Thread by @PuestoLoco

Yes, Trump can be removed without impeachment. The 14th Amendment supersedes impeachment clauses & Trump engaged in “insurrection.” “An insurrection with an avowed design to suppress public offices, is an act of levying war.” U.S. v. Mitchell, 2 U.S. 348 (1795).

18 USC §2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto..”
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

At ¶69 –“Defendants..were GRU officers who..conspired with each other & with [other] persons..to hack into computers of US persons & entities responsible for administration of 2016 U.S. elections, such as state boards of elections, secretaries of state.." justice.gov/file/1080281/d…

When Mueller indicted the Russian military GRU agents, Dianne Feinstein said pay attention to (what I quote in ¶69 of the indictment). She said "this is very important." Feinstein has seen it all by having a top security clearance on the Senate Intelligence & Judiciary committees

A jury could have a finding of fact that; 1) There was an insurrection. Then establish a list of insurrectionists, starting with Russian military GRU. 2) Did Trump "engage" in it, and or "give aid & comfort" to the insurrectionists?? If 1) is YES, 2) is easy.

Everyone talks around the one man who currently has authority to make exceptions for "extraordinary circumstances" in @TheJusticeDept's quaint tradition of "should not indict" a sitting POTUS. His name is Rod Rosenstein. Long ago, he should have gotten an updated legal opinion.

Both of these things can't be true:
• Nobody is above the law •
• POTUS can't be indicted •

Straight up:
• @TheJusticeDept does NOT have a policy to not indict a sitting POTUS
• 1973 & 2000 OLC legal opinions DO NOT say a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. They say “should not”
• If Trump engaged in insurrection, should he continue unfettered??
apnews.com/6f4085a7848542…

Dept of Justice has NO RULE against a sitting president being indicted. They only have 2 legal opinions from 1973 & 2000 which say, in essence, he "should not" be indicted because the office is too busy to mess with it.
lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-…

As for "the office is too busy"; Remember when the whole country shut down while the Office of President Bill Clinton spent 2+ years fighting in Court & in impeachment hearings & processes?? Me neither. It's only too busy if Republicans control @TheJusticeDept, right Rosenstein??