i have already stated that this is an area where Trump has exposure. But based on the John Edwards situation the worst Trump will get is an FEC fine.
I believe I heard an attorney say yesterday that the Edwards case was different. Based on the article I've given a link to, it would seem that Edwards was not his own worst enemy, making it far more difficult for the prosecution to gain a conviction -- they failed, whereas the case against Trump has at least the outward appearance of being iron clad.
The Cohen testimony, the AMI testimony, the Tapes, and Trumps own statements all incriminate him. It would seem to be a prosecutor's dream case. But, as we know, if there is eventually a jury trial, anything can happen.
see
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/sto...mpaign-finance-fraud-with-john-edwardss-case/
I heard an attorney discuss tolling statutes of limitations in the case of Presidents being accused of a crime while in office.. I would have thought that tolling of statutes for any time served as President would be just a formality, and that any court would rule they should be tolled if the President can not be indicted. But there is no law that says the president can not be indicted, and thus, and apparently, this clouds the issue of tolling. It is further clouded by there being no precedent to fall back on. The question of tolling would also seem to be bound up in the issue that Laurence Tribe brought up. (See below.)
There is this in Article II of the Constitution.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
I heard Prof. Laurence Tribe give the opinion that Impeachment was the means of formally removing the President from his office, but not intended to substitute for the normal process of indictment and trial, which in a sense could be the result were a President to be impeached, tried, convicted, removed from office and then pardoned before he/she was indicted. He seemed to be arguing that it was never intended by the Founders that a President could not be indicted while in office, and that to prevent the possibility of placing the President above the law it was necessary that the President be indicted while in office. To me, he seemed to implying that the President must be indicted and tried before he is pardoned, if he is to be pardoned at all, and that would seem to me to have a very pleasing logic behind it. Such a viewpoint, however, would cast a shadow on the Nixon Pardon. Nixon was pardoned pre-emptively by Ford.!!!
There is also this, where various instances of impeachment are discussed.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation18.html
