Nadler, Deutch, Swalwell introduce "No President Above the Law Act" to pause statute of limitations

[hlthe2b]

I know, an uphill battle, but at least it puts Congressional R's and ultimately if it somehow passes, Trump in a bad position to vote it down/veto.

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler, Rep. Deutch and Rep. Swalwell have introduced the No President Is Above the Law Act, which would pause the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president, whether committed before or during the president's term.

Link to tweet

[malaise]

1. Get thee to the greatest page

NOW

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. K & R!

[C_U_L8R]

3. No prisoners

Keep Trumpcrook knocked back on his heels with unrelenting righteousness. Truth and true Justice will take Trump down. For good.

[flor-de-jasmim]

4. Good!

[unblock]

5. but this accepts the twisted notion that a sitting president can't be indicted

i'd rather we have a proper independent counsel law.

special exemption for 4-8 years is still "above the law" as far as i'm concerned.

especially if the crimes have anything to do with becoming or staying president.


a president can commit crimes to become president and to get re-elected, and maybe even crimes to avoid impeachment, and only gets indicted after the damage of 8 years in office is done?

no thank you.

[erronis]

8. Agree. And this particular peeResident will likely be cold and stiff in 8 years.

No more need for sildenafil for old donnie to get it on.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

11. I'd rather there be a law eliminating the DOJ memo that prevents indictment of a president.

A memorandum doesn't even rise to the level of a regulation. Regulations require at least a bare minimum hearings and research before being promulgated.

Plus, the primary topic of the memo in question was whether the vice president (at that time, Spiro Agnew) could be indicted while in office. After stating that he could, the writer stuck in an arbitrary and unsubstantiated sentence which stated the president was constitutionally immune from criminal legal actions. In other words, a deranged president could shoot someone in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue and not be indicted until he was out of office.

Here's a summary of the memorandum:

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Date of Issuance: Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment Memorandum for the Attorney General .pdf

As an aside, the 1973 memorandum was written by then-Solicitor General Robert Bork. This is the same man who fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox after AG Elliot Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order to do so during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre."

Bork went on to be nominated by Saint Ronnie to the SCOTUS, only to be rejected by the Senate.

His name is now enshrined in the Oxford English Dictionary:

bork (verb) to obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.

Recently the word has cropped up again, this time in the tech sector, meaning that something—a website feature, for example—isn’t working properly. No one knows the origin of this usage, although it's assumed to be a bastardization of "broke."

[dweller]

35. the fly in the ointment with that Headnote

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

since when is this travesty in chief "performing his constitutionally assigned duties" ?

CoEqual branches of gov't ... he ignores it, but it is his duty to respect it and follow those responsibilities that it entails...

✌🏼️

[unblock]

39. exactly. an indictment certainly doesn't interfere much at all. a trial, maybe.

but an indictment, that's nothing but some paperwork being filed.

if the supreme court were to really buy the argument that a president performing constitutional duties is paramount, then there's still no reason not to allow the indictments to be filed. then they can say the *trial* can be delayed until the president is out of office.

personally, i think they've practically already rejected even that by permitting jones v. clinton (a civil trial) to proceed while clinton was president. a civil trial is not exactly the same thing as a criminal trial, of course, but if they didn't buy the argument then, it seems unlikely they would buy the argument now. then again, republican vs. democrat, so....

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

41. +1000

[tinrobot]

6. How about a "You Can Indict a Sitting President Act"

The notion that you can't do that is ridiculous.

[Stonepounder]

7. Fantastic idea. If I had a Congresscritter worth writing to, I would suggest it!

[mahina]

15. Probable unintended consequences?

That would be used in 54321 Jan 21

[AllaN01Bear]

19. id love to see a system where they have in the u.k. vote of no confidence .

[Ligyron]

29. A law as opposed to mere DOJ guidelines?

I love the idea!

[hlthe2b]

9. "Badly needed and clearly constitutional" says Laurence Tribe on this bill...

