'They could indict a sitting president': Watergate prosecutor breaks down Trump's legal trouble in N

[turbinetree]

Published 26 mins ago on September 11, 2019

By Matthew Chapman

On Wednesday, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman discussed the implications of the New York DA’s investigation into the Trump Organization on MSNBC’s “All In” — and why it could play out entirely differently from the federal investigations.

“The big difference here is that Cy Vance is the local prosecutor,” said Akerman. “He is the state prosecutor in New York County. So he is not concerned with federal crimes. He’s concerned with state crimes. But I think we have a continuous theme here that pervades all of this. And it’s simply that all roads lead to Donald Trump’s tax returns. To make this a serious crime and a serious felony, falsifying business records is usually associated with falsifying numbers so that they falsify in turn the tax returns.”

“Interesting,” said anchor Ali Velshi.

“So in this particular case, it could very well be that they are looking at the false state tax returns that have been filed by the Trump Organization, filed by Donald Trump, and there could be all kinds of people who could have criminal liability here,” continued Akerman. “If it’s just Donald Trump, obviously, the problem there is indicting a sitting president, although the Manhattan DA’s office is not under the same stricture as the Department of Justice. They could indict a sitting president.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/they-could-indict-a-sitting-president-watergate-prosecutor-breaks-down-trumps-legal-trouble-in-new-york/

Throw the book at him, Pence, and everyone that has shaken this jerk's hand to say I do whatever you want.................

[bluestarone]

1. OH my biggest DREAM!!

LOCK HIM UP!!

[UTUSN]

2. K&R

[Leghorn21]

3. ...and speaking of that trump org scam, anybody seen Allen Weisselberg lately?

anybody??

[Toorich]

10. Didn't Weisselberg....

... get immunity before testifying during the Mueller investigation?
I don't remember reading anything about him in the report itself.

Anybody?

[Leghorn21]

12. T, it seems he got a tad of immunity (ha ha) to testify within a very narrow scope about some aspect

of...something

Oh, here it is, from a little over a year ago:

Aug. 24, 2018

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan struck a deal earlier this summer with Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, granting him immunity for his grand jury testimony about Michael D. Cohen, a person briefed on the arrangement said Friday.

News of Mr. Weisselberg’s testimony came days after Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump had directed him to commit campaign finance crimes and one day after another Trump loyalist, the tabloid executive David Pecker, was revealed to have agreed to help prosecutors in their case.

The person briefed on the deal said that it was narrow in scope, protecting Mr. Weisselberg from self-incrimination in sharing information with prosecutors about Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, who pleaded guilty on Tuesday to tax and campaign finance charges. The latter charges stemmed from payments during the campaign to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. It was not, the person said, a blanket immunity extending beyond the information he shared, and Mr. Weisselberg remains in his job at the Trump Organization.

Mr. Weisselberg figured into the charges filed against Mr. Cohen this week, having facilitated the processing of what prosecutors described as “sham invoices” at the Trump Organization, through which Mr. Cohen was reimbursed for the money he had paid to quiet one of the women alleging an affair with Mr. Trump, the pornographic film actress Stephanie Clifford.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/us/politics/allen-weisselberg-immunity-cohen-trump.html

Dems planned to have him testify as of earlier this year, but

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Yet I remember reading he didn't really cooperate and add value

to any case against trump. ???

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. let Twitler tweet from behind bars

The Constitution doesn't say he can't be locked up, just that it's up to Congress to remove him from office.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. so how can that happen? How can he be locked up without Congress doing their job?

Our only hope is that a non-federal jurisdiction does him in. How sad is that. Sounds like the federal government and House and Senate and federal courts are all broken and impotent.

[asiliveandbreathe]

5. Who wants to put their bets on Cy Vance..not me..

In October 2018, several news organizations reported that Vance and his office were under investigation for allegedly refusing to prosecute the adult children of Donald Trump following reports of improprieties in real estate transactions.

