HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Immunity For Pecker Means...

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:13 PM

Immunity 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.

36 replies, 7046 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Immunity For Pecker Means Charges For Trump (Original post)
ScratchCat Aug 2018 OP
ProudMNDemocrat Aug 2018 #1
gibraltar72 Aug 2018 #34
ProudMNDemocrat Aug 2018 #35
TeamPooka Aug 2018 #2
lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #14
Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2018 #24
triron Aug 2018 #3
lapfog_1 Aug 2018 #4
dalton99a Aug 2018 #5
Uncle Joe Aug 2018 #6
Watchfoxheadexplodes Aug 2018 #7
kennetha Aug 2018 #8
louis c Aug 2018 #13
Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2018 #25
lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #15
kennetha Aug 2018 #20
lagomorph777 Aug 2018 #21
duforsure Aug 2018 #9
Sneederbunk Aug 2018 #10
dalton99a Aug 2018 #11
kennetha Aug 2018 #12
laurieu Aug 2018 #28
Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2018 #16
mnhtnbb Aug 2018 #17
PaulX2 Aug 2018 #18
czarjak Aug 2018 #19
gay texan Aug 2018 #22
bucolic_frolic Aug 2018 #23
Tiggeroshii Aug 2018 #26
Bayard Aug 2018 #32
Duppers Aug 2018 #36
KewlKat Aug 2018 #27
mainstreetonce Aug 2018 #29
Le Gaucher Aug 2018 #30
honest.abe Aug 2018 #31
MyOwnPeace Aug 2018 #33

Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:16 PM

1. Et tu, David?????


The hits keep coming. Trump is toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudMNDemocrat (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 03:13 PM

34. Trumps dad warned him

the Pecker would get him in trouble eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 05:33 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:56 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:52 PM

24. Except for nailing John Edwards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:17 PM

3. Sure hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:18 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:20 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:22 PM

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread ScratchCat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:22 PM

7. Fox news heads are spinning

Love this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:23 PM

8. Probably not Trump himself

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:55 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:53 PM

25. Would look great in a presidential library!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:58 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:19 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kennetha (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:26 PM

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

Thanks for contributing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:33 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:35 PM

10. Will Pecker rise to the occasion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:36 PM

11. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 12:41 PM

12. heh heh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:36 PM

28. Good question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:10 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:11 PM

17. Lock him up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:13 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:18 PM

19. Says Michael...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:44 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:46 PM

23. No conclusion, no conclusion

fits the facts better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:53 PM

26. I dont understand

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bayard (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 11:09 PM

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 01:59 PM

27. Trump loses Pecker...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:41 PM

29. Both Avenatti and Omorosa have referred to

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:42 PM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:43 PM

31. Headline: Pecker poised to ream Trump

I can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2018, 02:53 PM

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

Will Trump have the balls to beat Pecker?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread