If you can grab it, never mind how, you get to keep it
Laurence Tribe is profoundly aghast at the notion that a crook can crook his way into the presidency and then be untouchable on account of how the Justice Department Has Ruled that a sitting president can’t be indicted. The problem with that is obvious. If he got the position by committing crimes, how can it make sense to then make the very position he got by criminal means the thing that protects him from law enforcement? It’s absurd and it’s also…you know…a fucking disaster.
Pinned tweet:
NEW RULE:
Cheat & lie & commit enough felonies to become president — and you’ll get not just the office with all its powers, but a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card!
Retweet if you doubt Madison and Hamilton were dumb enough to put that incentive scheme in place.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 13, 2018
State constitutions like Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s build in protections against these anti-democratic power plays. New Jersey’s too, where the Democrats may be trying the same play.https://t.co/aFWyT3MmzX
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 18, 2018
This is starting to feel like an echo chamber. Until this “A-SITTING-PRESIDENT-CAN-BE-INDICTED-FOR-CHEATING-HIS-WAY-INTO-THE-PRESIDENCY” view breaks out of the silo, it won’t cause the necessary waves. If you think retweeting might help, please do that!https://t.co/fOQAYGxD1S
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 17, 2018
That Truthout piece has Neil Katyal agreeing with Tribe’s view.
The Office of Legal Counsel memos stating that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution do not necessarily protect Trump, according to some legal experts.
“The justifications underlying the general practice of treating [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions as binding on executive branch officials do not necessarily apply to the Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to be insulated from the influence of political appointees when assessing the president’s exposure to criminal liability,” Harvard law professor Andrew Crespo wrote at Lawfare blog. The Office of Legal Counsel memos, Crespo noted, were written by presidential appointees beholden to the president.
Neal Katyal, solicitor general in the Obama administration, says the Office of Legal Counsel opinions may not prevent Trump from being indicted because they “don’t necessarily apply to a circumstance in which the actual crime may have involved him obtaining the presidency in the first place.”
One would certainly hope so.
Ummm…weren’t these people the same people that went out of their way to make sure a sitting president could be tried when Bill Clinton was accused by Paula Jones (though I’m not sure that case was ever heard? I’m pretty sure the courts said it could be…correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve had a couple glasses of wine and one or two beers since the Clinton administration).
Yes and, should Trump be indicted, or even forced to resign in disgrace, the Republicans will viciously apply any standard to the nth degree to the next Democratic president, on trumped-up charges if they have to. And as long as they can say the Democrats did it first, voters and the media will just blame Democrats.
Assuming Trump doesn’t instigate an open rebellion, which isn’t out of the question.
Yes, but did you inhale?
iknklast,
Clinton v. Jones was a civil case, so it’s not quite on point. Though one can argue that some of its reasoning applies to the possibility of a criminal proceeding, it really is an open question without firm precedent.
It is a sad indictment of this orange fuckwit that upon reading the post title, I could not yet see whether the ‘it’ in question was political power, or pussies.
Screechy, I realize that. The point was more that many of the people who don’t think Trump can/should be indicted were pushing very hard for the ability to sue Clinton, and would almost certainly have backed a criminal case, as well. My comment wasn’t so much about legal precedent as hypocrisy.
Holms, when I read the title, the only things I thought about were pussies and money. That’s the state to which our current creepy president has lowered us.
President Grant was arrested while in office, for speeding on a horse. However, he didn’t show up for the trial, and the case never reached the upper courts.
The crudity and multiple applicability of “grab” was fully intentional. He’s Donald “Grabber” Trump.
The 83 ethics charges against Kavanaugh were dismissed on the grounds that the judges have no jurisdiction over SCOTUS justices. Seems like another instance of the position making one immune to prosecution over crimes committed in obtaining the position. Not an exact match, but very similar.
Very VERY similar. I shouted that at NPR last night after listening to their report on it. Oh great, another sitch where doing bad things wins you the job which protects you from consequences for doing the bad things that won you the job which protects you from consequences for doing the bad things that won you the job which…