Trump, "a sitting president." can be prosecuted NOW for insurance fraud, money laundering...

[Miles Archer]

[empedocles]

1. Since he can be prosecuted/indicted for shooting someone on 5th Avenue, more follows.

[duforsure]

2. If a president can't be indicted , then he is above the rule of law.

Trump's a perfect example of why that has to be law, a sitting president could do many more illegal and corrupt things in many area's including not allowing another election if he wanted to, or order people to be murdered. Having a mobster in the White House makes this a very possibility for him and any others in the future to not be corrupt like trump is, and has been.

[Sherman A1]

10. Precisely

This is exactly the point.

[bitterross]

3. When did ignorance of the law become a defense? Is that just a meme?

The lady commentator keeps saying they have to prove Trump knew what he was doing was illegal. Maybe it is just one of those memes we hear all the time on TV, but I thought ignorance of the law was not a defense.

I'm no attorney so I'd love to hear a real one weigh in here on that.

ON EDIT: I found this:

In most cases—such as murder, theft, assault, and arson—it is obvious why defendants should not be able to claim ignorance as a defense. But ignorance can, under certain limited circumstances, provide a viable defense to a criminal charge.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/ignorance-of-the-law-may-be-an-excuse.html


Now, even given that, I think it's clear he knew what he was doing was wrong. The elaborate scheme of corporations and the pseudonym are a dead give-away you're doing your damnedest to hide things.

[elleng]

5. Sorry, haven't watched yet, but often 'knowledge' is an essential element of a crime.

[bitterross]

6. I got off my lazy butt and found this article which explains

In most cases—such as murder, theft, assault, and arson—it is obvious why defendants should not be able to claim ignorance as a defense. But ignorance can, under certain limited circumstances, provide a viable defense to a criminal charge.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/ignorance-of-the-law-may-be-an-excuse.html


Now, even given that, I think it's clear he knew what he was doing was wrong. The elaborate scheme of corporations and the pseudonym are a dead give-away you're doing your damnedest to hide things.

[Dan]

9. Suspect

A lot of poor people are in jail...and I’m sure ‘ignorance’ didn’t save their asses.

[mr_lebowski]

4. This garbage about how you have to prove Trump knew he was violating campaign finance law pisses me

right the hell off.

Ignorance of the law is not a freaking excuse for breaking it. This has been established in so many cases ...

Yet some still throw that notion around like it's gospel or something.

Yes, it DOES look WORSE if you can prove Trump INTENDED to break the law, but even if he didn't, it was still incumbent upon him to know, as it is upon all of the REST of us.

BTW, Mark MEADOWS, you don't rely upon your Real Estate Attorney to inform you about the intricacies of Campaign Finance law. Wasn't Cohen's job to know those regs, and Trump is still LIABLE for not consulting a proper expert. It's obvious he didn't give a shit and thought he could just do whatever he wanted, since it's 'his money'.

[rainin]

7. That's why his denials are so important.

If you are ignorant of the law, you move to correct your behavior upon learning of your error. Denials and coverups are evidence of consciousness of guilt.

[Blue Owl]

8. Let's go!