Trump: "Did nothing wrong, there are no charges against

[H.sapiens]

Yet, today Trump is, effectively, an un-indicted co-conspirator.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 1 by H.sapiens]

Yet, today Trump is, effectively, an un-indicted co-conspirator.

His house of cards is collapsing as we speak. His style of bluster is soooo telling I think even the deplorables are looking to exit a mooring line without rodent barriers. His being an unindicted co-conspirator sums it up quite well--the master of manipulation; the savant of sleaze; the controller of connivance; the tester of truth; the partitioner of people; endless spinner of the electorate--the list goes on into an infinity of ill-speak.

Other than that, it's been a good run for the stock market, regulation retardation and religious regression--akin to Nazi Germany's pre-war economic boom and bombast.

[bluethread]

Yet, today Trump is, effectively, an un-indicted co-conspirator.

Un-indicted co-conspirator is a canard devised by the special council in the Nixon investigation for the purpose of slinging mud on someone that the prosecutor can not or will not prosecute. It is a clear example of a government official attempting to declare someone as guilty of something, without having to provide that one with due process.

[fredonly]

Un-indicted co-conspirator is a canard devised by the special council in the Nixon investigation for the purpose of slinging mud on someone that the prosecutor can not or will not prosecute. It is a clear example of a government official attempting to declare someone as guilty of something, without having to provide that one with due process.

It is likely that a President cannot be prosecuted while in office because of separation of powers, so your first statement is true.

Your second statement is false. An indictment is simply a charge based on evidence the person has committed a crime. This is only the first step in due-process, not the endpoint. A trial would ensue that would lead to a judgment.

An "un-indicted co-conspirator" is someone for whom there is evidence of a crime, just as if he were indicted, but for some reason, has not (or cannot) be indicted.

In the case of a president, "due process" is the responsibility of Congress - impeachment by the House takes the place of indictment, and the Senate tries the case.

[bluethread]

It is likely that a President cannot be prosecuted while in office because of separation of powers, so your first statement is true.

However, He can recomend impeachment. Why didn't he do that?

Your second statement is false. An indictment is simply a charge based on evidence the person has committed a crime. This is only the first step in due-process, not the endpoint. A trial would ensue that would lead to a judgment.

However, we are not talking about an indictment. If that were the case, they would the be committed to go to trial or withdraw the indictment. This in an accusation without endictment. That is defamation without due process or recourse.

An "un-indicted co-conspirator" is someone for whom there is evidence of a crime, just as if he were indicted, but for some reason, has not (or cannot) be indicted.

It is the claim of a prosecutor that such evidence exists without the provision that such a claim be challenged. That is defamation.

In the case of a president, "due process" is the responsibility of Congress - impeachment by the House takes the place of indictment, and the Senate tries the case.

That is the case. In any other case, one can not be accused of conspiracy without an indictment. So, the investigator is required to present the evidence to the Prosecutor(Congress) and otherwise keep his mouth shut. If someone other than the indicted individual is mentioned, they are referred to as a person of interest.

[fredonly]

In the case of a president, "due process" is the responsibility of Congress - impeachment by the House takes the place of indictment, and the Senate tries the case.

That is the case. In any other case, one can not be accused of conspiracy without an indictment. So, the investigator is required to present the evidence to the Prosecutor(Congress) and otherwise keep his mouth shut. If someone other than the indicted individual is mentioned, they are referred to as a person of interest.

Trump has not been accused of a crime, and has not been named an "unindicted co-conspirator." Giuliani correctly pointed out, "There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen"

However, He can recomend impeachment. Why didn't he do that?

Again, Mueller has not suggested Trump committed a crime. It's not a stretch to think Mueller has something like that in mind, but his investigation is in progress. If he's going to recommend impeachment, it will come after the investigation is completed and will include all crimes for which there is good evidence - if any.

However, we are not talking about an indictment. If that were the case, they would the be committed to go to trial or withdraw the indictment. This in an accusation without endictment. That is defamation without due process or recourse.

Cohen made the "defaming" statement, and he made it under oath. Trump has been invited to give his side of it, also under oath. He should take the opportunity.

An "un-indicted co-conspirator" is someone for whom there is evidence of a crime, just as if he were indicted, but for some reason, has not (or cannot) be indicted.

It is the claim of a prosecutor that such evidence exists without the provision that such a claim be challenged. That is defamation.

Hard is it may be for you to believe, it is possible that Trump actually did what Cohen says he did. If that's the case, then Cohen's statement of fact is not defamation. But if Trump actually didn't do this, then his recourse will be to sue Cohen for defamation.

[bluethread]

Trump has not been accused of a crime, and has not been named an "unindicted co-conspirator." Giuliani correctly pointed out, "There is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen"

I was responding to the OP. If the OP is wrong, then fine.

Cohen made the "defaming" statement, and he made it under oath. Trump has been invited to give his side of it, also under oath. He should take the opportunity.

Fine, as a private citizen he can do that. However, that is not the same as the government making the statement.

Hard is it may be for you to believe, it is possible that Trump actually did what Cohen says he did. If that's the case, then Cohen's statement of fact is not defamation. But if Trump actually didn't do this, then his recourse will be to sue Cohen for defamation.

I was not defending Trump on the merits. I was just noting the silliness of the government naming someone as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 1 by H.sapiens]

Regarding the swamp:

Hunter is the latest republican congressman accused of self-aggrandizment.

If the republicans totally drain the swamp, they will likely become the minority party.

[H.sapiens]

John McCain's deathbed letter moved me to tears of sadness and tears of pride, Donald Trump moved me to tears of anger. It is a good thing that while John McCain will be remembered for a long time, Donald Trump will, thankfully, be forgotten as quickly as is humanly possible.

[fredonly]

I was not defending Trump on the merits. I was just noting the silliness of the government naming someone as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

No one was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the government. My understanding is that this is no longer done - the courts frown on it. But informally, some believe Trump can be considered as such. Personally, I'm not 100% sure he actually committed a crime - the legal scholars I've heard seem divided on this. But if he IS guilty of a crime, I doubt it's enough to get him removed from office. Of course, there may be more to come out of this.