Let this sink in about the felon in the White House.

[ffr]

Assume for a second that HRC was president and today's SDNY filings came out naming DJT as a felon for manipulating the presidental election in his favor. That being the case, the Southern District could move forward with a case to indict DJT based on the evidence they already have. Lesson: nobody is above the law.

However, because DJT is in the White House as acting POTUS, the same case where he's named a felon in, because he has the title of POTUS, he is technically immune from prosecution, that ol' thing about whether or not a sitting president can be indicted. Lesson: tRump is above the law.

CRIME DOES PAY! What kind of message does that send to the rest of us, that he's above the fucking law? He broke those laws before he was POTUS, not while he was president, FFS!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

1. the criminal should not be shielded by the fruits of the crime

Being successful at a crime should not make me immune to prosecution for the commission of that crime.

[malaise]

2. I've been thinking about this

Lock him up!
Rec

[KPN]

18. Lol. I've been doing the same deep thinking about

this very point. .... Yes. Lock him up! And throw away the key!

[Sherman A1]

3. A small point here

At best he is accused of a felony and not a felon until convicted of a crime. I dislike the "Esteemed" Mr Trump as much as anyone, but the process must still play itself out in both investigation and a court of law prior to him earning the title of felon.

[former9thward]

9. He has not been accused of a felony.

Nothing in any of the DOJ's papers say that. So yes, he is not a felon, but he is not accused of one either. Commentators and internet posters have made inferences, and that is their right, but those have no legal meaning.

[Sherman A1]

10. As stated in my post

He is at Best an accused felon. I sincerely hope to see him leave the political scene as soon as possible through due process, but it still must be in a legal or political avenue that respects the rights of all involved.

[LeftInTX]

14. Thanks for this...I don't always agree with you

I haven't read the DOJs papers.

I know commentators have made inferences.....
White collar crime is complex...If and only if Trump and not his campaign did xxxx.

[LeftInTX]

15. So if Trump is "individual 1"

I wonder if the SDNY could indict? (Or attempt to indict)
I'm sure it would go to the SC.

This appears to be similar to Nixon..but not as bad, because with Nixon there was a physical crime (burglary)
In both cases, there are violations of campaign finance laws. (Nixon had other issues too)

On paper..and just on paper Nixon seems a bit worse.

I personally think Trump is much, much worse..but if it is just campaign finance laws on paper...Trump could always say, "He got bad advice", "It wasn't me", "Cohen misunderstood me etc".

[former9thward]

16. Trump could be named as a "unindicted co-conspirator".

If the DOJ feels Trump is guilty of a crime but do not think a sitting president can be indicted they can use that term. They did that in 1974 with Nixon. So far they have not used that term or anything like it in any court filings. One of the problems with the Cohen case is that the DOJ just can't throw around the world indictment. They have to have the evidence. If Cohen is the evidence they would be in deep trouble. Everyone, on all sides, has called Cohen a liar. His testimony is worthless in court.

[greymattermom]

20. I think he kept good records.

Maybe those documents and recordings can be used in court.

[anarch]

4. of course crime pays...sometimes very well

otherwise, why would people take the risks involved in being a criminal? (I mean in the case of crime for profit, not crimes of passion or psychosis...)

Look how well off someone like, say, Semion Mogilevich is...one of the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet, and purely through criminal enterprise.

Hell, at the end of the day, capitalism is theft...and look how well that pays (for some).

[Vinca]

5. It's time to test the DOJ "president can't be indicted" rule in court.

No one is above the law.

[MrsCoffee]

8. It's not a rule set in stone.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-idea-that-a-president-cant-be-indicted-is-a-myth

He needs to die in jail.

[onetexan]

17. spot on, we're in unchartered territory, but nowhere does it say he's above the law

[spinbaby]

6. And it's such incompetent crime

It’s like the Three Stooges and he’s gotten away with it through sheer chutzpah.

[Perseus]

7. If I am not mistaken, that is not the law

Its just a discussion that has taken place in the past and it is more of a question if a president can be indicted, but that is not the law, once people understand that a president CAN be indicted then that discussion will end.

trump, his family and gang (Pence, etc.) have committed acts of treason and they must all pay. The discussion that a president cannot be indicted goes against any logic, a criminal is a criminal and he/she cannot have provisions that allow them to commit crimes and walk away as if nothing happened. That would make true then that the sitting president could kill someone in plain light then walk away free as if nothing happened, makes no sense, and treason cannot be forgiven.

[Mr.Bill]

11. If Hillary Clinton Had been elected,

The republican house would have been voting for her impeachment on a daily basis since the day after she was sworn in.

[KPN]

19. As would the Republican Senate be voting on her

conviction and expulsion.

Keep in mind that they have the WH in large part due to “Lock Her Up!”

I sometimes wonder whether in adhering to logical and ethical principles we just make ourselves dupes.

[eleny]

12. And every day he's a threat to our national security

..... .....

[Baltimike]

13. That's certainly not what they were saying while WJC was in the WH. nt