Deutsche Bank gave Trump Records to NY Prosecutors

She’ll sign with the Sixers after Christmas.

 

Missed this dick riding firsrt go round. I will continue to defend Trump against stupid allegations of financial fraud. Nothing criminal about having a lot of debt

The sad thing is the allegations play right into the hands of the anti government conservative crowd. Baseless claims againstt a businessman

 

As expected you would.

Stupid gonna stupid.

 

How long has SDNY been investigating this?

 

We can revisit when he no longer has immunity.

 

These would be state charges. Try again

 

Fixed.

 

Try again.

 

sitting president is immune to both fed and state charges

 

Not sure, but I would guess it started on or abouts Feb 27, 2019

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
The Constitution has no provision regarding presidential immunity akin to the speech or debate clause that protects members of Congress in performing their official duties. Nevertheless, most Presidents have claimed the constitutional structure implicitly protects their ability to execute their constitutional obligations.

The Supreme Court first recognized presidential immunity formally in united states v. nixon (1973). The Court concluded the privilege was not absolute but presumptive and ordered President richard m. nixon to comply with a subpoena requesting some tapes of his conversations with his aides. The Court determined that Nixon's "generalized" need for "confidential communications" with staff was outweighed by the need for the materials sought in a pending criminal prosecution against members of his staff.

In nixon v. fitzgerald (1982), the Court held 5–4 the President—but not his staff—was absolutely immune from civil actions based on his official actions. The Court explained the "President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme. [Because] of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government."

In clinton v. jones (1997), a unanimous Court acknowledged the President's "unique" constitutional status but held he was not immune from civil actions based on his unofficial conduct. The Court left unaddressed whether a President may be criminally prosecuted or imprisoned before impeachment and removal from office, though it suggested for official actions a President "may be disciplined principally by impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages." Although Justice joseph story maintained a President was immune from criminal prosecution and imprisonment while discharging his duties, it is arguable that Clinton v. Jones sanctions any lawsuits, even criminal ones, based on a President's unofficial conduct. Moreover, no other federal officials, not even Vice Presidents, are immune while in office from criminal prosecution or imprisonment.

Michael J. Gerhardt
(2000)

 

lets all wait for a late xmas present after Jan 20

 

"she engaged in “undisclosed activities” related to a real estate deal"...

 

must be pegging.
@Nook