,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. It’s a good analogy but I fear it’s not a winning position in court. The fugitive thwarts his prosecution by fleeing. The DOJ thwarts the president’s prosecution by taking a “do not prosecute” position that is unsupported in the law. Put another way . . .
2. it’s not the president’s “fault” that he is not being prosecuted, it the DOJ/OLC’s “fault” that they are, for no good reason, failing to prosecute a criminal president. Now the issue of Trump stealing the presidency is another matter altogether...
3. If it were me, I would invoke the Constitutional doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing & indict Trump. That doctrine establishes that you can’t invoke a constitutional protection if you have unclean hands. Accordingly, you can’t kill a witness who is set to testify against you-
4. And then claim that the incriminating information the (now dead) witness could have provided at trial can’t be introduced into evidence because you’re not able to exercise your constitutional right to cross-examine the witness. You killed the witness! You caused him to be ...
5. unavailable to testify. You, therefore, have unclean hands in the matter, so you lose the right to invoke your constitutional right to cross-examine the witness. The same principle SHOULD apply to Trump: he cheated to win the presidency, thereby stealing the presidency.
6. He can’t then claim the protections of the presidency to avoid being held accountable for his crimes. It’s forfeiture by wrongdoing, plain and simple.
