Does Trump have to win in 2020 to avoid indictment?

[OrlandoDem2]

If a sitting president can’t be indicted as many pundits say, and if the statute of limitations on charges of campaign finance violations run out in 2022, I would think he’d have to win again to avoid prosecution. If he is impeached and somehow we can find 18 GOP Senators to vote for removal, I guess he could be indicted but Pence would pardon. And if he loses in 2020, the statute of limitations wouldn’t have run out and could be indicted.

Any thoughts?

[PJMcK]

1. Trump won't be on the ballot in 2020 (n/t)

[safeinOhio]

2. Really there is no telling the future of it.

However I will predict that, we ain’t seen nutting yet.

[dameatball]

4. I agree. People such as Sen. Mark Warner have already said the final report would be explosive.

I don't intend to waste a lot of time worrying about impeachment until the time is right. Nothing wrong with people speculating, but I just don't have enough to go on. All these threads can sort of be a nice civics class though.

[kentuck]

3. By hook or crook...

He has to win.

[Garrett78]

5. Democrats may attempt to change laws regarding statute of limitations.

[elocs]

6. I heard someone on the radio being interview say that the FBI of the 20th century was

was Hoover's FBI but that the FBI of the 21st century was Mueller's FBI and that it would pursue Trump even when he left office.

[Sneederbunk]

7. He will have to resign if he doesn't win or doesn't run.

Must resign during term to get a Nixon/Ford deal, assuming his successor is a Dem.

[marylandblue]

8. He will do the same thing in 2020 and SOL may not apply anyway

If there is an unavoidable obstacle to indictment, court may find that the SOL doesn't expire until after the President is out of office.

One way to look at this: There are laws against election fraud to make elections fair. Congress could not have intended that SOL helps a Presidential candidate evade prosecution if and only if the candidate is successful.

[Vinca]

9. I think someone needs to indict him for something just to test this rule.

The theory seems to be that a criminal indictment would cause a POTUS to spend too much time on his defense and he wouldn't have time to run the country. If I were the prosecutor I would challenge it in court with the number of days Individual One has spent golfing and how his schedules seem to reflect he spends about 90% of the time watching television.

[Jarqui]

10. I think (not positive) it was Dan Abrams on ABC this morning

who said something to the effect that
"it is DoJ policy to not indict and prosecute a sitting president but there is no DoJ policy against indictment and dealing with it after he leaves office"

The basis is that an indictment can distract a sitting president to the potential detriment of the country. But the workaround is to indict under seal to get around that.

I have read in the not-so-mainstream media that this has already happened. Allegedly, there are several sealed federal indictments from Mueller (between a dozen to three dozen).

To pardon proof it, they would need to indict at the state level. I don't know if anyone has been checking there.

[pnwmom]

11. Pence or a Pence replacement could give him a blanket pardon,

but that would only apply to Federal crimes.

For all we know, he could be subject to indictment for STATE crimes already. It has never been tested.

[Gothmog]

12. Rubin: Trump will resign 10 minutes before next inauguration so Mike Pence can pardon him

Link to tweet