So if a President murders someone, he can't be charged as long as he is in office?? Who came up with

[wt1531]

the dumb idea that a sitting President is basically above the law? If his party controls both houses of Congress and the members are rabid partisans as the Republicans are now, then he could murder someone and be a free man for at least 8 years (if he wins re-election).
The DOJ people who wrote that guidance should be called to explain why a sitting President is allowed not to be indicted while in office. The Vice president can run the country if a criminal type Pesident is burdened with what it takes to face grand juries, answer subpoenas and appear for court proceedings and their logic that we have to wait until that person is no longer President to charge him with crimes is so mind boggling. That logic basically says a sitting President is almost like a king and can't be bothered with indictments or charges no matter what crimes or obstructions he commits as long as he continues to be President. Never makes sense in a country known for its strict adherence to the rule of law.

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, the OLC interpretation has not been legally challenged. If something like that happened, I'd

predict that a warrant would be issued and it would immediately be adjudicated as to charges filed at arraignment by SCOTUS.

[Turbineguy]

3. Of course the arresting officers

would have to hack their way through a wall of human flesh of trump's dolt supporters.

[hlthe2b]

7. I would doubt they'd even try to physically "acquire" him. They notify'd that a warrant had

been issued with a demand date/time for arraignment and it would be short-circuited to SCOTUS...

[Harker]

53. His accomplices

are sitting on their arses yelling at their televisions.

[coti]

6. But in this case the President is merely trying to destroy our democratic institutions and institute

an autocracy, so it's not that bad.

I don't think a policy that is in effect sometimes, but not other times, without any delineation, is going to be well-defensible.

[hlthe2b]

9. I believe he can be both indicted and tried. So do several consitutional experts.

But inconsistency in current interpretation based on "severity" of crime is probably the least of it...

[coti]

10. Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that it's self-evident there isn't this one freaking guy in the

country who isn't subject to our criminal laws because he- like so many others- happens to have a large amount of responsibility. Oh, and such a specific protection and immunity for one guy didn't get pointed out explicitly in the framing and amendment of the Constitution in 230+ years of its existence. Stupidest shit I've ever heard.

[hlthe2b]

15. Strongly recommend you read this--written by a lawyer for Spiro Agnew who tells the bizarre

history of this dogmatic opinion developed for pure convenience as Prosecutors eyeing Nixon's inevitable impeachment sought not to have an active felon (Agnew) assume the Presidency. This was discussed in Rachel Maddow's podcast, Bagman--recommend that as well.

http://time.com/5574520/mueller-report-trump-indictment-obstruction-justice/
Robert Mueller Was Wrong. President Trump Can Be Indicted

[trof]

21. Thank you.

[erronis]

37. Also, thank you for this link.

We wonder if this opinion was known/considered by the Mueller team. You would think they had done a web search of all available information.

[Smackdown2019]

40. What I took from Mueller

Is that he was told NO indictments by his new boss if no hard evidence and that was the end.

Here is the twist though....

If it happens in New York....

Yes mr klu klutz Klan trumpo would be arrested, but by state or local authorities.

But if outside any metropolitan areas of Alabama or Mississippi.... only then the next democratic president then trumpo would be arrested.


Sad that the old south would be like that.

[coti]

2. Yeah, the policy is completely absurd. There is much obvious and extremely strong

rationale against it.

[Marcuse]

4. Only on Fifth Avenue and every other street in America.

[defacto7]

5. That's what the 25th amendment was supposed to remedy.

They didn't expect the whole administration and a Senate majority to be corrupt at the same time.

[FBaggins]

14. Untrue.

25 was critical health issues. That has been understood to include serious mental health issues... but it wasn't anticipated to remedy serious crimes. Impeachment already handles that.

The correct answer to the OP is that the President would be quickly impeached and removed... and then charged with murder.

[defacto7]

78. Thank you.

It's important to get my facts in order.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. The idea that a president can't be charged with a crime while in office

means Trump could strangle Melania on live TV and he couldn't be prosecuted while in office. Of course, there's no statute of limitations for murder so he'd get busted eventually, but it seems pretty ridiculous.

[StarfishSaver]

12. I think, at the time the opinion was drafted, it was assumed that Congress would

remove a criminal president and he would be promptly indicted and convicted in criminal court. It was also recognized that a president needed to be protected from being harassed and hamstrung with a political prosecution by a state or federal prosecutor.

