In consideration of the various legal developments, I think it is now plausible that Trump will face an indictment, if so, I think the prosecution should go ahead and file the indictment and leave it to the courts to answer the question of whether a sitting President can be indicted.
Simply put, we have many opinions regarding whether or not a sitting President can be indicted. From private individuals, from government lawyers, etc.
What we do NOT have is any court ruling on the subject whatsoever. Not one.
This question has never even been addressed by the courts.
In the absence of any controlling precedent, prosecutors should go ahead and file charges and proceed with the case, should they develop a sufficient case to get through a Grand Jury.
The defense can make that challenge at the outset, first by making a motion with the trial judge for dismissal based on Presidential privilege. If that is denied, they can appeal that denial to the appropriate Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
But until and unless the courts say such a privilege exists, prosecutors should proceed in the assumption that no privilege exists.
At the worst, the case would be dismissed without prejudice and could be refiled once Trump leaves office.
And before any partisan whiners whine, if Clinton had been elected and in a similar situation, I would support the exact same treatment for her.
This has been the fuel the Trump haters have been running on for over a year - the hope that some vague indictment for something he did two, three or ten years ago, will bring him down as president.
I’ve listened to legal experts on all sides of this. For argument sake, I concede that hush money was paid. The key question comes down to whether or not campaign money was used for the payment. I strongly believe the hush money was paid by Trump or his company and that no campaign money was used. If that is the case, have campaign finance laws really been broken?
