Indictment Vs. Impeachment: Do We Have A President, Or A King?

[Soph0571]

There was an extended and spirited discussion on AM Joy of the issue of whether Trump can be indicted while in office, and the general conclusion was: We have to figure out a way to do it, or we're no longer a country of laws.

Speaking about the Cohen case and Trump's culpability, former prosecutor Mimi Rocah said, "I would bring that crime to the grand jury right now. I would do that. One other thing, I think both are right in terms of the yes or no, can he be indicted.

"As a practical matter, if I'm putting myself as a prosecutor now in the Southern District, I can't indict him. I have that OLC opinion. I have to follow it. Can that be challenged? Should that be revisited? Yes, absolutely for a lot of the reasons we're saying, especially with this president, where a lot of the rationales and justifications behind that OLC memo just don't make sense."

[link:https://crooksandliars.com/2018/12/indictment-vs-impeachment-do-we-have|

Why not both ?!?!?!

[yodermon]

1. Nixon grand jury DID return an indictment.

Prosecutor declined to sign it.
Wonder if a similar scenario has played out now.

[elocs]

2. Which means Nixon was NOT indicted.

The question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted will be decided by this Supreme Court if it comes to that. Gee, how might they decide? Going to put your hopes with Roberts? Remember Susan Collins.

Now consider this: If Trump really believes he will be indicted on serious charges, does that make it more or less likely he will resign? Because once he resigns, he becomes an ex-president and so the entire can a sitting president be indicted question becomes moot. That could be a reason to work out a deal with him to resign and get it over.