Now this criminal president and his craven Republican congressional enablers have thrown all that logic into the trash. This definitely needs to be revisited, but this DOJ won't do it because they're a large part of the problem.

[trof]

24. +1000

[marylandblue]

31. If harassment by a prosecutor was such a big concern, why isn't it in the Constitution?

Seems a glaring oversight for such a major concern.

The impeachment process for judges and executive employees is exactly the same, except the Chief pr3sides over Presidential impeachments rather than the VP (who presumably has a personal interest in the outcome).

There was a judge in the 70s or 80s who was convicted of a crime and went to jail, but continued to draw a salary because he wasn't impeached until after he got out of jail.

[StarfishSaver]

48. Lots of things aren't spelled out in the Constitution that have later been interpreted to be

consistent with the founders' original intent.

Right to reproductive freedom is an example.

[marylandblue]

56. Sure, but the opinion drafted by the OLC was designed to protect Nixon from prosecution.

So part of that was to make up a problem that had never occurred and then read it backwards into history, creating a unique right for a single person.

That's different from the right to privacy on which reproductive freedom is based, and affects everybody.

[StarfishSaver]

61. My point is that the fact that something's not expressly spelled out in the Constitution, does not

mean that it is not constitutionally protected.

That said, I don't agree that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. I do think that a general policy (different than a constitutional prohibition) against indicting a president is valid as a standard practice, provided there's room for exceptions. I also think Congress should amend the federal criminal statutes of limitations to toll during a presidency so that a president can't run out the clock by staying in office while enjoying the benefit of the situational immunity conferred by his office.

Eventually, I think this will be decided by the courts and, based on precedent, I believe the court will find that a sitting president can indeed be indicted, provided steps are taken to ensure that the criminal case doesn't interfere with the exercise of his duties. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in the Paula Jones case, and, although that case involved a civil lawsuit, the principles apply to a criminal case, as well.

It is unlikely that this would originate with a federal indictment since no U.S. Attorney under Barr's supervision would indict Trump. However it could make its way up to the high court through a state court prosecution. It's possible that New York State will indict Trump and try to take him to trial. Trump would surely contest, using the rationale set forth in the OLC memo.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

[uponit7771]

42. +1

[Chin music]

11. If trump believes that, imagine the things that happen behind closed doors on his overseas trips?

If he's untouchable, does anyone believe for a second he's not doing all kinds of illegal stuff?

[erronis]

38. It's obviously not illegal for this prez to sexually harass anyone he wants

Whether on AF1 or on the bus or perhaps in his kid's bedroom.

[Chin music]

39. Or take drugs he may not be prescribed for.

[nuxvomica]

13. This is probably the flaw in the constitution that Godel found

If one party gains control of both the legislative and executive branches, it doesn't matter whether they achieved it illegally because once the election is over, they control all prosecutorial power over themselves. The only thing stopping them is their own sense of honor, which is obviously not a factor with today's Republican party.

Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his application. The judge turned out to be Phillip Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

[erronis]

44. That is such an incredible find by Gdel (and by you, nuxvomica). The laws are fallible

but they need to be made whole when we regain sanity.

Thank you.

[uponit7771]

46. it only has to be one house in congress

[former9thward]

16. The Nixon and Clinton DOJs came up with the "dumb idea"

The original memo came out in 1973 when Nixon was president and was re-affirmed by the Clinton DOJ in 2000.

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

[rockfordfile]

72. Well it's mainly a republican policy. Reagan and Nixon are the reason our country is so messed up.

[Marie Marie]

17. OFFS, if there is one person in America who should NOT be above the law,

it should be the freakin' President. Oh never mind...

[MarcA]

18. If the Institutions wouldn't take action

he could be given the same treatment as King George.

[Whiskeytide]

19. It probably never occurred to ...

... them that the White House and senate leadership would be occupied by anti-Democratic, morally bankrupt, disloyal, law scoffing, flaming pants, orange hued fuckwits who would try to defend murder because “party ‘n power over patriotism”. WTF happened?

I’ve heard tell of a time when some people believed that, when push came to shove, even republicans would try to do the right thing. I know. I know. Probably just an old fairy tale.

[StarfishSaver]

50. I remember back in the olden days (two years ago), some people said, "He won't do all those things

he's threatening. The Republicans won't let him. If he goes too far, they'll rein him in."

