Eight years later, some find it easy to forget some of the more ridiculous elements of the 2016 presidential campaign. Young voters, for example, might not appreciate the absurdity of the political world obsessing for months on Hillary Clinton’s email server protocols, as if they were one of the most important issues on the planet.

The then-Democratic nominee even faced a criminal investigation, which ended with a predictable whimper, only to be revived as early voting was getting underway in much of the country.

It was around this time when Donald Trump made some rather bold declarations about his rival.

Just days after then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he’d reopened the investigation into Clinton, the future GOP president told a Nevada audience:

“We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”

The same week, Trump told a North Carolina audience:

“If [Clinton] were to win, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government. She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up — in my opinion — in a criminal trial.”

He added that Clinton, given the circumstances, had “no right to be running” for the nation’s highest office. It was around the time when Trump added, in reference to the former secretary of state, “[S]he shouldn’t be allowed to run.”

Three days before Election Day 2016, the Republican went on to insist that Clinton was “the prime suspect in a far-reaching criminal investigation,” which in turn would make it “virtually impossible for her to govern.”

In context, the strategy behind the rhetoric certainly made sense. Indeed, in 2016, the idea struck many voters as outlandish. An American presidential candidate under a legal cloud? Being investigated for felonies? Facing the prospect of a criminal indictment? How could the electorate take a chance by putting a suspected felon in the White House? How could such a person ever expect to be effective while in office?

Eight years later, the politician who pushed such questions with vigor is the same politician who was found guilty of 34 felonies — and counting, since he’s still facing three other criminal indictments.

By Trump’s own stated reasoning, his candidacy creates “an unprecedented constitutional crisis,” and he has “no right to be running.” I wonder how he’d respond if asked about his earlier standards?