Harvard law professor issues scathing takedown of DOJ policy that bars.. indicting a POTUS

[ffr]

Harvard law professor issues scathing takedown of DOJ policy that bars prosecutors from indicting a sitting president

This Harvard law professor believes Trump can be indicted and should be.



Laurence Tribe is a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School. He's argued cases before the Supreme Court 36 times, and he's taught students who went on to become U.S. Senators, Supreme Court justices, and even a U.S. President. Among them, Barack Obama, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, and Ted Cruz.
<snip>

"Nothing" in the "text, structure, or history" of the U.S. Constitution says a sitting President cannot be indicted, Tribe said: "Some people claim that, even if Rosenstein gives Mueller permission to indict Trump as DOJ rules allow, the Constitution forbids such indictment. No! Nothing in its text, structure, or history supports that 'POTUS-is- above-the-law' view, nor does any SCOTUS precedent support it."
<snip>

And Monday morning, Tribe issued perhaps the best example yet – ironic, too, after Trump claimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and "wouldn't lose voters."

Here's what Tribe says would happen if Trump, indeed, tested his own claim:

Link to tweet

I just don’t get it. If Trump shot someone, he’d be indicted in a New York minute. Nothing in the Constitution prevents his indictment for directing a criminal conspiracy to steal the presidency. Certainly not a DOJ “policy.” - Alternet

Individual-1 was a civilian when he committed these crimes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I have wondered what would happen if a president committed an obvious, violent crime.

Let's say Trump arrived at a press conference, pulled a .38 out of his pocket and shot a CNN reporter in the forehead. Would everybody just stand around and say, "My goodness, he shouldn't have done that, but because he's the president he can't be arrested, questioned or prosecuted," or would the federal marshals take him away?

If the claim is that a president can't be prosecuted for a crime while in office, isn't the logical conclusion that he could do exactly that? Murder someone on national television, beat his wife, steal the White House silverware, any damn thing he wants? Of course, there's no statute of limitations for murder so he could be prosecuted after leaving office, but for the rest of his term the president could still be the president, with all the powers of that position. Who would want that?

[unblock]

2. Just to make it even more obvious, imagine if the president were a democrat

Republicans, right-wingers, and the media seem to have such confusion when the president is a republican.

But if the president is a democrat, suddenly the rule of law is crystal clear....

Somehow....

[ffr]

3. This +1

[diva77]

23. +1000 THIS! The disinformation racket has been working overtime to cloud clear cut issues.

[BamaRefugee]

13. My gut feeling is that he HAS been involved in a murder, probably a Mafia related construction thing

in NYC, and he knows it and MUELLER knows it.
Would be very interesting if true, and not that far fetched.

[elmac]

15. He has, the Khashoggi murder. nt

[erronis]

16. Possibly before the crime and definitely part of the coverup.

Those 'c' words keep cropping up: coverup, conspiracy, collusion, and covfefe.

Maybe it's a compulsion to commit crimes.

[duforsure]

4. Republicans always try to claim xyz doesn't apply to them

Only Democrats. A sitting President I think too can be indicted while in office, or that will create an even worse situation when another one comes along even worse and really takes advantage of it and outright does things unspeakable to others without consequences.They can be taken to court for civil issues, so why should they be immune from being indicted for criminal acts. No one else is, and he should be held to an even higher standard upholding all the laws. Congress also should be liable criminally for not upholding all the laws.

[onenote]

5. Tribe may make a strong case, but if the DOJ decides to stick to its policy,

I doubt that much could be done to challenge it.

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion in deciding whether and how to prosecute. I'm not sure who would have "standing" to challenge a DOJ decision about how to handle criminal charges involving a sitting president (Indict and prosecute, indict and delay prosecution, delay indictment, etc).

[marylandblue]

8. It would be a true Constitutional Crisis in that we get no guidance whatsoever

And that would end up being decided one of two ways:
1) Legally, based on fundamental principles rather than case law. I suspect even right wingers on the SCOTUS would agree that the President can in fact get away with murder, so they would essentially grant someoje standing and make up a process on the fly.
2)Politically, Republicans in Congress will have to decide if they want 2020 to be a referendum on the Coronation of King Donald I. I'm going to guess they don't want to go there, but who knows, maybe they do?

[erronis]

17. It's worth pushing this to a constitutional crisis rather than jawboning it to death

I'd like to see the SCOTUS and congress go on record for how the US should handle this. Now and into the future.

If it is a horrible decision for most of us on DU, so be it. We can deal with this and prepare for the rest.

However I think when the pushing comes to shoving, a lot of pundits and RW spouts are going to see some of the light.

[LiberalFighter]

19. States still retain jurisdiction for state crimes committed within their boundaries.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

6. Wish I could rec this more than once...

“NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” means no one, zip, zilch, nada. Practice what you preach you slimey repubs.

[Garrett78]

7. "If Trump shot someone, he'd be indicted in a New York minute."

But he wouldn't lose a supporter.

[Saboburns]

9. So Trump could murder a dozen a day, Schindler's List style without consequence.

Please.

Stop this with POTUS can't be indicted bullshit.

You're smarter than that.

(I'm not talking to any specific person, and not anybody in this thread. I'm making a point is all)

[BigmanPigman]

10. I have heard a few people saying the same thing.

Blumenthal is one of them. I think the question becomes, "Can a sitting president be jailed if indicted while still in office?".

[LiberalFighter]

20. I would argue that the President should also have to turn in their passport(s)

if they committed a serious crime.

The 25th provides a means for the President to temporarily relinquish their powers.

[Pepsidog]

11. Tribe is absolutely correct. Has anyne actually seen this memo?

[DeminPennswoods]

12. On the final podcast of her series on Agnew,

Maddow queried her guests about why Agnew pleaded out if he/his lawyers thought he couldn't be indicted.
As it turns out, DoJ's solicitor general at the time, Robert Bork, wrote an opinion that while the President couldn't be indicted, the VP could. Of course, Bork was appointed by Nixon and the legal opinion was clearly written for 2 purposes: 1) preserve Nixon and 2) make it clear to Agnew that he wouldn't be protected and therefore would be smart to take a deal and resign.

That 45 year old opinion is one of the only 2 DoJ legal opinions on which the current idea that the President cannot be indicted while in office is based.

[LiberalFighter]

21. How could only the President be exempt when there is no clear distinction in the Constitution?

I would argue that since the VP can be indicted then so can the President.

[DeminPennswoods]

22. Point is, this opinion, one of the 2 DoJ leans on

was a completely political document. It was written to protect Nixon and get Agnew out of the WH. Meaning, therefore, that it should be discounted as a foundational document for the idea that the President cannot be indicted while in office.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Absolutely agree

[BamaRefugee]

14. So, according to "DOJ policy" (these are the rules we run our country by?) the next President could

just go and shoot tRump on 5th Avenue, and nothing would happen???

[marylandblue]

18. It's not policy, it is two Office of Legal Counsel opinions

One written to protect Nixon, the other to protect Clinton.

In both cases, the Special Counsel's office secretly disagreed with the opinion, but chose not to indict.

But we are in a very different situation here. In both those cases, the opposing party controlled Congress and was likely to impeach. In Clinton's case, it might have been difficult to get a jury to convict.

This time, with a different kind of Congress, we may be faced with overwhelming evidence of crimes and influence by foreign powers. It may include members of Congress. It may be impossible for DOJ, Congress and the courts all to ignore. One, or all three may have to choose if this is a democracy or a kleptocracy.

[ck4829]

25. K&R