Trump very well might be indicted, but I have zero confidence he will be held accountable or see jail time for a multitude of reasons: His secret service entitlements for being a former President, He has to many people to take the fall for him. Trump appointed judges. Any jury trial involving Trump, jury selection in Trump’s case could take at least twice as long as the actual trial. Gag orders for sure, probably from the moment of indictment. It could take 2+ years to get to a trial. Then, A 50/50 chance a Republican getting elected and pardoning him. There are always people who have never heard of or have heard very little about the case. In Trump’s case, it’s shocking to believe this could be true. In the OJ Simpson trial, there were 15 alternates. For Trump, I'm going with 20 or more. It's very possible the jurors are going to be sequestered under the strictest restrictions possible. Like the DOJ clearing out an entire hotel instead of just a floor or keeping them on a military base. No juror is even going to be allowed to touch a phone or computer. No radio, no TV unless it can only show DVDs. No un-chaperoned contact with even they’re closest family members. And so on. The right wing media will turn it into a circus.
I'm hoping he's held accountable and jailed, but I'm settling for some type of punishment that rules that he never be allowed to run for elected office.
Speaking of Trump appointed judges - The Trump-appointed judge initially asked the Trump team to submit something that explained what authority she had to hear the matter at all. So far as I’m aware, I don’t believe they’ve submitted anything in response. And then, on Saturday, she issues a statement that she intends to rule in accordance with what Trump’s lawyers are asking for. Ummm, wut? Does the prosecution not have a say? And under what authority is she acting, anyway? Why on earth is this Trump-appointed judge even allowed to entertain and rule on this time waster? She’s not even the judge in the main case. Trump won’t be able to choose the "special master". It must be a person agreed upon by both parties, and they must be qualified to view all the documents – meaning hold top clearances. But, if I'm the prosecutor in this case, I’d first challenge the authority of this judge to hear the matter at all.
From the NYT article:
“Judge Cannon asked them, in a rare rebuke, to send her clarifications about what precisely they were asking for and why she should handle the case and not Judge Bruce E. Einhart, who handled the unsealing of the warrant.”
So, what were the clarification and why, exactly, did she not simply refer them back to Einhart? Is this document public?