Guilty: 6 Takeaways From Manafort's And Cohen's Big Day

[Dashinka 24,993]

29 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

I don't have the time to really dig down into the relevant statute to see if there is a specific SOL, but most likely it is 5 years from the last act by the party soliciting or conspiring to violate a statute. The list of federal crimes that don't adhere to the five year rule is pretty small relatively speaking, so in all likelihood it's five years. So, if we were to imagine that Trump had conspired to violate these statutes, the clock would start ticking from the last act committed in furtherance of the violation. Adding to the complication is the question (still unsettled) whether any SOL is tolled for a US president during the duration of his term. This is a matter we've discussed in the office as a purely academic question. A little rooting around on the legalwebz seems to indicate that legal scholars believe that any SOL would be tolled, since it is currently Justice Dept. policy not to indict a sitting president. 

So how is this case different than the John Edwards case?

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

I don't have the time to really dig down into the relevant statute to see if there is a specific SOL, but most likely it is 5 years from the last act by the party soliciting or conspiring to violate a statute. The list of federal crimes that don't adhere to the five year rule is pretty small relatively speaking, so in all likelihood it's five years. So, if we were to imagine that Trump had conspired to violate these statutes, the clock would start ticking from the last act committed in furtherance of the violation. Adding to the complication is the question (still unsettled) whether any SOL is tolled for a US president during the duration of his term. This is a matter we've discussed in the office as a purely academic question. A little rooting around on the legalwebz seems to indicate that legal scholars believe that any SOL would be tolled, since it is currently Justice Dept. policy not to indict a sitting president. 

Not only is it Justice Department policy but it is the law. The only body that can take (criminal) legal action against a sitting president is the Congress. Congress would have to impeach him then after a trial in the Senate the Senate would need a 2/3 vote to find him guilty. The law is that way for a reason. So that a prosecutor and/or a court with a political agenda (or one half of a partisan Senate) can't circumvent the will of the people by removing a sitting president.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

‘Murica!!

Edited August 24, 2018 by Satisfied

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Not only is it Justice Department policy but it is the law. The only body that can take (criminal) legal action against a sitting president is the Congress. Congress would have to impeach him then after a trial in the Senate the Senate would need a 2/3 vote to find him guilty. The law is that way for a reason. So that a prosecutor and/or a court with a political agenda (or one half of a partisan Senate) can't circumvent the will of the people by removing a sitting president.

It is not the law that a sitting president may not be indicted. The law is not settled in this area. It is only current Justice Department policy, and in the absence of settled law it is how these matters are currently handled. (I am also conversant with the process of impeachment.)

 

Indictments and impeachments are apples and oranges. An impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one. An indictment is a criminal action, not a political one. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" need not be crimes or misdemeanors at all, and could even be something like "maladministration" -- it's a bit squishy but has its roots in English common law, as much of our law historically has been. An abuse of presidential power whether criminal or not would rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, if we look at the same sources our Founding Fathers would have considered at the time of drafting the Constitution. I strongly suggest Federalist 56 on impeachment to get a sense of what the Founding Fathers were grappling with back then on the topic. 

 

All of this is to say impeachment handles only the removal of a president (or other government official who may only be removed by impeachment). It is not a process to determine guilt or innocence of a president charged with a particular crime, and again -- can't indict a president under current policy, and moreover Congress is not empowered to issue an indictment of a president or anyone else, so how would the Senate adjudicate criminal liability in the absence of an indictment? The power to indict is reserved to the judicial branch, not the legislative. 

 

So, if the issue of whether an indictment were to be brought to the Supreme Court, as it surely would, and the Court determined once and for all that it is in fact possible to indict a sitting president, it would be possible to have a court adjudicate any charges so brought. Impeachment leading to a trial in the Senate and indictment leading to a trial by jury are not the same type of legal proceedings, and if anyone is telling you they are or close enough, they are LYING TO YOU. 

 

When it comes to legal issues, I don't post here with a partisan hat on. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So how is this case different than the John Edwards case?

I am not familiar enough with that case to give any opinion. I was only recently returned the US at that point and not paying a lot of attention to the news! Once I get past the pinch point I have next week (my very, very last exam of law school!), I would be happy to do a little research and opine.   

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

27 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Federalist 56

Lol, I meant 65. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You're purty sharp for a paralegal, Maven.  😘

 

Good luck on the exam!!

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Exclusive: Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair

"(CNN)A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-tower-doorman-contract-ami/index.html

 

😂

[Crazy Cat 42,732]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Exclusive: Ex-Trump World Tower doorman releases 'catch-and-kill' contract about alleged Trump affair

"(CNN)A former Trump World Tower doorman who says he has knowledge of an alleged affair President Donald Trump had with an ex-housekeeper, which resulted in a child, is now able to talk about a contract he entered with American Media Inc. that had prohibited him from discussing the matter with anyone, according to his attorney."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-tower-doorman-contract-ami/index.html

 

😂

Yawn.......who cares about this old , personal dirt?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

39 minutes ago, missileman said:

Yawn.......who cares about this old , personal dirt?

True.. but it does help to establish a pattern. 

 

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Most corrupt and worst President in history.

[Crazy Cat 42,732]

12 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Most corrupt and worst President in history.

Words are cheap....

[Crazy Cat 42,732]

Best economy in decades, record unemployment for most Americans, negotiations with NK in progress................sounds like a GREAT president in my book.

[Crazy Cat 42,732]

I guess haters are going to hate......regardless of objective data.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

True.. but it does help to establish a pattern. 

 

 

If Trump paying women is a campaign violation. Why does Congress have a sexual harrassment fund to pay people to be quiet?