However, nothing will make the House leadership consider impeachment, either. Not even upon the proffer of overwhelming evidence in state district court. Nothing. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, punishment, and these politicians have sworn a death oath to bring us down in order to prop themselves up.....for a long, long time.

The stench would become too great.

But I've yet to see any evidence of it among the Republican Reps and Senators who are on their respective intelligence committees. They've been made privy to some damning evidence already....and yet many seem poised to drop the whole inquiry if given the word from HQ.

for a state of New York indictment?

NY is home to some national banks and they have strong state laws against money laundering and for RICO violations.

May be enough to sway them from their lockstep.

I still wonder if anything will force them to take down Trump. They don't have a conscience, and they obtain their news from other sources. They can pretend anything they want, and as long as Trump's minions keep their heads buried in the sand, that pretend becomes quite real to them.

Of course the Supreme Court will decide if the indictment will stick, but I think there is a strong argument to be made that the President can be indicted by a state AG. Consider what would happen if the president did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. This illegal under state.law, but not federal law. So either the rule of law prevails and the state can indict the president for murder, or the president is above the law. There is no in between. Abd I can't see the SCOTUS saying the president is above the law.

Depending on the crime, it might be charged by complaint and not by grand jury, and it would probably be done by the county attorney for the county where it occurred, unless multiple counties were involved. Let's say that the aforementioned sitting president might have committed the crime of theft by swindle in my state, Minnesota. Here, most charges of homicide or other crimes that carry a possible life sentence will be considered by a grand jury, which would return an indictment if they thought there was enough evidence to go to trial. Theft by swindle, however, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years, so it probably would be charged by complaint and not by grand jury indictment. A criminal complaint would be made and signed under oath by someone with knowledge of the crime and approved by the prosecutor, and would be form the basis for an arrest warrant.

RICO is a federal statute, but many states have similar ones. A state prosecutor could only take cases that involve the violation of state statutes, and they'd have to acquire jurisdiction over the prospective defendant; but in the case of New York State that might be doable. The actual means for doing so would depend on the state's criminal statutes and rules of criminal procedure.

so jurisdiction doesn't seem to be a problem.

NY is the center of the banking industry and I've heard that it has state RICO laws and state money-laundering statutes. And I just found this.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/eric-schneiderman-on-keeping-trump-in-check.html

Even before Comey’s firing, some well-placed congressional Democrats had been urging Schneiderman to probe the Trump campaign’s suspected Kremlin connection, as far afield as that might seem for a state officeholder. But New York, of course, is home to the Trump Organization and its bank accounts. “We have jurisdiction over everything because we’re New York, and every check clears New York,” said former state attorney general (and governor) Eliot Spitzer, whose high-profile prosecutions on Wall Street demonstrated the office’s national reach. “There are odd jurisdictional hooks that sometimes come into play. Money laundering may be implicated here.”

“When Trump was elected, it became very clear to me, having known him for some time, that there were going to be new challenges,” Schneiderman told me in April in an interview at his Broadway office, which looks out on the harbor and the World Trade Center memorial — a reminder of the stakes of law enforcement in New York. “This is a president who doesn’t like to see checks on his power,” he said, and a Congress with “a real reluctance to serve as a check on the Executive branch.”

“The states are able to serve as a backup,” he said. Particularly New York, whose attorney general’s office is perhaps the most powerful in the country, aided by the Martin Act, a state law that gives sweeping powers to investigate financial fraud. Past occupants of the office have used that power to raise their political profiles — both of Schneiderman’s immediate predecessors, Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo, ended up as governor. It’s no secret that Schneiderman would like to follow that example, and his confrontational stance toward Trump has made him a popular figure on the left. But it could also be an effective litigation strategy. Schneiderman and other state attorneys general led the successful counterattack against Trump’s initial Muslim-nation immigration ban, and similar lawsuits could slow the administration’s moves on civil rights and environmental regulations. “I think that we’re in a situation now,” Schneiderman said, “where the confrontations provoked very early on have set up an unprecedented set of battle lines.”

SNIP

against Trump because he lived there, owns property and (back when he could get bank loans) conducted banking business there. Getting his ugly orange ass convicted of a state crime would be especially awesome because he couldn't even get himself pardoned for it. New York has a RICO-type statute that deals with "enterprise corruption," here: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article460.htm It does look like enterprise corruption in NY can be charged by grand jury indictment.

And once he left office -- whenever that was -- the prosecution would be waiting for him. And no hope of a pardon.

Wouldn't that be something. Almost too much to hope for.