General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy can't a pResident be indicted?
Treason and gross abuses of power should NOT be limited to partisan politics, i.e. impeachment by a Congress in the same party as the offender.
unblock
(52,319 posts)it's never come up, so the supreme court has yet to weigh in.
there's nothing in the constitution or the law that explicitly prevents it.
donnie's lawyers would have to rely on some argument that the constitutional duty to carry out the executive responsibilities would be unduly hampered by having to prepare a defense and stand trial.
in any event, i don't see why a president couldn't be *indicted*. at most, any trial would be delayed until after he's out of office.
personally, i have a tough time seeing why a civil suit can proceed against a sitting president (as the supreme court decided in clinton v. jones) but not a criminal case.
J_William_Ryan
(1,756 posts)He's removed via the impeachment process, rendering the question of indictment moot.
still_one
(92,397 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)One can infer that strict constructionists would argue that, since their is no language in Article I, Section 3 specifically stating the pres must be out of office, why on earth can he not be indicted?
Grand Inquisitor Starr certainly wanted to, but was chicken
still_one
(92,397 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Laurence Tribe says it should be possible to indict first, before impeachment/conviction -- and then go on to hold a trial.
And it might be important to indict ASAP, because of statute of limitation laws.
still_one
(92,397 posts)indictment
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)that says a sitting President can't be indicted, and that other legal advisors said the same thing during Watergate, and later. But the issue hasn't been tested in the courts.
ON UPDATE:
I see the mistake you are making. The article talks about the full PROSECUTION not happening till after impeachment/conviction. But the indictment and trial are two separate things, and Tribe says the indictment itself could occur BEFORE impeachment/conviction, with the prosecution of the case (trial) to occur afterwards.
Also, I don't know who the writer of the article is, but he writes to dispute the conclusion of a law professor at Chapman that indictment IS possible. So your Bloomberg writer disagrees with Professor Rotunda at Chapman and Professor Tribe at Harvard. The issue is NOT settled
still_one
(92,397 posts)got that far.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)A state court like New York could indict DT on money laundering, for example -- a crime that could have occurred a couple years ago, and, for all we know, has been under investigation ever since.
If DT manages to stop Mueller, the states might be our last resort.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/states_could_bring_these_charges_if_trump_tries_to_pardon_his_way_out_of.html
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)He said the issue has yet to be decided.
herding cats
(19,567 posts)Theres an argument it would detract from their work time. However in Trumps case he already spends 4+ hours a day watching television and goes on golfing trips every weekend. Not to mention the time he spends on Twitter everyday. Aparently hes got lots of time to spare.
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)he wouldn't even understand the impeachment process.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,844 posts)that a sitting president can't be prosecuted for a crime while he is still in office. More here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-impeachment-prosecution-jail-20170801-story.html
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)of course
It doesnt say anywhere in the Con you cant
So....you can, right?
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)Tribe is a well respected liberal legal scholar and a Harvard professor. The arguments have been on Twitter, though, which I can't access at work.
(supposedly, if Dukakis had won in 1988, Tribe would likely have been his first nominee to the SCOTUS)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,844 posts)But I doubt Mueller wants to have an indictment issued against Trump and then have to litigate the matter - especially since it would almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)here can correct me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Would the Senate who convicted an impeached President have the power to order jail time?
But once out of office, he could then be indicted.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,844 posts)that there should be a trial. But the result of a conviction following a trial based on a criminal indictment is that you go to jail, while conviction after impeachment only means that you lose your job.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)herding cats
(19,567 posts)The theory on how its supposed to work per the Constitution is: Impeachment, conviction, removal from office, indictment, trial, judgement and them punishment.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Im ok with the current thoughts of impeachment being the vehicle for removal, then possible indictment. Mainly because the things you mention arent the only things an indictment can be handed down for.
Indictments do not mean a crime was committed by said individual. I dont want a president arrested over an indictment handed down by a GJ. I would be ok with an indictment being issued and all pertinent facts handed over to Congress so long as the indictment isnt processed further.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...I don't think any president should be left open to indictment by every court in the land. Can you imagine how that power would be abused, how every minute of the last president's time would have been occupied?
No, when we inaugurate a president, we should be making his conviction a Congressional function--though of course we are supposed to be electing a Congress with the ethics and guts for that sort of oversight.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)that would not place burdens on the president. We can note that Clinton was sued civilly and Trump is currently being sued civilly, but there was not a huge flood of vexatious personal civil suits against Bush Jr. or Obama, and it would be easier for that to happen than a flood of criminal suits. Trump does have a flood of civil suits against him, but he has always had that. Still has no affect on his ability to work (or lack thereof).
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)If a president was indicted but not impeached and remover by congress, there would be no way for the judicial branch to enforce it. They could send US Marshalls to the WH to make an arrest. But when the SS refused to let then near the POTUS you would have the ultimate constitucional crisis.
Edited to say I think a sitting POTUS could be indicted but not arrested or brought to trial until out of Office one way or anothet.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)How would Congress enforce removal for a President that refused to leave? Secret Service would have to evict him, I think.
Abu Pepe
(637 posts)Gothmog
(145,558 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Not that it will happen unless Repukes lose power, and then, of course, impeachment is, or should be, on the table.
Demsrule86
(68,673 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Is any one above the law, or not?
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)no one is above the law? just curious