ADVERTISEMENT

If Trump Is Reelected, Do All the Charges Against Him Go Away? And Related Questions.

Nov 28, 2010
84,101
37,905
113
Maryland
If Trump wins, I assume all the proceedings against him get put on hold as long as he's in the White House, at a minimum, or might even be dismissed. But is that true?

Sure, the evidence could all be used for yet another impeachment proceeding, if the Dems hold the House. But we already know what the end result of that exercise will be.

That's question #1.

Question #2:

If the trials are delayed until after the election and Trump loses, do his money backers abandon him?

Question #3:

Trump is already calling for a bloodbath if he loses. Yes, yes, he's being sufficiently vague in his wording that he can claim he wasn't literally calling for it - any more than he was literally calling for the J6 riot. But does anyone believe he isn't calling for it?

Point being, if Insurrection, the Sequel is in the air, how willing will the prosecutors be to press forward on his trials?

Question #4:

Back to if he wins, if the trials are put on hold, what are the odds they will be able to resume after his term - even assuming he steps down after his term.
 
Yes. Something, something, presidential privilege. Also if Trump is elected then congress for sure will have a GOP House or Senate, and we know for sure they won't hold him accountable for jack.
 
Trump can't make state charges go away.

SCOTUS will be ruling on his criminal charge situation, but there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that. There's a DoJ Policy about that, but I think it's always been about new prosecutions. That would be because we've never had pending prosecutions before.

I don't think Trump can pardon himself, but that's never been tested either. I'm sure he would try though, because he thinks he can do it.
 
The plan is for Trump to temporarily transfer power to the VP, who then pardons him, after which he then he reassumes the office.

I think it’s in the 25th amendment. It's been used in the past for when the President is in surgery, etc.
 
Trump can't make state charges go away.

SCOTUS will be ruling on his criminal charge situation, but there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that. There's a DoJ Policy about that, but I think it's always been about new prosecutions. That would be because we've never had pending prosecutions before.

I don't think Trump can pardon himself, but that's never been tested either. I'm sure he would try though, because he thinks he can do it.
The pending prosecutions part is definitely the interesting bit.

I'm assuming all charges get put on hold. Also guessing that 4 years later, many of those cases will have shelf rot and may never be reactivated, regardless of merit. But those are just my guesses.
 
The plan is for Trump to temporarily transfer power to the VP, who then pardons him, after which he then he reassumes the office.

I think it’s in the 25th amendment. It's been used in the past for when the President is in surgery, etc.
So Trump goes in to have a hangnail removed and in the 20 minutes while he's under the knife, Acting President MTG pardons him.

Nifty plan. A farce, for sure, but probably legal.

Speaker Mike Johnson gets wind of it and arranges for the surgery to go wrong, MTG gets her head stuck up her ass and suffocates, and we get President Johnson. As God intended.
 
So Trump goes in to have a hangnail removed and in the 20 minutes while he's under the knife, Acting President MTG pardons him.

Nifty plan. A farce, for sure, but probably legal.

Speaker Mike Johnson gets wind of it and arranges for the surgery to go wrong, MTG gets her head stuck up her ass and suffocates, and we get President Johnson. As God intended.
You should write a screenplay. Guaranteed to be a box office hit. The only problem is getting an actor willing to play Trump before the election or if he wins.
 
Trump can't pardon himself on State charges
I realize that the overwhelming consensus is that presidential pardons can't affect state charges, but I believe that is a modern view and might not survive this SCOTUS.

Has this ever come up before Trump? Has SCOTUS ruled on it in the past?

I mean if it's "settled law" then there's some slight reason to think it might survive a challenge. But only slight, when we think about who's on this court.

Wikipedia says this:

The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "offenses against the United States".[5] An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter....
 
Random thought. Trump needs a job because he's broke. If re-elected, does he take a salary this time?
 
I realize that the overwhelming consensus is that presidential pardons can't affect state charges, but I believe that is a modern view and might not survive this SCOTUS.

Has this ever come up before Trump? Has SCOTUS ruled on it in the past?

I mean if it's "settled law" then there's some slight reason to think it might survive a challenge. But only slight, when we think about who's on this court.

Wikipedia says this:

The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon "offenses against the United States".[5] An offense that violates state law, but not federal law, is an offense against that state rather than an offense against the United States; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled on this matter....

You shouldn't rely on wikipedia. There is no history of any of this other than Nixon to my knowledge. This SCOTUS is unpredictable. Elections matter.
 
Random thought. Trump needs a job because he's broke. If re-elected, does he take a salary this time?
If he wins, he'll be taking dark money and good deals from those who want favors. Just like last time.

Trump made a deal with Saudi Arabia for $110 billion in US arms (that was the immediate amount - growing to $350 billion over 10 years). Jerrod got a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia. Coincidence? Jerrod is now investing in Serbian real estate, thanks to a free 99-year lease arrangement. Coincidence?
 
You shouldn't rely on wikipedia. There is no history of any of this other than Nixon to my knowledge. This SCOTUS is unpredictable. Elections matter.
I'm confused. You say not to rely on Wikipedia, but then you basically repeat what they said.

I usually find Wikipedia to be a decent source. I also usually find that it's MAGA types who poo-poo it. Which is not a camp I thought you were in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy McGill
I'm confused. You say not to rely on Wikipedia, but then you basically repeat what they said.

I usually find Wikipedia to be a decent source. I also usually find that it's MAGA types who poo-poo it. Which is not a camp I thought you were in.

Trust me, I'm not a MAGA. When it comes to legal research, I rely on other sources. Thats all I am saying. Not trying to pick a fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT