where do you think we are now on it? there seems to be a lot of shifting opinion now toward the validity of indicting a sitting president. i thought back in watergate days that the president should be and could be indicted. the evidence was overwhelmingly clear during watergate. we don t know everything mueller knows, but we know enough now to see in plain sight that crimes have been committed by the president. and we cannot have a society where he could escape either because a statute of limitations runs while he s in office or because he has a speedy trial violation claim that would prevent him from going to trial later on or business witnesses die in the interim waiting so that there s not enough witnesses to testify. it would be wrong. and so whether we go with the political method, which would be
we don t know everything mueller knows, but we know enough now to see in plain sight that crimes have been committed by the president. and we cannot have a society where he could escape either because a statute of limitations runs while he s in office or because he has a speedy trial violation claim that would prevent him from going to trial later on or business witnesses die in the interim waiting so that there s not enough witnesses to testify. it would be wrong. and so whether we go with the political method, which would be impeachment in a congress which has a senate that will not consider impeachment, although i again think that once the evidence is clear we would have said that about watergate except then you had a tape recording that made it so clear that even the republicans could no longer support the president and told him he had to resign or he would be convicted in the senate.