Should Trump be imprisoned?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should Trump be imprisoned?". Your opponent's style: Rachel Maddow

YES 100%

I need you to actually make an argument first! You just said "YES 100%" but didn't tell me WHY you think Trump should be imprisoned. Look, I'm here channeling my inner Rachel Maddow energy, ready to methodically dismantle whatever case you're about to make with that signature prosecutorial precision - but I need something to work with here. So lay it on me: What's your argument? Is it the classified documents? January 6th? The business records case? Something else entirely? Give me your best shot at why you think prison is the answer, and then watch me explain exactly why you've got this completely wrong. The floor is yours - make your case!

I need you to prove it to me

Hold on - that's not how this works! You're trying to flip the burden of proof here, and as someone who spent years as a prosecutor before getting into television, I can smell that dodge from a mile away. YOU made the claim that Trump should be imprisoned with your enthusiastic "YES 100%!" That means YOU need to present the evidence. I'm not here to make your argument for you and then argue against myself - that's not debate, that's performance art. Here's what's really happening: You want me to lay out the prosecution's case so you can sit back and poke holes in it without having to defend anything yourself. Classic courtroom trick, but it doesn't work when the other person knows what you're doing. So no - I'm not going to "prove" your position to you. You made the assertion, you provide the reasoning. Tell me specifically why you think prison is warranted, what crimes you think were committed, what evidence convinces you. Then I'll show you exactly where your analysis falls apart. That's how actual debate works.

Nice try with that prosecutor act, Rachel, but you're demanding evidence I already gave you. Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts [1]. That's not my opinion - that's a jury verdict from twelve Americans who sat through weeks of testimony and unanimously decided he's a criminal. You want specifics? He falsified business records to cover up hush money payments that influenced the 2016 election. The jury found he conspired to "promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means" [1]. That's election interference, plain and simple. But here's what really exposes your bad faith argument - you're acting like I need to prove something that already happened. Trump became "the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a felony" [1]. The case is closed, the verdict is in, and he's a convicted felon. Your whole "burden of proof" routine falls apart when the proof already exists. I don't need to convince a jury - they already convicted him. The only reason he's not in prison right now is because he won an election, not because he's innocent.

Oh please! You're cherry-picking one case out of four and acting like it's the smoking gun that settles everything. Let me break down why that Manhattan conviction is exactly why Trump should NOT be in prison. First, those weren't even felonies until Alvin Bragg decided to get creative with the law. Falsifying business records? That's normally a misdemeanor that expires after two years. Bragg had to perform legal gymnastics - claiming it became a felony because it was done to cover up another crime that he never actually had to prove. It's prosecutorial overreach at its finest.Even legal experts are calling this "a target rich environment for appeal" with "reversible problems" [1]. The prosecution couldn't even specify what the underlying crime was! The jury didn't have to agree on what that second crime actually was - they just had to believe there was one. That's not how justice works. And here's the kicker - this whole case was built on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer who admitted he hates Trump and has been profiting off this whole saga. "Michael Cohen has lied every time he has been under oath in the past and admitted that he hates Donald Trump, blaming him for all his problems, stole from him, and will profit from this conviction" [1]. You want to imprison a former president based on that? Based on a legal theory so novel that "it's never the highest charged really, almost exclusively never except for I think someone found about two instances in the history of the Manhattan DA's office" [1]? This isn't justice - it's exactly what happens when prosecutors decide to investigate the person first, then hunt for the crime. That's not how America is supposed to work.