Law Angles, Trump Indictment Case

Constitutional Law Expert and Author, Robert J. McWhirter joins Arizona Horizon to talk about the law and constitutional angles of the case against Trump and the historic significance. He also says the charges connected to the Stormy Daniels’ alleged payoff are a red herring

What are your thoughts?

“Unprecedented, never before. The closest we’ve ever come was Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator during the Water Gate events, but that is the closest a President has ever come. We have had one president arrested, and that was Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. He was caught speeding in his carriage, and a black police officer pulled him over,” said McWhirter.

The next day the President did the same thing, and was taken to the station for his arrest.

What does the constitution say about criminally charging sitting or former presidents?

“Absolutely nothing. We have no knowledge at all what happens. There are only 3 requirements in the constitution to be president: you have to be 35 years old, you have to be a natural born U.S. citizen, and you have to have spent at least 14 past years as resident here in the United States. Those are the only requirements the constitution provides,” said McWhirter.

“There is a potential that state law could define some of this. For instance, you cannot be a felon and vote by presumption a felon cannot run for office. Also, you could extend that to say the requirements to get on the ballot in the state could be defined by state law, which they are now. For instance, Donald Trump if he is convicted could perhaps be blocked by being on the ballot in certain states that allow for that,” said McWhirter.

Is this a political prosecution?

“In terms of the way the indictment is written, no. The motivations of the prosecutor, I cannot speak to. The indictment is written clearly on state law, so I can’t speak to what the prosecutors doing,” said McWhirter.