IIRC according to Rachel Maddow he was the one candidate on that list who thought that sitting Presidents should not be indicted or "distracted" by investigations
OMG, what an AMAZING COINCIDENCE.
(I knew that was his view, not that he was the only one on the list to think that.)
The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility."
I saw an interesting argument that if the indictment and trial of a sitting President is deemed to make them incapable of discharging "the powers and duties of the office", then it would be an entirely legit use of the 25th Amendment to make the VP acting president for the duration of the trial.
In which case, indicting a president is not a problem (relative to having a criminal but unindicted president in office, anyway, especially if they're named as an unindicted co-conspirator).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2018-09-27 09:02 am (UTC)OMG, what an AMAZING COINCIDENCE.
(I knew that was his view, not that he was the only one on the list to think that.)
The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility."
I saw an interesting argument that if the indictment and trial of a sitting President is deemed to make them incapable of discharging "the powers and duties of the office", then it would be an entirely legit use of the 25th Amendment to make the VP acting president for the duration of the trial.
In which case, indicting a president is not a problem (relative to having a criminal but unindicted president in office, anyway, especially if they're named as an unindicted co-conspirator).