General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImmunity For Pecker Means Charges For Trump
Cohen has plead guilty and there would be nobody other than Trump for Pecker to testify against in return for federal immunity.
The only conclusion is they plan on charging Trump. Pecker's testimony backs a conspiracy charge against Trump.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,786 posts)The hits keep coming. Trump is toast.
gibraltar72
(7,508 posts)the Pecker would get him in trouble eventually.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,786 posts)TeamPooka
(24,238 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)It will be nice to hear Pres. Turd confirm that.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)triron
(22,009 posts)lapfog_1
(29,216 posts)In addition, it sure would be sweet to see that toilet rag wrap up publication and for PeckerHead to go bankrupt... despite his flipping on the traitor-in-chief.
dalton99a
(81,562 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,386 posts)Thanks for the thread ScratchCat
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Love this
kennetha
(3,666 posts)since that is constitutionally complicated, but almost certainly the Trump Organization.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)The conventional wisdom that you can't do it is based on DOJ policy, not statute and not Constitutional law. There is zero support, in the text of the Constitution, for Leon Jaworsky's politically expedient opinion during the Nixon era. If Trump were to take an indictment to the Supreme Court and claim it's invalid because he's a sitting President, he'd lose.
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Some try to claim that the language above implies that an Impeachment conviction is a pre-requisite to legal indictment. That's utter nonsense. The language above is inclusive, not exclusive; it simply says that the political process of Impeachment is completely separate and independent from the legal process of indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That suggests that the indictment power of the executive branch is ultimately his and his alone. An inferior officer ... like a US attorney ... usually cannot exercise a delegated power "at the expense of" a superior officer.
That, I think, is what makes for constitutional complications.
True, the president is required to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." which does mean that he is not above the law, but indeed must take care to carry out the laws.
So perhaps contravening his own indictment by his inferiors would be a violation of his duty of faithful execution.
But then the question is which branch would step in and "negate" his contravention of an indictment against him by an inferior officer? The courts (through a lawsuit) or the congress (through impeachment)?
It would not be simple.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Thanks for contributing!
duforsure
(11,885 posts)A lot more women come out and expose trump even more. If there was a good time for it , its now. They can ignore his NDA's as nothing as others have done. They need now to publicize what happened . All of them , every one of them , or forced to do bad things by him.
Sneederbunk
(14,297 posts)dalton99a
(81,562 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)laurieu
(53 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,027 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,399 posts)PaulX2
(2,032 posts)He must have the goods, or he would have to go to rich person's prison.
Home detention or whatever.
czarjak
(11,287 posts)The best part (Other than him having a Clinton lawyer)
gay texan
(2,466 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,248 posts)fits the facts better
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)If the DOJs policy is to not indict the president, what good is there to build a case against him?
Bayard
(22,121 posts)At least that's what I'd think. Nixon's case never got that far.
One thing is for sure--we can't have Kavanaugh deciding this.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)It's been discussed here.
How the President Can Be Prosecuted as a Criminal
By Martin London
January 29, 2018
http://time.com/5123598/president-trump-impeach-criminal-constitution/
But what is equally important is what they dont say. There is no language in the Constitution providing the President with any immunity from prosecution by the appropriate criminal authorities: he is subject to the ordinary criminal processes of Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law. Furthermore, there is not one syllable directly putting the President beyond the reach of the criminal law even if Congress does not impeach.
The argument that the President is immune from the criminal laws is just that an argument.
KewlKat
(5,624 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)More women ...possibly more payoffs.
Pecker would know.
Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)honest.abe
(8,680 posts)I can see it.
MyOwnPeace
(16,936 posts)Will Trump have the balls to beat Pecker?
(sorry, couldn't pass it up...............)