Immunity For Pecker Means Charges For Trump

[ScratchCat]

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]

1. Et tu, David?????

The hits keep coming. Trump is toast.

[gibraltar72]

34. Trumps dad warned him

the Pecker would get him in trouble eventually.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

35. Well done. Huzzah......

[TeamPooka]

2. "The Failing National Enquirer....."

[lagomorph777]

14. Actually, it is failing, and it is fake news.

It will be nice to hear Pres. Turd confirm that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Except for nailing John Edwards

[triron]

3. Sure hope so.

[lapfog_1]

4. we can only hope

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]

5. Ted Lieu: "Trump is in serious legal jeopardy"

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread ScratchCat

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

7. Fox news heads are spinning

Love this

[kennetha]

8. Probably not Trump himself

since that is constitutionally complicated, but almost certainly the Trump Organization.

[louis c]

13. There can be sealed indictments for TRump to be unsealed when he's out (NT)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Would look great in a presidential library!

[lagomorph777]

15. Not Constitutionally complicated at all; only politically complicated.

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]

20. The real problem is the unitary executive.

"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]

21. I haven't heard it put that way before and I appreciate your point!

Thanks for contributing!

[duforsure]

9. Wonder how long before

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]

10. Will Pecker rise to the occasion?

[dalton99a]

11. +1

[kennetha]

12. heh heh

[laurieu]

28. Good question.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Word of two against one. . . . nt

[mnhtnbb]

17. Lock him up!

[PaulX2]

18. I Think So - Pecker Could Be Prosecuted Most Likely

He must have the goods, or he would have to go to rich person's prison.

Home detention or whatever.

[czarjak]

19. Says Michael...

The best part (Other than him having a Clinton lawyer)

[gay texan]

22. Taken down by a Pecker.... n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

23. No conclusion, no conclusion

fits the facts better

[Tiggeroshii]

26. I dont understand

If the DOJs policy is to not indict the president, what good is there to build a case against him?

[Bayard]

32. Just because its policy doesn't mean its the law

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]

36. You are absolutely correct.

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 don’t 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]

27. Trump loses Pecker...

[mainstreetonce]

29. Both Avenatti and Omorosa have referred to

More women ...possibly more payoffs.
Pecker would know.

[Le Gaucher]

30. Immunity for pecker means ..no need to wear a condom.

[honest.abe]

31. Headline: Pecker poised to ream Trump

I can see it.

[MyOwnPeace]

33. Another question is.........

Will Trump have the balls to beat Pecker?

(sorry, couldn't pass it up...............)