Too...n 2011, a New York prosecutor from Vance's office argued on behalf of billionaire and sex offender Jefferey Epstein, to New York Supreme Court Judge Ruth Pickholtz, asking for Epstein's sex offender status to be reduced. The reasoning was that Epstein had not been indicted and his underage victims had failed to cooperate in the case. The judge, however, denied the petition, and expressed bewilderment that a New York prosecutor would make such a request on behalf of a serial sex offender accused of molesting multiple girls: "I have to tell you, I’m a little overwhelmed because I have never seen a prosecutor’s office do anything like this. I have done so many [sex offender registration hearings] much less troubling than this one where the [prosecutor] would never make a downward argument like this,"

Jennifer Gaffney, then deputy chief of Cyrus Vance Jr.’s sex-crimes unit, stated at the hearing that, “There is only an indictment for one victim. If an offender is not indicted for an offense, it is strong evidence that the offense did not occur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Vance_Jr.

Jennifer Gaffney you ask....more on her and the Epstein case..

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/that-time-manhattan-das-office-shocked-a-judge-with-epstein-sex-offender-registry-argument/

Just follow the money..as usual....

[triron]

11. Hope the story that Vance refused to prosecute Trump's children is not true.

Otherwise we are fucked again.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Exactly - no power in the federal or state government to hold him to justice. And nothing

done to protect the vote in 2020. Yes, we are fucked. And, if all of this is true, he may very well be in power after 2024. Perfect conclusion for a horrible day, remembering the heroes and hearing the pResident lie and say he was down there clearing the rubble.

[SWBTATTReg]

6. It could be just my imagination but I thought most tax cases involved paying a fine, interest, ...

and the overlooked taxes. I assumed that these articles are probably claiming some sort of deliberate intent to defraud the tax authorities via way overstating expenses etc., way understating income, not declaring income that should have been, etc.

IMHO, it takes years to prosecute cases like this so I am wondering, 'indict a sitting president' is probably not accurate, perhaps 'indict rump' would be more accurate, and not using the 'sitting president' words.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. But what about Cohen? Isn't he in jail for lying to the federal government about

income? asset valuation?

[iluvtennis]

7. Excellent news - lock his a** up. nt

[Ford_Prefect]

8. Book_'em_Danno'

[LiberalFighter]

9. Falsifying state tax returns would mean the same done to federal tax returns.

[FakeNoose]

13. True, but Bill Barr can put a stop the federal charges if he wants too

He can't interfere with charges coming from New York State.

[Pepsidog]

14. Sorry folks but this is MSNBC's version of Fox, disconnected from reality. No state charges are

are going to take Shitler down. We are being played here.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Why do you say that? A person can falsify state tr's and not go to jail?

[triron]

20. Hope it's more than tax fraud.

[Pepsidog]

21. A person certainly can go to jail for this. But POTUS is protected by the SCOTUS who will never

allow State charges to proceed against a sitting president. After he is gone yes it is possible he will be charged but sadly it will never happen. The pressure to simply look forward will stop any post presidency indictments.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. So while Mueller was toiling away...and we who were

naive thought his findings would surely diminish trump in some way, he was busy placing his chess pieces...Barr and Kavenaugh.

[Pepsidog]

24. Trump isn't that strategic. Just dumb luck. But imagine if SCOTUS allows a state indictment to

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2019, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

proceed against a sitting president, the next Democratic president will be indicted by every lawless, backward state that pulls stunts like The GOP did in N.C. today. As a policy, The Supreme Court will protect a sitting president from state charges,in theory, regardless the of party affiliation. Any chance of charging Trump and proceeding with charges will have to wait until after he is out of office. Impeachment is the only way to remove him. Impeachment based on state charges will work.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. +1

[Lock him up.]

23. So what you're saying is the law is not the same for everyone?

That some felons are above the law because they've been in office?

Doesn't make sense.

[Pepsidog]

25. No one despises Trump more than me. That said, SCOTUS will delay any state charges until after he

is out of office. SCOTUS can only delay state charges they cannot dismiss or stop the charges. So if NY state is serious they will go after the criminal after he is out of office proving that no one is above the law.

[Lock him up.]

26. Thanks for the clarification.

Hopefully the Dems will vote in favor of the formal impeachment inquiry tomorrow.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Only the judiciary committee, right? Should skate

through there. And these are the people most informed about what he's done.