@marty_lederman argues we should "shift our attention" away from whether a sitting president can be indicted. I agree with many of his points.
But I'd like to ask if he's missing a concrete problem (statutes of limitations) and a larger principle...
nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opi…
But I'd like to ask if he's missing a concrete problem (statutes of limitations) and a larger principle...
nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opi…
I wrote in @slate about this concrete problem:
1) The statute of limitations for campaign finance felonies is 5 years.
2) There seems to be no precedent for equitable tolling for any criminal defendants.
3) If Trump wins re-election, the clock runs out.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
1) The statute of limitations for campaign finance felonies is 5 years.
2) There seems to be no precedent for equitable tolling for any criminal defendants.
3) If Trump wins re-election, the clock runs out.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
4) To avoid the possibility that Trump never answers for his 2016 campaign finance felonies, the answer is an indictment before 2021.
Is the Russia investigation important? Of course.
But campaign finance laws are important, too.
Is the Russia investigation important? Of course.
But campaign finance laws are important, too.
5) Fixing the thread here:
6) Why would a president agree to waive the statute of limitations if a prosecutor is going to publish a report anyway? And face impeachment anyway?
Rational presidents, as well as irrational ones, would hold on to the way to stay out of jail: running out the clock. No deal.
Rational presidents, as well as irrational ones, would hold on to the way to stay out of jail: running out the clock. No deal.
