7 ms·
I'm guessing the line of reasoning is being convicted of a crime would create irreparable reputational harm, even if that conviction was reversed due to a valid
by kccoder 3y ago
I'm guessing the line of reasoning is being convicted of a crime would create irreparable reputational harm, even if that conviction was reversed due to a valid immunity claim. Polling shows that a large % of Trump voters wouldn't vote for him if convicted, so, I'm sure that is a pretty easy argument to make.
Delaying to avoid a trial is the entire point. Luckily the courts have been pretty responsive in this case to this point. Voters deserve to know the disposition of this case prior to the election.
- more_corn 3y ago“Reputational harm”? If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I think it’s reasonable to assume that an ex president doesn’t have immunity from attempting to overthrow our democracy.
- autoexec 3y ago> Polling shows that a large % of Trump voters wouldn't vote for him if convicted That surprised me. Turns out most trump voters would still vote for trump if he were convicted of a crime (and even if he were sentenced to prison for a crime), but 46% said they wouldn't which is still a large percentage.
- jfengel 3y agoI'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. The facts of what he did are well known, and it's hard for me to believe that a judge deciding that they amount to a crime really changes all that much. If he is convicted, he'll be able to say "See, look how Biden's deep state is repressing me, and by extension you." I suspect a large fraction of that 46% will say, "Sure, he's a convicted criminal, but he's still better than the Democrat".