Split decision by SCOTUS on Bunkerboy's taxes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He’s not necessarily going to get away with anything. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops until it is unsealed. If Trump is re-elected, he can still be prosecuted in 2025 when he’s out of office (and, presumably, still alive).

The idea of a constitutional amendment about this is a pretty stupid idea.

Boru

I know that, once it is passed to a regular jury the evidence can be presented to that jury. But the scary part is that if he wins, he can pass the statute of limitations. This to me makes congressional oversight that more important. My understanding is that with what he has been accused of while running could run past the limitations if he gets a second term. 

Why is requiring anyone running for president to disclose their financials "stupid"? There is a reason the emoluments clause exists too. It is to prevent foreign governments from having any criminal leverage over our President and to prevent the President from using the office for criminal gain. 

Trump's history is clear even if he had not run. He's gotten away with ripping people off all his life. That is bad enough in the private sector. I would want my President to be held to a higher standard.

Let’s say Trump is four years into the statute of limitations of seven years. If a grand jury returns a sealed indictment, the clock stops at four years. If Trump is re-elected and leaves office in 2025 and the indictment is unsealed, Trump is still, for legal purposes, at four years and can be prosecuted. Why? Because he was indicted before the statute of limitations had been reached. Just because the indictment is sealed doesn’t mean he wasn’t indicted.

I didn’t say that requiring financial disclosure was stupid. I said calling for a constitutional amendment to do so was stupid.  You might as well call for Tinkerbelle to wave her wand and make it happen.

Boru