Could There Already Be There An Indictment Under Seal for Trump?

Just listen to former FEC Chair Brad Smith in YouTube videos. He simply dismisses all of these specious campaign violation claims. He'd be my first defense witness at trial. LOL!

BTW, and not that this would directly have any bearing on supposed campaign violations, but both of these women are proven liars. McDougal is grade A American women, BUT she cannot backup a single claim of hers regarding her alleged trysts, and some of the meetings she claimed to have had with Trump were proven to have never happened. Stormy has also been caught lying regarding the number of times she met Trump. And, best of all, the payment negotiations started prior to Trump announcing his candidacy. There's just no there there. It's all just leftist slop to foment their mental midgets.

 

Insult noted.

 

oh my God, not again. If I have to straighten out one more mixed up crazy Trumpkin about Uranium One when it has all been clarified long ago, I'll scream. Nope, I just can't do it again, so enjoy your fantasy.

 

Not only is the SDNY going to investigate Trump for crimes, they're going to rip the hell out of him. Why should we think that the Southern District won’t be satisfied with having convicted Cohen? Cohen said in open court that he had acted at the direction of the candidate, meaning Trump. The statement was made in consultation with the Southern District prosecutors.That means the Southern District actively wanted to make Cohen implicate the president. In essence, by making Cohen say he acted at Trump’s direction, the Southern District declared war on the president.

The Michael Cohen conviction makes any such Southern District investigation normal and logical, not a “witch hunt.” The prosecutors now have strong evidence that the Trump Organization was part of a conspiracy to commit campaign-finance violations. The repayment of Cohen by the Trump Organization makes the company fair game.

In any ordinary criminal investigation by the Southern District, evidence that a corporation has been used as part of a criminal conspiracy, with the knowledge and involvement of its owner and CFO, would naturally trigger further digging. Was this the first time the Trump Organization ever acted criminally? The Southern District prosecutors are going to want to know the answer. And they’re going to find out.

And, I can't WAIT!

 

It's not his "right" that is being questioned but his criminal "reason", to obstruct justice. It goes straight to intent. It is malfeasance of office.

Not in the slightest.

 

That is a completely inane and orthogonal response. Which part of "for any reason" didn't you quite get?

 

Irony duly noted.

 

Kneejerk denialism does not alter REALITY!

Cohen was charged and sentenced for campaign finance CRIMES.

 

One has NOTHING to do with the other.

There is documented evidence and witnesses to your beloved BLOTUS's crimes.

 

Reality is that Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance illegalities, but he was not charged by the SDNY with them. Under SDNY's recommendation his sentence was grouped together for all of his illegal behavior so you do not know how much, if any, of his sentence was for his campaign financing plea.

 

Are "we" certain that there will be no further charges against Cohen at this time? Could there also not still be sealed indictments on Cohen in addition to Trump?

 

Semantic squirming duly noted for the record!

What does the definition of illegality tell us?

Illegalities = CRIMES!

Busted!

 

I find it hard to believe that you have to post this to counter someone else's lack of reality/facts.

 

It is entirely possible that there are additional charges that could be filed against Cohen if he fails to uphold the terms of his plea deal.

 

So you don't understand how the law works.

 

The trumpers are on the run in this thread.

 

I would guess additional charges against Cohen could be filed, but practically speaking it would be unlikely. Holding back a sealed indictment against Cohen is possible but highly unlikely and would be viewed with skepticism if not contempt by the court. A sealed indictment against Trump would violate DOJ policy and rules, would get the SDNY in serious malfeasance, and does not exist.

 

Why is holding a sealed indictment unlikely? On what grounds? The courts would have no problem because a sealed indictment against Trump does not violate DOJ policy and rules, would not imperil the SDNY in any way, and may very well exist.

 

So silly! You refuted nothing that I asserted.

 

A person can be charged with obstruction if there is evidence that he/she obstructed. That person's reason for obstruction has zero to do with it. That is how the law is and works. Accept it or lump it.

 

Holding back a sealed indictment while you bring other indictments to court for trial is highly suspect and viewed with disdain by judges. Why, if a prosecutor has 7 indictments against a defendant, would they bring 6 to trial but keep one in their back pocket? For what purpose or rational?
It is absolutely against DOJ policy to indict a sitting president. And I'm am getting weary and damned tired of repeating this fact.

 

Unfortunately there is a great deal of denial when it comes to the BLOTUS and his criminal cabal. That denial manifests itself in coming up with all kinds of asinine rationalizations and distortion of reality.

 

Reason shows intent. I am glad that you agree that Trump can be charged with obstruction. That is how the law works, so lump it or accept it.

There is nothing highly suspect of bring some indictments to court and holding other indictments for later. RodB, ask the prosecutor if he has seven sealed indictments against one person, brings six of them to court, and holds one back. He will tell you he is following the law. You cannot prove different.

DOJ policy can be changed en camera. You can yell about it, if you wish, all you want.

 

You were in abject denial that there was any violation of the law connected with your beloved BLOTUS's campaign finance criminal conspiracy.

Here are your own words;

Then you used a term that you imagined might get you around that denial only to have it blow up in your face!

 

The sealed indictment is part of the plea deal and will only be produced in order to lengthen the sentence for which guilt has already been established in Cohen's case if he fails to fulfill his obligations.

There could also be an indictment under seal against your beloved BLOTUS for the exact same campaign finance criminal conspiracy and it has being sealed so as not to prejudice the final report.