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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alwaysinasnit

(5,038 posts)
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 10:26 PM Apr 2019

A question for the legal beagles here. I watched Rachel tonight and in discussing

Mueller's report, she mentioned the two paths to make 45 accountable; impeachment or criminal charges once 45 leaves office. In describing the criminal charges path, Rachel mentioned that there is a statute of limitations of 5 years from the date of the criminal act (obstruction of justice). Mueller made a point of saying that he is following the DOJ's prohibition against indicting a sitting president. If that is the case, can a valid argument be made that that same DOJ policy justifies the tolling of the statute of limitations?

Any thoughts?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

dawg day

(7,947 posts)
1. We could avoid the legal issue--
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 10:38 PM
Apr 2019

by impeaching him or voting him out in 2020, and delivering his flabby butt to the grand jury.

i heard some legal scholar today, can't remember the name, say that he sensed that Trump is realizing he basically has one option-- resign soon in exchange for a pardon from Pence (just like Nixon did).

This scenario predicts that Trump can't count on winning in 2020, and no Democratic president is going to pardon him.

(I know-- he could run and lose, then in the 2 months before Inauguration, resign and get Pence to pardon him. But why would Pence bother? He might actually have a political future if he doesn't pardon Dump.)

unblock

(51,974 posts)
2. an argument could certainly be made. not clear if it would prevail.
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 10:39 PM
Apr 2019

what would really be interesting is that the right-wing, or at least donnie and his supporters, would be shamelessly arguing the exact opposite position as what they're arguing now -- that mueller could have indicted him while he was still in office after all, and therefore the delay was the prosecutor's fault, so an extension of the statute of limitations is not warranted.

alwaysinasnit

(5,038 posts)
3. Yeh, that sounds like an argument they would make. Just like, "I can't be guilty of obstruction
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 10:44 PM
Apr 2019

because my orders were never carried out, so justice wasn't obstructed."

TomSlick

(11,035 posts)
4. I don't think so.
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 11:13 PM
Apr 2019

The Statute of Limitations is - well - statutory. The DoJ policy is nothing more than a misguided legal opinion from the DoJ. An incorrect legal opinion from an administrative agency cannot supersede a statute.

The effect of the Statute of Limitations problem is evidence enough that the DoJ policy is incorrect.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
5. trump will never be convicted in a court for crimes related to politics.
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 11:16 PM
Apr 2019

Impossible to find a jury that won’t hang with a least one white winger holding out.

ChoppinBroccoli

(3,764 posts)
8. It Brings Up An Interesting Legal Question
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 11:29 PM
Apr 2019

There ARE certain situations where the time for computing Statute of Limitations does not run. One of those situations, for example, is if the crime could not have been discovered due to the perpetrator's fraudulent behavior (i.e. a "cover-up&quot . Do we have that situation here? I think an argument could be made on either side. I think one could argue that the "cover-up" was only DISCOVERED this weekend (when the Mueller Report was issued), and therefore the Statute of Limitations time should START then.

Another situation is if the perpetrator of the crime fails to show up for court or otherwise goes "on the lam." You can't avoid the court and just wait out the Statute of Limitations and then walk away from it. In this case, I suppose you could argue that Trump is avoiding service of summons as a result of his job, but that's kind of a weak argument.

All in all, I'd say that the best way to go about this is for whichever Court decides to prosecute Trump to just go ahead and file a criminal complaint against him just before the Statute of Limitations runs out, REGARDLESS of whether or not they think it will be honored. They will certainly have to argue that issue out, and if they win, they've preserved their right to prosecute him, even if the arguments take years. And it may preserve the issue long enough for Trump to be out of office, which would then make them moot.

Of course, the BEST course of action is just to boot his ass out in 2020 (or before) and not have to worry about the whole Statute of Limitations argument.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A question for the legal ...