2. Now that Sam the Sham is off I was back to @MSNBC and the panel was discussing whether President can be indicted. There is something that happens on TV when attorneys talk about this. They all forget states prosecute too and DOJ 2000 memo only dealt with federal prosecutions.
3. Glenn Kirschner seems to get it. He's a career prosecutor. Danny Cevallos cites Art I, Sec 3 para 7 for the proposition that the President can't be charged. IMO that's wrong. That clause makes clear impeachment doesn't bar a future prosecution. Art I, 3, 7 is not directed
4. only to the President but applies to any Federal officer impeached and convicted. It simply states that an impeachment and conviction does not bar criminal prosecution for purposes of jeopardy. Impeachment only addresses removal from office and bans from future office.
5. What everyone tends to get confused about is "Official Immunity." They conflate this with a general immunity from prosecution. Let's be clear, a President is immune from almost all official acts, like many other officers. These cases often come down to what is an official act.
6. But one fact is clear: Crimes a sitting President commits BEFORE being sworn on January 20 at noon are not immune from prosecution. So, if Trump murdered someone on 5th Avenue on January 19, 2017, he can be charged & tried in NY State court. How he is arrested is the issue.
7. I know of no Constitutional text, Fed statue or SCOTUS case that supports a contrary result. As to Federal law, any crime that POTUS committed prior to the President being sworn is also chargeable but the fact of the President's role as head of the Govt must be taken
8. into account. So what we just witnessed is the way it is likely to go when the President is named in federal cases: "Individual No. __" But what about state courts? I don't think this type of deference is required or appropriate in all circumstances. If criminal case is filed
9. President can seek to remove it from state court to the US district court but if the crime was not subject to a cognizable defense of official immunity the case must be remanded & #SCOTUS so held in Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) (postal worker criminal prosecution).
10. Trump is being told by attorneys he's got nothing to fear. We should view his delusional Tweets as comforting because they show he's being lied to by attorneys & doesn't fathom dire circumstances he & his family face.
Like telling a small child not to fear brain surgery.
Like telling a small child not to fear brain surgery.
