Joe Scarborough believes that indicting President Donald Trump is a significant question looming for the Supreme Court, especially if the indictment is for “which helped him get elected.”

The context of these comments come from the bombshell court filings late last week in the legal proceedings for two former Trump colleagues and confidants, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. The President was cited in the latter as having directed election fraud that illegally paid hush money to women alleged to have been paramours of Trump, which at least some experts have claimed that the sitting president has been alleged to have directed “serious felonies.”

So what next? Many constitutional experts believe that the President of the United States can not receive criminal indictments, that impeachment proceedings are the only legal check for the Commander in Chief. But as Scarborough notes in the clip above (citing previous comments made by panelist Joyce Vance) if the indictment is for criminal activity that led to winning that office, then that is a different thing altogether.

“If the indictment pertains to illegal activities that got you elected president of the United States or may have not you elected president of the United States, then the Supreme Court has to look at that differently because if you are willing to say that a president cannot be indicted and that president is president only because of illegal activities,” he opened.

He then added “Then suddenly you really do, Rand Paul — this is where the banana republic part comes then it becomes is banana republic where somebody committing illegal acts to say I can do whatever I want to do, I can commit whatever felonies I want to commit as long as I get elected president of the United States they cannot indict me.”

Watch the clip above courtesy of MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]