Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said that the major questioning about whether a sitting President can be prosecuted was one of “timing,” not one whether a President gets immunity.
“No one has ever said , I don’t think, the President is immune” from criminal prosecution or civil litigation, Kavanaugh said. He some of the arguments during the legal battles around President Clinton.
“The only question with the criminal process isn’t immunity, that’s the wrong term, it’s the timing,” Kavanaugh said. He noted the decades old Justice Department position that that a president shouldn’t be prosecuted while in office.
“That doesn’t prevent investigations, gathering of evidence,” Kavanaugh said.
That statement is actually encouraging as it veers towards a centrist view. He’s actually taking a more liberal position on this than some of Obama’s WH attorneys (not Bob Bauer though). What he’s saying if I read this right is that a POTUS can be investigated and I think that would also extend to getting testimony by interview or subpoena. A President can also be named an un-indicted co-conspirator and even indicted. The issue is that the trial cannot begin until after he leaves office.
I truly hope your optimism is warranted. Let’s see how Donnie Tweets about it…
I’m not taking this guy at face value. Not for a second. No reason to. Every reason not to.
First, I’m not sure I believe him. But second, I think he’s setting a trap. There are statutes of limitations, witnesses forget things, witnesses get intimidated or pardoned, witnesses die. And if there’s a conspiracy including someone else who becomes president you’re talking 10,12 years.
The problem is that he also says, at least in 1998, that the President has full jurisdiction over any investigation of himself. He has effectively said that the President can absolutely investigate himself and find that he has done nothing wrong, but if he did find that he did something wrong, he couldn’t charge himself with any crimes until the next guy comes along. Because there is nothing wrong with a situation where the successor attempts to charge the predecessor with crimes… or something.
None of this is a logical construction. He wants to say that the President isn’t immune to the law, but effectively says just that. They need to get him to commit to recuse.