Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no USSC decision that precludes a sitting President from being Indicted. Clinton v. Jones does not directly address this, as it was a Civil matter.
If the DOJ decided to authorize a federal prosecutor to seek and Indictment for a MAJOR felony, let's say. What legal theory of Estoppel would prevent it?
Let's say a State in the Union Indicted him for a MAJOR felony, what would the legal basis be to challenge it?
Only in very rare circumstances can a Federal Court intervene in a State prosecution.
NO, a sitting President can't be indicted.....he can be impeached from office in a trial and a vote in the Senate and then as a private citizen you could indict him.
if a sitting President can be indicted in office for any crime then any country or any prosecutor can indict the President on his foreign policy alone.
they could have indicted LBJ, Nixon, W Bush to name a few for his foreign policy and getting people killed.
I think its pretty clear that the president can be held accountable for actual crimes.
Certainly not for fabricated allegations like these unsubstantiated conspiracies and idiotic stuff like campaign finance violations...which are subjectively construed to be crimes, but which are not actually defined as such by any law.
Now, whether anyone will actually do that, is a totally different question. The Deep State doesn't want to declare war on the Presidency openly...because they will lose. So they have taken this guerrilla approach instead....like an army of saboteurs, spies, and snipers, instead of an army of combatants.
They are hoping to inflict so many losses on their enemy that it will quit the field of battle. The strategy is obvious.....death by 1000 cuts.
We don't know yet and that's a Supreme Court thing.
I was listening to a podcast pertaining to this matter and it seems the brett kavanaugh's privy to the idea that a sitting President should not be indicted. Kavanaugh's history goes back to the Bush days and 9-11 and that drove some of his decision making at the time.
It's probably part of the reason why Trump chose him.
But we won't know until it happens.
The poll question isn't really a good question because it states the options as fact instead of opinion...
It's the reason that Trump nominated Kavanaugh, to be the deciding vote on a puppet supreme court. It places power politics above justice. If Kavanaugh is allowed to weasel onto the Court, what will separate us from being under a dictatorship? If the spineless Republicans in congress have a choice of a Trump dictatorship or being under a democratic regime, which do you suppose they'll choose?
That's exactly what "the President can't be indicted" means.
Trump could literally shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and Republicans would insist he get away with it as it is too disruptive to the nation if the President had to stand trial.
That's exactly what "the President can't be indicted" means.
Trump could literally shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and Republicans would insist he get away with it as it is too disruptive to the nation if the President had to stand trial.
What a ridiculous statement! He would be impeached, in that case, which is the method provided by the Constitution whereby a President is removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
However, a sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes alleged to have been committed prior to his taking office. That is what's being discussed here, I think.
What a ridiculous statement! He would be impeached, in that case, which is the method provided by the Constitution whereby a President is removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
However, a sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes alleged to have been committed prior to his taking office. That is what's being discussed here, I think.
No president in our history has been convicted in the Senate, on a bill of impeachment. Do you think that this republican senate majority is going to do that, despite anything a president might have done, who is officially a member of their party? If a conservative majority is allowed to take over our supreme court, they would overturn any criminal judgement from a lower court against a republican president and there would be nothing to separate us from a dictatorship.
There's a serious flaw in our constitution that was not predicted by those who wrote it. They placed too much faith in our elected officials being honest and having the welfare of the people and our nation at heart. They envisioned a supreme court with justices who were all honorable and independent of political forces. The balance of powers they set up, to protect us from what is happening now, has been upset by partisanship, greed and collusion with foreign enemies. We're fortunate that things have not reached this point of crisis before. I wish I had a good idea to suggest, as a solution. The only thing that comes to mind, would be to block any one party from controlling all three branches of government, which would be an awkward thing to carry-out, perhaps impossible.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 09-23-2018 at 07:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.