Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaptainBillyum t1_jedcll4 wrote

Reply to comment by mojoxer in eli5 What does “indicted” mean? by jcw10489

until i see an orange jumpsuit on him, i'm not getting excited. i honestly dont have high hopes unfortunately

23

Madmanmelvin t1_jedihdu wrote

I have to admit, this is further than I thought they'd ever get. I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

2

anax44 t1_jednmwz wrote

> I know nothing happened before, but this might be the real deal.

What makes this time different?

1

Brickypoo t1_jedp9g6 wrote

This particular crime technically already saw court, where his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who facilitated the illegal payments, was convicted and went to prison for a few years. At the time, Trump was also believed to be criminally culpable, but he argued that sitting presidents can't be charged with crimes.

The prosecutors basically said "ok, we'll wait", and now that he's been out of office, they finally assembled their case.

2

huskersax t1_jedqtlo wrote

The other thing that will happen is that the more Trump plays footsy with the legal system, the more the rats will want to get off the sinking ship.

With the prospect of a second Trump term less likely, they're be more mouths to feed than cronyism to feed them, and his ability to stave off witnesses and prevent other issues in civil court lessens.

2

Welpe t1_jedrawk wrote

Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse. It’s not entirely clear that he even registers when he is lying, it is so ingrained in his style of speaking it’s barely conscious. It seems like he just says what he wants to be true and assumes it therefore is, which is a major problem when under oath.

Trump is going to want to take the stand 100% though, and it’s unclear if he will let his lawyers stop him. They have succeeded in the past, but he despises them for it and chafes at the idea of not being able to tell his story, and the more it happens the more resisting he becomes the next time.

We could very easily see perjury charges if he isn’t smart about this.

2

huskersax t1_jedrzol wrote

>Let’s not forget that Trump is one of the worst testifiers of all time. He BETTER take his lawyers seriously when they forbid him from taking the stand, because who knows what he will say on the stand to make things worse.

"I worked on that cross-examination for six months and then he... just... tweeted it out." - Lead Prosecutor, probably.

4

anax44 t1_jedt43b wrote

thanks!

u/Welpe & u/huskersax, thanks for the answers as well!

2

Welpe t1_jedtfer wrote

I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential. This is the first time that it honesty looks possible that he will be convicted of something. Even if the prosecutor has some very strong evidence (Which it increasingly looks like is true), you never know anything for certain when it comes down to a jury. One person with a different impression of the evidence or beliefs about the president could be what keeps him out of prison.

1

anax44 t1_jedu1fz wrote

>I would still probably stress to not get your hopes up TOO high (Or worry TOO much if you are a fan) but this has potential.

Neither hopeful, nor a fan. Just an interested non-American.

Fwiw though, I think Trump was a test for America, and America failed.

2

Madmanmelvin t1_jeg4l60 wrote

  1. Donald Trump is no longer president. There are a ton of potential legal issues with charging a sitting US president with a crime. It opens up a can of legal worms, basically.
  2. This is a state case. This can't be pardoned away in the future. Pardons can only happen on the federal level. Nixon got pardoned by Ford, which is some BS IMO, but it happened.
  3. There was enough evidence to produce an indictment. That's already a big deal. Its just not some hearsay or circumstantial evidence.
  4. Anybody going after a former president is going to face significant backlash. They're not just doing it casually. If the evidence isn't airtight, careers might be ruined.
2