Twitter | Search | |
southpaw
The notion that a) the constitution absolutely forbids charging the sitting president for crimes, and b) the statute of limitations for those crimes *still runs while he’s in office* so he might never face charges, shows how fatuous the constitutional analysis was to begin with.
Reply Retweet Like More
southpaw Dec 9
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Two terms is longer than the statute of limitations for most election law felonies. And Presidential term limits weren’t part of the Constitution until 1951, much later than the provisions DOJ memo writers relied on to claim sitting Presidents can’t be charged as a matter of law.
Reply Retweet Like
bmaz Dec 9
Oh no, I can definitely see it being argued and, absent some provision passed by Congress (which Trump would veto) I'd think the argument might succeed.
Reply Retweet Like
southpaw Dec 9
Replying to @bmaz @nchaseteeples
and by succeeding, I'd submit, it would show that charging the president in the time provided by law, even though he be serving as president when charged, is not the legal impossibility that DOJ argues it is.
Reply Retweet Like