The DOJ’s policy of prosecuting incumbent presidents for federal crimes is rooted DOJ note issued in 1973, at the worst time of Watergate. The 41 page documentAssistant Attorney General Robert Dixon, head of the DOJ’s Legal Counsel’s Office, was named “the ability of the president, vice president, and other civilian officials to submit to federal prosecution.” Going into a number of historical documents to weigh up the pros and cons of the accused president, Dixon eventually concluded that the president’s role was too important to hold him in office.
Dixon argued that if the president had to prosecute, it would interfere with many responsibilities “that no one else can do.” Dixon considered the concerns to be particularly acute, given that the president’s power had risen to levels “18. century and the beginning of the 19th century was not a dream ”. Dixon also argued that if the accused president chose to go to court, the guilty verdict might not be considered lawful given the presidency’s “passions and exposures.”
For these and other reasons, Dixon argued that impeachment and removal were the only means of dealing with the potentially criminal behavior of the incumbent president. Although he reiterated that there were no obstacles to prosecuting the president when he resigned, he openly acknowledged that there was a possibility that the statute of limitations could expire earlier. While acknowledging that this potentially created a “loophole in the law,” he felt that the charges against the incumbent president posed too many unacceptable risks.
Not surprisingly, the outright criminal president has had to endure in recent years, and this has led to calls to reconsider Dixon’s remark. Among the loudest voices calling for a review of the note is JT Smith, who worked with the DJ with Dixon. See how he handles this case on MSNBC Rachel Medow show In 2019.
One thing is clear when reading Dixon’s note. He clearly assumed that Congress would promptly initiate impeachment and remove the president who had engaged in criminal activity. After all, due to impeachment and repeal, any concern about indicting the incumbent President would be questionable. During Watergate, the process worked great. When the “ribbon of smoking weapons” provided conclusive evidence that Richard Nixon was directly involved in hiding the intrusion, Nixon’s support in Congress faded. According to Senator Barry Goldwater, Nixon faced impeachment with a huge majority in the House of Representatives – something close to unanimous support. Goldwater said only 15 senators were ready to even consider Nixon’s acquittal – as much as half of the 33 votes Nixon needed to stay in office. Faced with this harsh and clearly two-sided mathematics, Nixon resigned.
Shortly after his resignation, Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford. It turned out that Nixon had seriously ill less than a week after leaving office. With reports that the trial cannot begin credibly until the beginning of 1975Ford appears to have been motivated in part by fears that Nixon would not live that long, or at least not be able to stand trial physically.
Ford’s previous claims that Nixon had suffered enough because he was shamefully expelled from the White House turned out to be an albatross around his party’s neck in 1974, but his own claims two years later. Despite the political consequences, the system worked exactly as Dixon seemed to expect.
However, for the process to be effective, Congress needs the political will to act. During Trump’s two impeachments, while it was undeniable that Trump was on foot to preserve, protect, and defend both the Constitution and his oath, the uncompromising Republican opposition prevented him from standing up to his bills.
In 2019, after Trump tried to intimidate Ukraine into joining a politically motivated investigation into Joe Biden, Republicans were reluctant to take off their red veils and keep their oaths of office for even a minute. Instead, we received statements about how evil liberals are coincides with the deep state to stop Trump, as well as warnings from evangelical supporters of Trump that the impeachment was attack their values.
Kevin McCarthy, the leader of minorities, summed up this mentality. At the very beginning statements opposing Trump’s first impeachment he claimed with a straight face that Democrats only impeached Trump because they could not assume he was president.
McCarthy also claimed that Democrats were trying to turn impeachment into “the use of raw political power.” His remarks were only a longer version of this tweet of the then first wife, Lara Trump.
If so, the failure of the Republicans during Trump’s second impeachment was even more pronounced. Although it was clear that Trump had sparked a deadly uprising on January 6, 2021 to steal the second term, only 10 House Republicans were willing to call for his impeachment. When Trump was tried in the Senate, only seven Republicans voted for the conviction – 10 were short of the required threshold.
