Will Trump be required to wear an ankle monitor & do it? [Before 2025]
Basic
14
608
2025
15%
chance

Comey says Trump might. What are the odds?

"I mean, it’s this crazy world that Donald Trump has dragged this country into, but he could be wearing an ankle bracelet while accepting the nomination at the Republican convention,” Comey told Psaki. “You would be rejected if you put it in a script for a show, but you could have a president who is potentially incarcerated when he is elected president."

Resolves on evidence that:

(a) Trump is required by law to wear an ankle monitor; and,

(b) evidence that he complies by wearing one.

If Trump puts one on as a joke, (b) is met. If (b) is met and then (a) is later met, it will resolve YES even though (b) was met because of a joke.

If Trump is required to wear it for a week (a), but he never does, then 3 months later puts one on (b) even as a joke, it will resolve YES.

Quote at 3:18

Get Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:

I feel like the title is misleading, given the description. I think it should be "Will Trump wear an ankle monitor before 2025?" You clarify that whether he is required to wear one doesn't matter, if he is required and doesn't (maybe he dies somehow) it doesn't count, but if he isn't required and does wear it, then it counts.

@ShadowyZephyr Sorry I'll clarify the description. When I wrote

If Trump puts one on as a joke, (b) is met. If (b) is met before (a) it will resolve YES even though (b) was met because of a joke.

(a) is still required, I'm just saying it doesn't have to be first, in the <1% chance that he does a bit and puts on a monitor as a joke, then he is required to later (but never complies, or there is an exception granted)

@Gen So if b is met before a then it counts, or b is met way after a, it counts, but if b is met and a is not, then it does not count? Ok that makes sense

@ShadowyZephyr if (a) and (b) are met, any time, any order, any reasoning, it'll count. I may have overcomplicated by trying to account for very unlikely edge cases. I hope it's clearer now, but yeah. Title is essentially an exact summary, I'm just trying to cover the unlikely event that he puts on an ankle monitor independent of an order, and is ordered on a separate occasion.

@Gen Ok, I got it. I made a mistake. It makes sense lol

@ShadowyZephyr I appreciate the feedback. I changed it a little from "If (b) is met before (a)" to "If (b) is met and then (a) is later met", which is much clearer.

Where could he possibly go where the secret service can’t find him?

predicts NO

he is basically in custody already.