General Discussion

alwaysinasnit

(5,532 posts) Fri Apr 19, 2019, 09:26 PM Apr 2019

A question for the legal beagles here. I watched Rachel tonight and in discussing [View all]

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:

A question for the legal beagles here. I watched Rachel tonight and in discussing [View all] alwaysinasnit Apr 2019 OP

We could avoid the legal issue-- dawg day Apr 2019 #1

an argument could certainly be made. not clear if it would prevail. unblock Apr 2019 #2

Yeh, that sounds like an argument they would make. Just like, "I can't be guilty of obstruction alwaysinasnit Apr 2019 #3

I don't think so. TomSlick Apr 2019 #4

Agreed, and yet Mueller's actions (in not indicting) serve to validate this flawed DOJ policy. alwaysinasnit Apr 2019 #6

trump will never be convicted in a court for crimes related to politics. Hoyt Apr 2019 #5

You have a point. I am reminded of the that holdout juror in the Manafort trial. alwaysinasnit Apr 2019 #7

It Brings Up An Interesting Legal Question ChoppinBroccoli Apr 2019 #8

Thanks for the insights. alwaysinasnit Apr 2019 #9