,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. If state court prosecutors have sufficient evidence to prove Trump committed crimes that violate state law, then the state prosecutors can and should indict him. This undoubtedly would result in modified “supremacy clause” litigation in the state court . . .
2. Although the Constitution’s supremacy clause isn’t directly applicable (providing that, when a federal law and a state law conflict w/one another, the federal law wins/is supreme), Trump’s lawyers would argue that those same principles prohibit a state court prosecution . . .
3. against a sitting president. But the benefits of a state indictment of a criminal president would be two-fold: 1. If a state court rules that a nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from indicting & trying a criminal president, then we’re off to the justice races...
4. Trump’s lawyers undoubtedly would try to use the federal courts to put a stop to the state court prosecution but, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Plus, a state court prosecution would be an appropriate vehicle to combat the horrific DOJ/OLC opinion saying . . .
5. we can’t indict a criminal president in federal court. The second benefit of indicting a criminal president in state court is that the statute of limitations would be tolled (paused) while Trump’s lawyers litigated the matter in state court. In other words...
6. Trump would not be able to run out the clock on being charged with state crimes in the unlikely event he was re-elected. In short, if state prosecutors have sufficient evidence to charge Trump with state crimes, they should. Let’s get this justice show on the road. #LetsRoll