Link to tweet

[barbtries]

10. republicans would probably back the law

for any democratic president. mcconnell probably won't even allow it to be debated.
they're such fucking hypocrites.

[iluvtennis]

12. Most excellent!

[ffr]

13. This is how you outflank outlaws.

[calimary]

14. YES! If, Heaven Forbid the Russians finagle a second term for him,

I don’t want him able to weasel out of having to face full accountability because the statute ran out halfway through.

He MUST NOT be able to get away with ANY of this. All that would do would be to show future conniving scum bucket cheaters how it’s done - to get away with all kinds of corrupt, sleazy, criminal scum bucketry.

His kind should NEVER be allowed to happen again!!!!!

[yaesu]

16. great & needing this bill shows just what a fubar time we are living in nt

[saidsimplesimon]

17. I'm a pragmatist and patriot.

It is Unwise to challenge those who hold the moral and political high ground.

[orangecrush]

18. Call it "Donnies Law"

[marble falls]

20. We should keep bringing it up until it passes.

[euphorb]

21. A potential problem that I see.

I have to wonder whether it would apply to offenses committed before this law was passed. It may be a constitutional issue.

[hlthe2b]

22. It appears that Tribe thinks not...

Link to tweet

[euphorb]

33. I have no doubt that it is constitutional for offenses committed after the law is passed.

My concern is whether it is constitutional for offenses committed before the law is passed. Tribe's brief tweet doesn't address that.

[Hekate]

23. Excellent move

[SayItLoud]

24. We keep giving ourselves headlines that are toothless.

Walk me through how this has a snowballs chance in Hell of being anything more than a headline at this time?

[hlthe2b]

25. I recall being told the same yr. ago when NY State first pondered closing double jeopardy loophole

and more recently when they took up the issue of sharing NY State tax reports with congress. Both are soon to be ratified into law.

Cumulative pressure on the R's from colleagues, press, and most importantly the public has impact. Yes, it requires a critical mass, the threshold for which we've not yet reached, but going into 2020 elections those RW Senators and Congressmen are going to have to defend both behavior and votes.

So, we can do nothing and simply give up, or we can encourage Congress to think outside the normal scope to identify ways to counter an outlaw administration. I'll take the latter. Nothing happens without a fight, but no fight happens if we all give into despair.

[Blue_playwright]

26. I'm good with the during and after but...

I’m not thrilled with the before part. A president when they were still a private citizen should have the same rules as other private citizens- but agree on the rest. Because if they can’t charge for offenses committed WHILE they are in office WHEN it happens, that’s how someone like Trump skates by.

[lastlib]

30. if he is a private citizen running for office, he DOES have the same rules....

But as it stands now, if he commits an offense before becoming president, and if the offense isn't uncovered until he is in office, he can't be charged. We need to be able to charge him with the offense when he is in office. But I'm not a fan of letting him skate thru his term before he is charged--especially if a statute of limitations comes into play.

[onecaliberal]

27. Great start. I'm afraid we'll need several laws to protect democracy from another trump.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

28. Most critically, a law that prohibits a President from pardoning himself

[onecaliberal]

32. Definitely.

[Azathoth]

31. Won't even get a vote in the Senate. This is just time-wasting

Dems are just running out the clock.

[Gore1FL]

34. It's never time-wasting to push a legislative agenda.

If nothing else, it provides a long list of things the GOP is keeping from the people.

[BootinUp]

36. Excellent idea. Nt

[BootinUp]

37. This can be colloquially referred to as the Trump Law. Nt

[onetexan]

38. yep, nobody trumps the law

[Takket]

40. nice move..........

there are many MANY laws that need to be passed in the wake of this disaster of a presidency. We need to get control of both houses and the white house to make them a reality since McConnell will surely squash any attempts to restore law and order to the land.

As horrible as drumpf is, McConnell is truly the person that has enabled all this to happens by eliminating the senate as a check and balance.