Adam Kincinger, an Illinois spokesman, one of 10 House Republicans who voted for the impeachment reminded that he believed that as many as 25 Republicans would vote for impeachment, to be surprised when only nine of his colleagues joined him. According to Colorado Democrat Jason Crow, one of the managers during Tramp’s first impeachment, several more would have done so, but feared for his life. Mitch Maconel, the then leader of the Senate majority refused to convene the Senate back to ensure that the trial begins before the end of Trump’s term. That made him final decision acquit Trump because he was no longer in office – no less than seven other senators share this view (Rob Portmens, John Tun, Shelly Mason Captain, John Cornin, Mike Round, Steve Dainsand Jerry Moran) – sounds silly to put it mildly.
The DOJ’s current policy of prosecuting the incumbent President is based on the idea that such an indictment would do too much harm to the state. According to the man who was the author of this policy, the only way to solve this problem is to make this president a private person by impersonating him and removing him from office shortly. But if Congress doesn’t want to delay the end of the deal, then, in Nixon’s words, you have at least a seeming “loophole in the law.”
Such a situation cannot be tolerated in any society that is supposed to be based on the rule of law. It also risks irreparable damage to America’s reputation abroad; more than a few of my acquaintances outside this country have wondered why Trumps have not been arrested.
I have thought for some time that Trump’s alleged misconduct was so serious that, in addition to the state-level investigations conducted by New York Attorney General Leticia James, there has been at least one federal criminal investigation. and Fulton County District Attorney Fania Willis. I had any doubts about that in February former federal prosecutor Glen Kirshner. In your podcast The rule of law mattersKirschner said he thought we would see charges against Trump and much of his immediate circle because “there are too many loyal people in the Justice Department to …” Is a great reason why we have not yet seen the charges.
Kirchner spent his entire 24-year career as an assistant prosecutor in the District of Columbia, the second most prestigious U.S. prosecutor’s office in the state after the South District of New York. He knows what it takes to carry out the “long, thorough proactive investigations” he talked about. And when the target of this investigation is a former president with a very cult follower, it is even more important to make sure that this case is ironic.
We received a reminder of how complicated this process was later in February, when CNN discovered that Trampa’s unpleasant habit of using other people’s phones is a matter of concern for the House of Representatives’ selection committee, which is investigating the January 6 uprising. According to several sources in Trump’s White House, Trump was so paranoid about the people who listened to his calls that he often confiscated the cell phones of assistants and secret service agents.
These reports appear to have been confirmed by Stefania Grishema, Trump’s third White House spokeswoman. Interviewed by CNN A new day, Grisham revealed that Trump was known to command the telephones of anyone who happened to be in the same room.
This makes the reconstruction of the events of this terrible day even more difficult. If Trump used other people’s phones, anyone investigating the events that led to the Trump’s attack on the Capitol should look at the records of innocent third-party phone calls and try to separate legitimate calls from less legitimate calls. If the House of Representatives’ investigators are deterred, the chances are pretty good, as are the federal prosecutors.
The need to examine this evidence would make it difficult to establish a valid case against Trump, even without a shortened time, to bring an action before the statute of limitations. Nadler, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice and de facto second commander during Trump’s first impeachment, thought so when writing No president is taller than the 2020 law. This bill would “establish” or suspend the statute of limitations for all federal crimes committed by the president before or during his term. Democrats in the House of Representatives Committee on Justice had a simple rationale for the bill: to prevent the president from using his office “to avoid legal consequences.”
Republicans of the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio laughed that the bill was a solution to the problem. However, they said the Mueller report had undermined its premise because Miller had “refuted” any allegations that Trump had cooperated with Russia. They ignore this Miller clearly indicated that his report did not justify Trump. Also, can House of Representatives Republicans even give the impression that you can be above the law just because you are president?
Much of Nadler’s expense was folded The law of protection of our democracy, authored by Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Chief Executive Officer of Trump ‘s first impeachment. In an interview with Mary Louise Kelly Schiff, a spokeswoman for the NPR, proclaimed the bill as an attempt to codify “what we believe violated the rules of conduct.” However, the Schiff Act imposes new safeguards, including an effective end to presidential prescription, as Nadler suggested.
Act to protect our democracy passed the house December, and Kincinger was the only Republican to support it. The Senate has yet to pass the bill, and to put it mildly, it is unfortunate. Republicans had the opportunity to compensate for their inability to take the oath of office during Trump’s two impeachments. For now, they are wasting it.
It can’t stand it.
Even though time is running out to hold Trump accountable for its violations in federal court, Nadler and Schiff have developed by far the best mechanism to prevent another president from following him. Call your senators and tell them to support the law Protect our democracy. We cannot allow the president to be above the law.