"Those jurors, citizens of our communities, should then determine whether the evidence supports an indictment of Mr. Trump," Michael Avenatti wrote. | Ethan Miller/Getty Images Avenatti in NYT op-ed makes case for indicting Trump

Attorney Michael Avenatti suggested that it's time to bring the current investigations against Donald Trump to a grand jury to determine whether there is enough evidence to indict the president.

"Provided there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump — and there are many indications that there is — the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who are investigating payments to my client, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, should present their evidence to grand juries," Avenatti wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Thursday.


"Those jurors, citizens of our communities, should then determine whether the evidence supports an indictment of Mr. Trump," he continued.

Avenatti is a lawyer for adult film star Stormy Daniels, who has filed a lawsuit against Trump and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, claims to have had an affair with Trump, which the president has denied.

In addition, Avenatti is weighing a possible 2020 presidential run.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president does not have immunity from civil litigation in federal court from acts done before taking office and unrelated to duties as president.

The notion has been argued by several legal scholars, however, including Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss in 2000 and Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Dixon Jr. in 1973. They concluded that a sitting president could not be indicted, citing the Constitution.

If the case were brought to the Supreme Court, Avenatti said that Brett Kavanaugh should recuse himself if he is confirmed. Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing, refused to commit to whether he would recuse himself if such a case were to advance to the Supreme Court.

Avenatti argues that Kavanaugh "took this position, despite the fact that his strong views in favor of presidential immunity are outside the legal mainstream."

He added that Kavanaugh was "chosen by Mr. Trump during known inquiries into the conduct of the president and his campaign. This is wrong."

"Should Mr. Trump be indicted and in the event that the case reaches the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory," Avenatti wrote. "The American public’s view of impartiality of the rule of law and of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance."