wow. I believe Rachel is convincingly arguing that there is no legal bar to indicting a president nt

[EveHammond13]

[rzemanfl]

1. The idea that Drumpf is "too busy" to be indicted is absurd. n/t

[EveHammond13]

3. those "Executive Time" memos are really going to hurt him

[AJT]

4. Well......we don't want to be cutting into all that executive time....

[elleng]

2. No clear bar,

and the Supremes not keen on ambiguity.

SDNY might be inclined to try it out; Barr not so much, imo.

[EveHammond13]

5. anything that serves as a vehicle to educating the public on the scope of trump's crimes is good.

[elleng]

6. Yes indeed.

[OliverQ]

7. But that also means the New York AG can indict him.

[elleng]

8. Yes, can try.

[irresistable]

11. The New York State AG would not be bound by a Justice Dept. rule.

[elleng]

12. Right

and enforcing NYState laws.

[blogslut]

9. I remember hearing this when listening to Bag Man, and thinking "Wait, what?"

Also, the stuff about Spiro and the Saudis. Damn! Tonight's show is amazing!

[displacedtexan]

10. The question is simple:

Is, or is not, the president above the law?

[EveHammond13]

14. do we have a king or do we have a president

[avebury]

13. Since the Constitution does not specifically

state that a sitting President can not be indicted and since Congress has never passed a law that prohibits the indictment of a sitting a President there should be no valid reason to prevent it. The DOJ’s policy against indicting a sitting President is just a policy, not law. I can never understand why Rethugs try to convince people otherwise.

[Control-Z]

15. Am I the only one who has thought this

all along? And if that is the case I also think it would not apply to crimes he committed before taking office. Such as conspiring with the Russians.

No one in their right mind and of average intelligence would think otherwise.

[Hekate]

16. Rachel is a treasure. I hope she is awarded a Pulitzer this year. nt