Thread by @JohnWHuber

This by @SenKamalaHarris is a good example of prominent Dems using “unindicted co-conspirator” word games to make Trump seem just like Richard Nixon

This is so dense it could warp space time.

Here's why

THREAD

—Nixon was SECRETLY named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" BY A GRAND JURY in the '74 Watergate prosecution

—Trump was only PUBLICLY referred to as "the Candidate" in Michael Cohen's PLEA DEAL

Cohen pleading guilty to a potential crime (in this case knowing/wilful SEC campaign finance violations):

—Does not in fact prove it WAS a crime, only that Cohen was willing to plead that to prosecutors to avoid a trial

—There is major disagreement as to whether it was a crime

The relevant SEC law requires:

* Knowing/wilful violation (not negligence)

* Has to be ONLY because there was a campaign

That would be a very tough case to make:

https://twitter.com/johnwhuber/status/1032558179526303744?s=21

Also, Trump is held to a completely different standard to Cohen as:

* He's not a lawyer (impacts if he KNEW he was violating the law)

* He's the candidate, so has no campaign finance contribution limits for his own money (unlike Cohen, limited to $2,700)

The last time the government tried to make a similar case in court (against Democrat John Edwards):

—It LOST, acquitted on one count and hung on several others

—Didn't re-try the case

And that was an EASIER case, on paper far more clear cut

So, when @SenKamalaHarris refers to "an investigation" into Trump, what exactly is she referring to?

The DOJ doesn't confirm/deny the EXISTENCE of investigations. It hasn't in this case.

So there is no public evidence Trump is being actively investigated for these SEC "crimes"

And WHY did Watergate prosecutors secretly name Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator"?

BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN'T BE INDICTED

So if you're using the Nixon standard: NEITHER CAN TRUMP

Thanks @SenKamalaHarris, can you inform the rest of the resistance?

Also while we're playing word games, @SenKamalaHarris demands that "Trump should not have the ability to appoint someone" to the court

—If he "should not" have it, you're admitting he does now?

—Constitution agrees: with advice/consent of Senate, he does. HE IS THE PRESIDENT

There is hypocrisy here too:

—President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court in '94:

* While under a Special Counsel investigation for Whitewater

* Breyer was confirmed 87-9 & is still there 24 years later, ruling against Conservatives (e.g. On 2nd amend)

Finally:

1. Kavanagh's hearing won't be delayed

2. Kamala Harris won't ask any questions relevant to his actual rulings & has probably not even read any of them

3. Absent any major surprises, he'll be confirmed

Then Kavanagh will defend the Constitution that got him there 😎

SUMMARY

—@SenKamalaHarris ends up admitting that Trump can't be indicted while he's president

—There is no evidence he'd be indicted even if he wasn't president, given the Edwards case and disagreement as to whether it was a clear knowing/wilful crime

/ENDS

N.B. Fixed some bad links and typos in a previous version of this. @jack please reassign some lefty coders from hassling Conservatives duty and get them to add an EDIT button! 😡