Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:28 PM Mar 2019

I have been repeatedly surprised by the conservative mind-set of many here.

It has been said that one of the core principles of conservatism is: "Nothing should ever be done for the first time". In other words, conservatives always prefer to play it safe. They want things done the way they have "always" been done even when dealing with totally unprecedented problems. Their fallback position is always "follow the rules", even when the issue being addressed was either totally unheard of when the "rule" was written or was just not considered by those who wrote the rules.

These folks argue simply that, " If it ain't in the Constitution, you can't do it. You've got to follow the rules!"

There is one rule that says a sitting president* cannot be indicted.

There is another rule, called the Statute of Limitations, that most federal crimes---like, say, obstruction of justice---must be filed within five years of commission or they are barred.

"By the rules", Trump could be re-elected by the electoral college despite again losing the popular vote.

So, when Trump finishes his second term and, by the rules, could be indicted, most everything he's done up till now and within the next 10 months or so will be barred by the 5 year Statute of Limitations. How does that unlikely but possible scenario strike you? No "rules" would be broken.

The Constitution says nothing about cell phones or fully automatic rifles or TV advertising, yet laws regulating them are not deemed unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted or "construed" in new ways so as to accommodate new situations and technology and issues not dreamed of by the Foundng Fathers. I don't believe that the possibility of a traitorous criminal POTUS being shielded by a complicit partisan Senate was anything anyone dreamed might happen.

I do not say that we should ignore the law. I am simply suggesting that we USE the law in unprecedented ways to remedy unprecedented wrongs.

This is not the time to play it safe or say that we need a guarantee of success before we do battle. Let's be open to pursuing anything that can fit WITHIN our constitution even if it's "never been done before".




24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have been repeatedly surprised by the conservative mind-set of many here. (Original Post) Atticus Mar 2019 OP
Conceivably the statute of limitations could be tolled until after Trump leaves the WH. no_hypocrisy Mar 2019 #1
No rule Timewas Mar 2019 #2
So, what are you suggesting? TwilightZone Mar 2019 #3
Statute of limitations Timewas Mar 2019 #5
I'm also pretty sure that Mueller and the others know what they're doing. TwilightZone Mar 2019 #7
The reason I posted that Timewas Mar 2019 #9
this whinefest has lasted what, CatWoman Mar 2019 #4
If the shoe fits----nt Atticus Mar 2019 #6
Longer jberryhill Mar 2019 #10
Those are always fun n/t DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2019 #13
LOL CatWoman Mar 2019 #14
Here ya go: Atticus Mar 2019 #24
Statutes of limitation don't work that way jberryhill Mar 2019 #8
You will, no doubt, be able to cite some specific authority that provides for tolling the Statute of Atticus Mar 2019 #18
3 coulds in one short paragraph.... pbmus Mar 2019 #11
this one is more soulful CatWoman Mar 2019 #15
Well hell yea.... pbmus Mar 2019 #16
So the way I read your OP; you post unrealistic and illegal ideas. GulfCoast66 Mar 2019 #12
Did you even READ the OP? Please list all of the "unrealistic and illegal ideas" in it. nt Atticus Mar 2019 #17
What's the statute of limitations Codeine Mar 2019 #19
Probably about as long as your posting snark because you have nothing else. nt Atticus Mar 2019 #21
Your OP didn't really rise to the level of actual conversation. nt Codeine Mar 2019 #22
I suppose that means something to someone. nt Atticus Mar 2019 #23
It is an open legal question whether he could be indicted treestar Mar 2019 #20

Timewas

(2,195 posts)
2. No rule
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:38 PM
Mar 2019

Nothing in the constitution says a sitting president cannot be indicted, it is only an idea that has been set by the justice department based on the premise that it would infringe on potus not being able to do his job as president if under indictment but that is all it is,and since that is a fallacy (especially with t-rump)there is no real reason that it cannot be done..since this one is not doing anything anyways

TwilightZone

(25,471 posts)
3. So, what are you suggesting?
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:38 PM
Mar 2019

The vague insults to some DUers notwithstanding, your post doesn't seem to provide any solutions.

I'm all for using the law in whatever means necessary to hold Trump accountable. Since you seem to have some insight, what are you proposing we do?

The "no president can be indicted" rule isn't really a rule. It's based on a memo from the Justice Department. I think it's likely that Mueller or one of the states will end up testing its constitutionality. Many legal experts believe that POTUS can be indicted.

As far as the statute of limitations is concerned, the only sure-fire way to ensure it never comes in to play is to ensure that Trump is voted out in 2020.

Timewas

(2,195 posts)
5. Statute of limitations
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:42 PM
Mar 2019

Only applies if no charges are brought,once charges have been brought and an indictment is handed down they stop and the trial can be anytime within the "right to a speedy trial concept".

TwilightZone

(25,471 posts)
7. I'm also pretty sure that Mueller and the others know what they're doing.
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:44 PM
Mar 2019

I'm guessing they know how the statute of limitations works in their various jurisdictions.

Timewas

(2,195 posts)
9. The reason I posted that
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:47 PM
Mar 2019

Was because there seemed to be some question about it. I am also pretty sure Mueller knows what he is doing..

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
8. Statutes of limitation don't work that way
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:45 PM
Mar 2019

Unfortunately, your principal issue is not with “conservatives” but with people who have a better grasp of law.

The time periods of statutes of limitations can be “tolled” or paused under a variety of circumstances. That the proposed defendant was temporarily immune from prosecution would be a reason that is consistent with general tolling principles.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
18. You will, no doubt, be able to cite some specific authority that provides for tolling the Statute of
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:24 PM
Mar 2019

Limitations due to the prosecution choosing to abide by a non-binding DOC policy. Or, you could explain your theory as to why else Trump is "temporarily immune from prosecution."

But, please, no more of that squishy "consistent with general tolling principles".

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
12. So the way I read your OP; you post unrealistic and illegal ideas.
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:56 PM
Mar 2019

When people tell you reasons those ideas are unrealistic, they are now, de facto, conservatives?

Uh, no.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
20. It is an open legal question whether he could be indicted
Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:28 PM
Mar 2019

It has not been justiciable - a president would have to be indicted and then object that it is unconstitutional and then take that through the appeals process.

One thing discouraging to see it "getting rid of the Electoral College will take a Constitutional Amendment which is impossible." But it has been amended before. It takes a long time. Susan B. Anthony didn't even live to see what she started, but she didn't just proclaim it impossible because it wouldn't happen right away.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have been repeatedly su...