"Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him!"

[dasmiller]

Interestingly titled No President Is Above The Law Act would overturn the statute of limitations for federal offenses committed by the president.

Even if technically Trump could be indicted right now anyway, perhaps this could be used against past presidents?

From what the article says, I wouldn't think that it would apply to past presidents. Like most laws, it would apply only going forward, not retroactively. A law passed in 2019 would not affect a case for which the statute of limitations expired in 2016.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time. The US actually has constitutional restrictions against making laws retroactive. I'm not sure if changing the statute of limitations would survive a constitutional challenge, but for sure the first former president you tried to indict this way would mount such a challenge.

In any case, I think applying laws retroactively is a bad idea. I have some concern about what problem you're trying to solve, and why you think this is a good way to solve it.

Changing the statute of limitations does not constitute an ex post facto law. The office of the president is not a hideout to avoid prosecution.

 

[Upchurch]

Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time.

No worries there. Obstruction of justice was a crime when Trump committed it. See the Mueller report for details.

 

[Giordano]

Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time. The US actually has constitutional restrictions against making laws retroactive. I'm not sure if changing the statute of limitations would survive a constitutional challenge, but for sure the first former president you tried to indict this way would mount such a challenge.

In any case, I think applying laws retroactively is a bad idea. I have some concern about what problem you're trying to solve, and why you think this is a good way to solve it.

Exactly as you state I fully agree that creating and applying new laws retroactively is very unfair and can become a dangerous abuse of political power (the reason this is largely prohibited by the USA Constitution). One should not be made a criminal for doing what was within the law at the time.

However I don't see this applying to changing the statue of limitations. The individual clearly committed an act that was a crime when they did it; the statue of limitations is not directly related to this key component of guilt vs innocence. Certainly there are many examples of where the statue of limitations has been altered and I believe the court challenges have generally supported the constitutionality of these changes.

Actually I do not accept that all crimes committed by a POTUS should be considered non-persuable by the normal criminal justice system during the time of their presidency. I agree that potential crimes that arise from the official duties of a POTUS should be subject to the Constitutional impeachment/conviction process rather than common law, given the very direct political motivations and implications involved. However if a sitting President may have robbed a bank either prior or after their election they should be subject to the normal criminal justice system for it just as any other accused bank robber. Our Presidents are just citiznes elected to help run one branch of our shared government; they were not meant to be kings or gods.

Even if the courts end up fully accepting that any crime committed by a sitting President is not subject to the normal criminal justice system during their Presidency, at minimum this privilege should be considered as a temporary pause in the statue of limitations clock rather than as a way to allow a President to run it down to zero and escape punishment entirely. It does not make any sense to me otherwise.

 

[theprestige]

No worries there. Obstruction of justice was a crime when Trump committed it. See the Mueller report for details.

No worries here, either.

What makes the question interesting is that it's not a simple ex post facto law question. It's a question about ex post facto changes to the statute of limitations for a law. You seem to be taking up an argument nobody else is having here.

---

The way I see it, a change that increases the statute of limitations should apply to someone who is still within the previous limit. What changes for them is they are now subject to the new limit, extending their window of risk.

It should not apply to anyone who is already outside the old limit, for the same reason that ex post facto laws are a bad idea generally.

 

[theprestige]

Changing the statute of limitations does not constitute an ex post facto law.

I'm not sure that's true. I think if you tried that on a former president, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. I'd hope that if you tried that on anybody, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. My take is that it is absolutely ex post facto, so we'll definitely need to appeal to some proper authority to resolve our difference.

The office of the president is not a hideout to avoid prosecution.

I think it's probably a bad idea to decide on the political outcome you want first, and then start interpreting law to get that outcome.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not sure that's true. I think if you tried that on a former president, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. I'd hope that if you tried that on anybody, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. My take is that it is absolutely ex post facto, so we'll definitely need to appeal to some proper authority to resolve our difference.

Wth your interpretation the President can commit crimes and ride out the clock and be beyond possible prosecution. You're making POTUS a king. Above the law. Sorry, we didn't say goodbye to King George so we could have his royal ORANGE POS.

I think it's probably a bad idea to decide on the political outcome you want first, and then start interpreting law to get that outcome.

I do too. But I don't see anyone doing that. What I see is a President who is deliberately overstepping his authority and is obstructing justice on a daily basis.

 

[Upchurch]

No worries here, either.

My point is that you need not worry about making Trump a criminal retroactively. He committed crimes that were crimes when he committed them. You can acknowledge that much, at least?

 

[theprestige]

My point is that you need not worry about making Trump a criminal retroactively. He committed crimes that were crimes when he committed them. You can acknowledge that much, at least?

I never thought that was in question. Venom was clearly asking about the statute of limitations for acts that were already crimes when committed.

I mentioned the general case of ex post facto laws only to give some background about how I approached the question of ex post facto changes to the statute of limitations.

 

[Upchurch]

I never thought that was in question.

Then you should choose your words more carefully. You have gone out of your way to avoid the topic of Trump's guilt.

 

[theprestige]

Then you should choose your words more carefully. You have gone out of your way to avoid the topic of Trump's guilt.

Trump's guilt wasn't the topic. You're fighting to drag me out of my way, just to try to preemptively win an argument we're not even having. Obviously I'm not going to help you with that.

 

[Upchurch]

Trump's guilt wasn't the topic. You're fighting to drag me out of my way, just to try to preemptively win an argument we're not even having. Obviously I'm not going to help you with that.

Right. I forgot. Crime doesn't matter if it works for your agenda. Principle is a tool to use against the other guy.

You sure showed us.

 

[Upchurch]

The question is that we face a situation where a sitting president has committed Federal crimes and his office is protecting him from prosecution.

Your argument is that it's not fair to change the rules around the statute of limitations. But it is also not fair to use the office of president as a shield from prosecution.

 

[theprestige]

Right. I forgot. Crime doesn't matter if it works for your agenda. Principle is a tool to use against the other guy.



You sure showed us.

Ah. When you put it that way, I see your point. I would like a chance to save my reputation here.

Would you have a problem if I took a little time to compose my thoughts and prepare the best reply I can?

 

[Cabbage]

I'm not sure that's true. I think if you tried that on a former president, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. I'd hope that if you tried that on anybody, they'd appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. My take is that it is absolutely ex post facto, so we'll definitely need to appeal to some proper authority to resolve our difference.



I think it's probably a bad idea to decide on the political outcome you want first, and then start interpreting law to get that outcome.

Not with respect to Trump; we're still well within the statute of limitations for the crimes he's committed while in office.

Of course, that means nothing to someone evershifting his opinions to defend Trump.

 

[Meadmaker]

Changing the statute of limitations does not constitute an ex post facto law. The office of the president is not a hideout to avoid prosecution.

Stogner v. California

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stogner_v._California

 

[eerok]

The office of the president is not a hideout to avoid prosecution.

It wasn't until recently.

 

[applecorped]

The desperation is palpable

 

[Shalamar]

The desperation is palpable

I know. You can tell by the way he's tweeting trying to distract.

 

[acbytesla]

It wasn't until recently.

My belief is that being POTUS is not a waiver for criminal wrongdoing. That if the clock stops during the presidency, then the clock stops. Those years should not count in calculating the statute of limitations as being POTUS prevented prosecution. You can't have it both ways. We cannot and shoud not make our leaders immune.