Don't let Donald Trump pick a Supreme Court justice unless and until Mueller clears him Trump and his associates are under investigation. Why should someone who may have 'broken into' the White House make decisions that last generations?

Richard Greene | Opinion contributor

Show Caption Hide Caption AP Explains: Kavanaugh Begins Courting Senators Conservative Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plunged into his confirmation battle Tuesday, meeting face-to-face with Senate leaders. AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro explains what is next for Kavanaugh on Capitol Hill. (July 10)

If you break into a house illegally, are you given the legal ability to enjoy the house, to sell the furniture or to sell the house? Of course not. Why, then, should someone who may have "broken into" the White House illegally be able to enjoy all the perks of the house and office?



If you or your political campaign accept $1,000 in donations from a Russian citizen or company, you have violated federal election law and can go to jail. This not an idle question. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether Russian oligarchs illegally funneled contributions to President Donald Trump's campaign, directly or indirectly.



Why should a candidate or campaign that may have accepted and-or benefited from Russian money and help escape penalties? And even more importantly, why should such a candidate, as president, be given the ultimate, sacred opportunity to define the U.S. Supreme Court in his image for generations?

And it gets worse. If Trump is indicted by Mueller or a grand jury, he will almost certainly challenge the indictment on the grounds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. In what country, other than a complete dictatorship, would a president be able to appoint two of the five Supreme Court justices needed to vindicate him — and thereby possibly determine his own fate? Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominee Brett Kavanaugh, if he's confirmed, will almost certainly be the deciding votes on whether to quash an indictment against the man who gave them their lifelong positions.

What if Trump is guilty?

Maybe Trump and his campaign are completely innocent of any and all federal election law violations or collusion or, as some suggest, treason, and any and every other potential crime. But what if he and the campaign are not? Should a criminal, or even someone against whom a prosecutor or grand jury has brought charges, be allowed to choose a Supreme Court justice or enjoy any other benefits of the office of president of the United States?



Why aren’t we at least asking this question? Maybe it even makes sense to argue that everything such a president has done — including the previous appointment of Justice Gorsuch — should be undone and declared void ab initio (void from the beginning), because he had and has no legal jurisdiction to do such things.

More: Congress must draw 'red line' to protect Mueller, warn against firing and pardons

Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation is a year old. Too soon to 'wrap it up.'

How Donald Trump could speed up Robert Mueller's Russia investigation: Talk to him.

Why could we not do exactly this? I recently put the question directly to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He held up the Constitution and said: “Because of this. To the best of my knowledge there is no procedure to void an election. That’s all there is.” That answer indicates that we really do need to have a conversation about this, as the Constitution does not address the question.

Is this really a crazy argument? I don't think so. I believe that turnabout is more than fair play. What would Trump have argued if, indeed, Barack Hussein Obama had been born in Kenya and not Hawaii? Trump and almost every Republican would have screamed that no one who was born outside of the U.S. could be president of the U.S., demanded that Obama leave the White House immediately, and insisted that everything he had done as "president" was illegal.

No Kavanaugh vote before Mueller report

You know this is exactly what would have happened. But why, then, are we completely complacent about possible criminal violations that would put any other person in jail? Should we now start allowing criminals who break into houses or cars or steal intellectual property to have legal dominion over those houses, cars and IP?



Apparently Trump's assertion that he can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it may not be the only thing he can get away with. It seems that even while under criminal investigation, he might be able to transform the entire U.S. judiciary and the lives of 330 million Americans for generations to come.



It's not right. The Senate must, at the very least, wait until the end of the special prosecutor's investigation before voting on whether to confirm Kavanaugh. We should only allow Trump this ultimate honor and privilege if he is fully exonerated of any and all wrongdoing.

Richard Greene is an author, radio show host, communication strategist, civics educator, former attorney and former fellow at the Constitutional Rights Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RHGreene