There's plenty of political commentary on cable tv, and by now anyone who is at all interested must know that the Justice Department has a policy against indicting a sitting president, but I haven't heard anyone yet point out what seems to me a truly bizarre consequence of that policy that has now come into plain sight. It's this: when Trump runs for re-election, he will likely either
(1) win a second term; or, if he loses
(2) be prosecuted for the crimes he committed during his one term.
I doubt the Founding Fathers conceived of the presidency as a shield against criminal prosecution, but, whatevs. Since the White House is beyond the reach of John Law, you can hide out in there, lawfully wielding the powers of the office until you're a private citizen again, when it's time to lawyer up and try to stay out of prison for your presidential crimes.
I remember, as a kid, going to the State Fair and being surprised when, seeing radio personalities known to me only by their voice, they always looked nothing like what I had imagined. I had the obverse experience this morning when Mueller went to the lectern at the Justice Department. Am pretty sure I'd never heard him speak before and I was expecting something . . . you know . . . more like God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
What a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over "what the Democrats ought to do now"! Would it be like Clinton? Or would it be like Nixon? Who knows? The offenses are Nixon-sized--not that the facts bear overmuch on the outcome. But it seems to me that, the political fallout being unclear, the Democratic members of the House are free to decide the question on the merits, without considering whether or not impeachment advances their own electoral interests. And the merits of the case have been laid out with lucidity on the Twitter feed of Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan.
Comments