Thread by @jedshug

I guess a sitting president isn't above the law:
Federal judge orders Trump to turn over 8 years of tax returns to the Manhattan D.A.

I have a post soon to explain why a sitting president must be able to be indicted b/c of con law & the 6th Amendment.
nyti.ms/339BBwY

2/ The Trump lawyers had cited one of my blog posts to say presidents are above the law.
I had explained since then why the problem of statutes of limitations and the lack of equitable tolling. (See next post in thread)

https://twitter.com/realconnorlynch/status/1174782511991275520?s=20

3/ My @slate
article from Dec 2018:
"The Single Fatal Flaw in the Legal Argument Against Indicting a Sitting President:
"Should a president be above the law because of the statute of limitations?"
slate.com/news-and-polit…

@Slate 4/ I've skim/read Judge Marrero's decision. Technically, he did not order Trump to turn over the tax returns.
He dismissed President Trump's complaint seeking a federal injunction against the Manhattan DA in state court proceedings.

@Slate 5/ Judge Marrero's decision is here. It's thorough on abstention and the substance of the constitutional immunity arguments:
justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…

@Slate 6/ & the 6th Amendment problem:
Imagine it's 2021. Or 2025.
A new DOJ or a state prosecutor tries to indict Trump for tax fraud or bank fraud from 2014 or 2015.
Citizen Trump cites his 6th Amendment "right to a speedy trial."
It might be a bad faith point, but it's a valid point.

@Slate 7/ The Supreme Court has analyzed the right to a speedy trial from the timeline of arrest or indcitment to trial.
Barker v. Wingo (1972).
But could a court find a 10-year delay after the crime - mostly b/c prosecutors sat on their hands - also violates this right?
Of course.