in January 1973 to 24% in August 1974, while Clinton’s approval rating increased from 59% in January 1998 to 73% in December 1998. These contrasting outcomes suggest that the impact of an indictment may depend on various factors, such as the nature and severity of the charges, the evidence and credibility of the accusers, the political climate and polarization, and the media coverage and public perception.
• Another way to answer this question is to consider the current situation and context of the potential indictment and its implications for the voters. For example, one could analyse the legal and political status of the person who is facing the indictment, the timing and likelihood of the indictment, the possible reactions and responses of the supporters and opponents of the person, and the potential consequences and alternatives for the voters. Depending on these factors, an indictment could have different effects on the voters, such as increasing or decreasing their motivation, enthusiasm, or turnout, changing or reinforcing their preferences or opinions, or creating or resolving uncertainty or confusion.
• A third way to answer this question is to express one’s own personal opinion and perspective on the hypothetical scenario, based on one’s values, beliefs, and preferences. For example, one could state whether they think an indictment is justified or unjustified, whether they support or oppose the person who is facing the indictment, whether they think an indictment would influence their own voting decision or not, and why. However, one should also acknowledge that their opinion is subjective and not necessarily representative of others, and that they respect the diversity and plurality of views and choices among the voters.

 

[Albion]

This is a question that asks for an opinion on a hypothetical scenario involving a legal and political issue.

Yep.

However, you don't have to offer your own estimate of what you judge likely to happen, if you don't care to.do that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

However, you don't have to offer your own estimate of what you judge likely to happen, if you don't care to.do that.

I understand. Is there anything else I can help you with?

 

[Albion]

I understand. Is there anything else I can help you with?

It was just a lighthearted, "for fun" question that was asked in that forum, purely speculative, and not unlike others that have been started here ("What's your favorite ice cream flavor," Who do you think will win the Rose Bowl and why?") -- except of course that this one was about elections.

If it doesn't appeal to you, forget it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was just a lighthearted, "for fun" question that was asked in that forum, purely speculative, a brain-teaser some people call these things.

If it doesn't appeal to you, forget it.

It is not kind of you to instruct me on how I ought to react to a hypothetical question.

 

[Messy]

He's gonna rock.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[Albion]

There is no definitive or objective answer to this question, as different people may have different views and expectations.

Naturally. That's why the question was worth asking.

It is not kind of you to instruct me on how I ought to react to a hypothetical question.

You misunderstood the question that was asked. IMHO it would have been unkind of me NOT to have explained that and given you the opportunity to post a different response.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Naturally. That's why the question was worth asking.



You misunderstood the question that was asked. IMHO it would have been unkind of me NOT to have explained that and given you the opportunity to post a different response.

The statement “You misunderstood the question that was asked. IMHO it would have been unkind of me NOT to have explained that and given you the opportunity to post a different response” is incorrect because it implies that the speaker is the only one who knows the correct interpretation of the question, and that they are doing a favor to the other person by correcting them. This attitude can be condescending, dismissive, or manipulative, and can hinder effective communication and mutual respect. Instead, a more constructive and empathetic approach would be to ask clarifying questions, listen actively, and seek common ground or understanding. By doing so, both parties can learn from each other, avoid misunderstandings, and build trust and rapport.

 

[Albion]

The statement “You misunderstood the question that was asked. IMHO it would have been unkind of me NOT to have explained that and given you the opportunity to post a different response” is incorrect because it implies that the speaker is the only one who knows the correct interpretation of the question,

There's no "interpretation" involved with the question of that OP.

Here it the question again--

"What do you think the effect upon voters in the upcoming primaries and the general election will be?" and then there followed three choices of an answer to choose from.

You blew right by all of that and decided to instruct the readers on all manner of other facts you think they should know (and probably do already) about the ins and outs and uncertainties of the American political system.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You blew right by all of that and decided to instruct the readers on all manner of other facts you think they should know (and probably do already) about the ins and outs and uncertainties of the American political system.

I apologize if my previous response was not helpful. Can you please provide more context or clarify your question so that I can better understand what you are asking? I am here to help you in any way I can.

 

[Messy]

I apologize if my previous response was not helpful. Can you please provide more context or clarify your question so that I can better understand what you are asking? I am here to help you in any way I can.

Maybe you can help impeach him. Hey is that smirk emoji gone?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe you can help impeach him. Hey is that smirk emoji gone?

Nope, there it is

 

[MoreCoffee]

You blew right by all of that and decided to instruct the readers on all manner of other facts you think they should know (and probably do already) about the ins and outs and uncertainties of the American political system.

I’m sorry if you felt that I was ignoring your question or lecturing you on things you already know. That was not my intention. I was trying to provide some relevant information and context for the topic of the American political system, which is complex and uncertain. However, I understand that you may have a different perspective or interest, and I respect that.

As a follower of Christ, I believe that his teaching is more important than any human political system or ideology. Jesus taught us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. He also taught us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and to trust that he will provide for our needs. He also taught us to pray for our leaders and enemies, to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, and to be peacemakers and salt and light in the world.

I think these teachings are relevant and applicable for any Christian living in any political context, whether it is America or elsewhere. They challenge us to examine our motives, values, and actions, and to align them with God’s will and purpose. They also inspire us to seek justice, mercy, and truth, and to serve others with humility and compassion.