If convicted, why not offer Trump a plea deal?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Drop out of running for president, or go to jail.

Would that be legal/constitutional?

 

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

That always seemed like the logical outcome to me, jail time or just go away. Of course Trump's ego wouldn't let him accept that deal, assuming the trials even get there before the election anyway.

[Duke of York]

Trump will never accept that nor will the party. They will stand behind him even if convicted.

[GeorgiaModerate]

For a federal charge, I don't see an obvious reason why such a plea deal would be illegal or unconstitutional, but I'm a little dubious that this could be done with state charges.  But in any case, (a) Trump would never accept the acknowledgement of guilt that a plea deal would require, and (b) the Biden administration would never offer such a deal because it would foster the narrative that the prosecutions were purely political.

[izixs]

For a federal charge, I don't see an obvious reason why such a plea deal would be illegal or unconstitutional, but I'm a little dubious that this could be done with state charges.  But in any case, (a) Trump would never accept the acknowledgement of guilt that a plea deal would require, and (b) the Biden administration would never offer such a deal because it would foster the narrative that the prosecutions were purely political.

Exactly this. What more, it would set a terrible precedent that one can be a just awful criminal before, after, and during one's term in office, and you'll get off with a slap on the wrist and restrictions on being back in office as your punishment. Not exactly good for the rule of law.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After he tried to overturned Eday on J6 I think not

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

After he tried to overturned Eday on J6 I think not

It’s a 312 election.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Spiro Agnew took a plea deal and resigned. I don’t think the idea is completely out of the question, but I don’t see it happening in this case.

[TML]

The main problem is Trump's ego - I seriously doubt he would uphold his end of the bargain, especially if it involves something like a ban from running for/holding public office.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After he tried to overturned Eday on J6 I think not

It’s a 312 election.

It's a 360/178 map TX is endangered

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Any "deal" with Donald Trump is worthless, even were such a thing legal. He would immediately renege, and then immediately re-litigate, while doing as he pleased.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Due to fact we have a moderate SCOTUS, ACB AND KAVANAUGH ARENT LIKELY ON APPEAL TO RELEASE TRUMP, BUT LIKELY TO JNOCK DOWN SOME OF HIS TIME IN PRISON OR AN ANKLE BRACLET

If Trump gets the Prez again he is likely to prosecutor Biden

[Pericles]

No, he belongs behind bars.

[emailking]

Well for one, plea deals are typically offered before the verdict comes in, not after. But in any case, no I don't think this would be legal, at least in the sense that it's not enforceable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A plea deal isn't possible after a verdict. This is one of the most inane suggestions ever. What's the point of pleading guilty after being found guilty?

[°Leprechaun]

A plea deal isn't possible after a verdict. This is one of the most inane suggestions ever. What's the point of pleading guilty after being found guilty?

True

If he's guilty, lock him up. If he is not found guilty, we're all in big trouble. A hung jury might be the result.

[Obama24]

Drop out of running for president, or go to jail.

Would that be legal/constitutional?

 

You realize that would make all the claims that the charges are political lawfare immediately seem valid right? And that forcing the opposition to either 'drop out' or go to jail is basically banana republic type crap?

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Drop out of running for president, or go to jail.

Would that be legal/constitutional?

 

You realize that would make all the claims that the charges are political lawfare immediately seem valid right? And that forcing the opposition to either 'drop out' or go to jail is basically banana republic type crap?

And yet that’s pretty much what their goal is….

[SWE]

If this is legal and constitutional then that's a flaw in our legal system that should be fixed. Prosecuting a politician for crimes he did commit is not corruption or election interference or whatever else the MAGA cult is calling it. Offering a politician leniency if they make your preferred political decision? That sure is

[Obama24]

If this is legal and constitutional then that's a flaw in our legal system that should be fixed. Prosecuting a politician for crimes he did commit is not corruption or election interference or whatever else the MAGA cult is calling it. Offering a politician leniency if they make your preferred political decision? That sure is

Also would set the precedent that a great way to win is not by winning but by simply forcing your opponent off the board by threat of legal power. That's a great way to exactly the dictatorship that many promoting this idea - cease opposing the King or go to prison - fear Trump himself would enact.

[SnowLabrador]

As others have said, neither Biden nor Trump have any reason to offer/accept such a deal.

[dspNY]

Drop out of running for president, or go to jail.

Would that be legal/constitutional?

 

Of course it would be legal and constitutional. But Trump would most likely not honor his end of the deal

[SWE]

I have a hard time imagining a single SCOTUS justice would call this deal Constitutional. The Court's been pretty consistent that the terms for holding federal office are listed in the Constitution and can't be added to without a Constitutional amendment. If Trump is over 35, a natural born citizen who has resided in the US for more than 14 years, not disqualified under the 14th Amendment by Congress, and hasn't already been elected to two terms, he's eligible to be president. No government officials can take that away. Plus, in Brady v US, SCOTUS listed a reliance on "promises that are, by their nature, improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor's business" as a reason to invalidate a plea deal. Seems pretty open and shut to me that a political promise falls into that category

I guess there's a non frivolous argument that a criminal defendant has near infinite latitude in waiving their rights. But expanding that principle so radically as to allowing this situation would be extremely contrary to both liberal jurisprudence and right-wing hackery* that I don't think Alito, Sotomayor, or anyone in between would find it persuasive. This would probably be an easy 9-0 reversal

*This is not to say that I think the right wing justices would be motivated, in whole or even in part, on hackery here. You'd probably get the same outcome if the roles were reversed and it was a Democrat who received this sort of deal. The Court isn't that right wing. The point is that the majority would reach the same outcome if it acted in good faith or if it picked a conclusion and worked backwards - ie this would be an easy case.

[PeteB]

Leaving aside the questionable legal, constitutional and ethical basis of such a move, the only way Trump would accept a deal like that would be if he was down 10+ points.  With see-saw election polls, it would be a simple "why take crumbs when I could have a whole loaf".  And realistically, even if Trump loses but comes close, there is a good chance for Biden to pardon him, after the election, on his own volition.  So, no it won't happen.

[Obama24]

Drop out of running for president, or go to jail.

Would that be legal/constitutional?

 

Of course it would be legal and constitutional. But Trump would most likely not honor his end of the deal

How would it be legal to tell a candidate 'do what I say and give me my preferred political outcome, or go to jail'? That to me sounds like a bribe. Do you not recognize that that is  not the American standard of politics, but rather the standard of third world countries? Secondly, do you not recognize what sort of dangerous precedent that would set for future candidates of both parties? An incumbent could force any opponent out of a race by legal force or threat thereof. That's dictatorship.