,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
(short thread) The logic is that we're bounded by the Constitution.
The Constitution gives us a procedure for handling a criminal president. The founders even considered the possibility that a president might beholden to foreign powers.
The procedure is this:
The Constitution gives us a procedure for handling a criminal president. The founders even considered the possibility that a president might beholden to foreign powers.
The procedure is this:
1/ The House investigates, and if there’s basis, impeaches the president. . Impeachment is followed by a Senate trial. If found guilty, he is removed him from office with 2/3 vote.
At the first sign of corruption, fraud, or a foreign influence in the election, Congress. . .
At the first sign of corruption, fraud, or a foreign influence in the election, Congress. . .
2. . . SHOULD have immediately conducted a meaningful investigation. Instead, the GOP members of Congress sabotaged any investigations & shoved through its agenda.
Thus the cause of our constitutional crisis isn’t a lawbreaking president.
Thus the cause of our constitutional crisis isn’t a lawbreaking president.
3/ The problem is that the GOP is shielding him.
A former president can, of course, be indicted and brought into a regular criminal court.
This is what the founders envisioned: Impeach, remove, indict, conduct trial.
A former president can, of course, be indicted and brought into a regular criminal court.
This is what the founders envisioned: Impeach, remove, indict, conduct trial.
4/ Scholars pretty much agree a president can be indicted. Dellinger (former head of the DOJ Office of the Counsel & acting solicitor general) argues that a criminal trial interferes with the duties of the president . . . nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opi…
5/ Thus a criminal trial must wait until the president is out of office.
Consider the problems with a trial: If he's found guilty, he’d have to be removed from office, which means a jury of 12 people would have the power to remove a president from office.
Consider the problems with a trial: If he's found guilty, he’d have to be removed from office, which means a jury of 12 people would have the power to remove a president from office.
6/ A jury removing a president form office is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, which made removal up to the Senate.
The other reason is that a trial would be a media circus. Good luck finding an impartial jury.
The other reason is that a trial would be a media circus. Good luck finding an impartial jury.
7/ The founders intentionally made it hard to remove a sitting president (2/3 of the Senate)
There are good reasons for that. What if a jury of 12 in a deep red state had been able to remove Obama from office?
Besides we have to follow the Constitution. No choice.
There are good reasons for that. What if a jury of 12 in a deep red state had been able to remove Obama from office?
Besides we have to follow the Constitution. No choice.
