A Sitting President Cannot Be Indicted

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,422
9,577
113
Washington DC
Sorry, Trump haters, but this is obviously true.

It seems obvious to me that a president can't be indicted while he is in office. Think about it for a second.

Let's say the candidate of your dreams (Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, whomever) gets elected. What's to stop the mouth-breathing District Attorney from Left Buttock County, Texas, from indicting her on trumped-up (sorry!) charges and haling her into court in Shitkick, the county seat of Left Buttock County?

Remember that criminal charges almost always require the defendant to appear in court in person.

Hate Trump as much as you like, I despise the man myself (there's a difference, but I despair of explaining it), his people are actually correct when they say he can't be indicted.

Just as the court in Clinton's shenanigans civil trial stayed the proceedings until he was out of office. The president couldn't do her job if she could be indicted and tried.

Of course, I would approve of putting whatever charges somebody comes up with on hold until the end of the president's term (called "tolling the statutes of limitations" in American law) so that she does have to answer any charges. Just not until her term ends, whether by impeachment and conviction, resignation, or being voted out.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
it would seem to infringe on an Americans 6th amendment rights.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
if the president is accused of a crime he should have a right to a speedy trial
 

AnnaEmber

Council Member
Aug 31, 2019
1,931
0
36
Kootenays BC
U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question about whether a president can be indicted, but the policy says, "no".
Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel "reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government." - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

However, with the approval of the U.S. attorney general, an investigator can deviate from department policy in “extraordinary circumstances”. Barr holds that office and he's a Trump toadie so it is unlikely that Trump will be indicted while he is president. Hence the impeachment proceedings.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,578
8,164
113
B.C.
U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question about whether a president can be indicted, but the policy says, "no".
Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel "reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government." - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

However, with the approval of the U.S. attorney general, an investigator can deviate from department policy in “extraordinary circumstances”. Barr holds that office and he's a Trump toadie so it is unlikely that Trump will be indicted while he is president. Hence the impeachment proceedings.
Really a Trump toady ? Did you see the tape of Biden bragging about withholding aid ? Or do you care ?
 

AnnaEmber

Council Member
Aug 31, 2019
1,931
0
36
Kootenays BC
Really a Trump toady ? Did you see the tape of Biden bragging about withholding aid ? Or do you care ?
Oh, cool. Whattaboutism, I never ran into that before. hahaha

"Adam, quit beating on your little brother."
Adam replies, "Yeah but Susie made a face at me".
lmao

Like I said, pathetic.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,578
8,164
113
B.C.
Oh, cool. Whattaboutism, I never ran into that before. hahaha

"Adam, quit beating on your little brother."
Adam replies, "Yeah but Susie made a face at me".
lmao

Like I said, pathetic.
Isn’t that whataboutism that brought up this whole uproar ? Hey look over there .
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Oh, since there was no Russian collusion, it was "crooked accusers" you mean.
;)
Stay tuned for the justice hour coming soon to a theater near YOU.


Hannity: Brennan, Clapper, Comey better lawyer up
Fox News

Justice Department reportedly seeks to question CIA officers in Russia inquiry review.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question about whether a president can be indicted, but the policy says, "no".
Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel "reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government." - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

However, with the approval of the U.S. attorney general, an investigator can deviate from department policy in “extraordinary circumstances”. Barr holds that office and he's a Trump toadie so it is unlikely that Trump will be indicted while he is president. Hence the impeachment proceedings.
I think it's funny how many people scream about due process, until Trump is being persecuted. Then due process isn't a consideration, is it?



After dozens of House Republicans demanded access to a secure facility in the Capitol on Wednesday where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) was preparing to depose a Pentagon official, Democrats expressed outrage at the breach of protocol. “They’re doing this because this is what the guilty do,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). “Innocent people cooperate with investigations. Innocent people follow the rules of the House.”


Well, people engaged in impartial investigations aimed at finding the truth don’t violate every precedent and standard of due process set during previous presidential impeachments.

Contrast today’s partisan inquiry with the Nixon impeachment. As American Enterprise Institute President Robert Doar has pointed out, the Nixon inquiry was a model of bipartisan cooperation. The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Peter Rodino (N.J.), assembled a unified staff (including Doar’s father, John, a Republican whom Rodino appointed as special counsel). The full House voted on authorizing the inquiry. The minority was given joint subpoena power. The president’s counsel was allowed to be present during depositions, given access to all of the documents and materials presented to the committee, allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and even permitted to call witnesses of his own. Most important, the committee did not leak or release selective documents cherry-picked to make the president look bad.


The same was true during the Clinton impeachment inquiry. As former House speaker Newt Gingrich explained in a recent interview, Republicans “adopted every single rule that Rodino had used in 1973.” Yet today, Rodino’s party is systematically undermining every principle of fairness and due process he put in place in 1973.


Take this week’s testimony by acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., who alleged that President Trump made U.S. aid contingent on “investigations.” He was deposed inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) in the Capitol, a room that is designed to protect the government’s most highly classified information. Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.

But the full transcript of his deposition — including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations — remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.



Moreover, they are abusing the system to do it. One of the charges Democrats have leveled against Trump is that the White House improperly put the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president on a special server used to protect highly classified information. Yet Democrats are doing the very same thing, conducting impeachment depositions inside a SCIF, improperly using a classified system to restrict access to nonclassified information not just to the public but to members of Congress. Talk about hypocrisy.


Let’s be clear: There is nothing wrong with holding hearings behind closed doors as long as there is due process. During the Nixon impeachment much of the evidence was presented in closed-door sessions. But there was not a flood of leaks from those executive sessions, as we are seeing today. And unlike today, the minority could issue subpoenas, and the president’s counsel was present to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Secrecy and fairness go hand in hand. One without the other is corrupt.

The partisan nature of the Democrats’ inquiry will backfire in a number of ways. For one thing, it allows Republicans to make the case to the American people that the process is unfair, and if there is one thing Americans demand, it is fairness. If the facts are on the Democrats’ side, they have nothing to fear from transparency and due process. Second, their partisan behavior has given the president justification to refuse to cooperate with the investigation, just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to cooperate with the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. And finally, it has made it easier for congressional Republicans to rally around the president. Right now, Republicans are more torn about Trump’s Syria policy than they are about his impeachment inquiry. By failing to show even a modicum of fairness, Democrats have turned impeachment into a game of shirts vs. skins.


The Democrats’ conduct shows that they are not serious, and that the entire impeachment inquiry is a blatantly political exercise. Given the Constitution’s requirement of a supermajority in the Senate to remove the president, it is impossible for one party to remove the president of another party from office without buy-in from the other side. Yet Democrats are making no effort to win over Republicans, much less make an impeachment vote difficult for their GOP colleagues.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
the singular fact that a president cannot be indicted (true or not) is or could be construed as a lack of due process.

President Game Show Host certainly see's it as such
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,422
9,577
113
Washington DC
I think it's funny how many people scream about due process, until Trump is being persecuted. Then due process isn't a consideration, is it?
Um. . . no. Impeachment isn't a legal proceeding, therefore due process is irrelevant.

As to the rest of your blather, you have been hoodwinked, willingly or unwillingly. The procedures you're talking about are for the impeachment, and there is no impeachment yet. Only an inquiry. And the Clinton impeachment inquiry absolutely featured closed-door, undisclosed hearings.

What Gingrich is saying, and you are parroting, is essentially that an investigation should be conducted like a trial. And there's no precedent for that anywhere.