Ahh, the good old days of innocence...

[Hassler]

20. The ambiguity on impeachment is one more way the framers framed us.

[unblock]

25. Not if it happened on federal land, such as Washington, D.C.

[Goodheart]

23. I'm wondering if he can even be arrested according to DOJ logic.

[unblock]

26. Worse than that, he can commit crimes to get in or stay in office

He can kidnap congresspeoples' children and threaten to kill them if they even try to impeach him or refuse to pass any law he wants.

It's an insane policy.

[Chin music]

41. Skies the limit apparently.

[erronis]

47. Hey, seriously. Stop giving the cretin and followers ideas. Actually I think the dump.org would

prefer to ransom the children. Might as well make some bucks off the crime, right?

$500,000 per repuglicon kid
$2,000,000 per democratic one (they are obviously worth a whole lot more)

And this would still be legal! Just doing business!
Not sure about emoluments/etc. but who cares?

[unblock]

52. Of course he could be indicted as soon as he leave office,

Unless the next president pardons him, of course, in a never ending chain of tyranny.

Just like the founders intended, I'm sure.

[AndJusticeForSome]

27. He could even kill political enemies

Or, god forbid, a sepreme court justice!

That is seriously fucked up.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. And does that mean if Trump perpetrated domestic violence against his wife

Melania, and she died as a result, then he couldn't be charged with some sort of homicide?

[coti]

32. By the letter of the policy, yes, as long as he was President.

It's idiotic, yes.

[no_hypocrisy]

33. Maybe that's why Trump's reluctant to start a war with Iran and/or Venezuela.

He'd be an accused war criminal and COULD be arrested, say, during a visit to England. And off to The Hague.

[Wednesdays]

74. Yes, we all remember how that happened to Dubya and Cheney.

Oh, wait...

[procon]

29. The first step to charging a president with any crime

begins with the House opening an official Impeachment investigation. If the Senate concurs with the evidence presented then the vote to convict and remove the president from office.

After that the state judicial apparatus has full authority to put him on trial just like any other private citizen.

[Kurt V.]

30. That's an extreme example but truth is the president, any president is in fact above the law. all

they need is 34 senators of like mind. all presidents in history have 34 like minded senators. it took trump to expose this major defect.

[The Blue Flower]

34. Rachel Maddow interviewed the author of the 1973 memo that established the principle

He was astonished that his OPINION now has the gravity of Constitutional law. He never intended it to set a precedent for all time, and he believes it should be suspended now. Maybe someone can find the clip. It was early this year.

[B Stieg]

35. The first few pages of the Mueller Reort, Vol. 2...

explain just this. Apparently, the really big fear/concern/argument is that impeach proceedings would get in the way of the president's performance of his duties. Of course, one has to ask how murder would fit into the schedule...

[erronis]

49. Given his performance(?), anything to get in the way would be a vast improvement.

Send the blowhard to a golf course and let him score a hole-in-one every time. Just keep him from meddling with governance.

[Bettie]

36. A Democratic president would be impeached and removed in a case like that

if Trump had a D after his name, he'd have been gone a long time ago.

If you have an R after your name, you apparently get to do whatever you want and never have a single consequence for it.

So, laws only matter for Democrats, Republicans can break them with impunity knowing that Democrats will never hold them accountable.

[erronis]

51. I agree with you, Bettie - unfortunately. This is because the Democrats generally care about trying

to work towards solutions and try to be inclusive.

The repuglicons try to work towards obstruction and get rid of anybody with a brain.

[Chin music]

43. Why hasnt Congress enacted a law saying he's not above the law? Even if it wouldnt pass

the Senate or be signed by him? Why no law to that effect?

[Polybius]

65. Because it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment

Gonna take time and require super-majorities.

[Chin music]

75. No. It's a policy. Not written into the constitution. Mueller misspoke there I believe.

Nowhere in the Constitution, does it say presidents are above the law.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

45. KR NT

[aikoaiko]

54. The Constitution is a suicide pact if the people wish it to be.

[MasonDreams]

55. When it was written, the Constitution that is

People would fight a duel from time to time. What if the winner of the Aaron Burr vs. Hamilton duel had been president?

[blueinredohio]

57. If he committed certain crimes the statute of limitations could be up

by the time he gets out of office.

[Chin music]

63. Why not toll the statutes?

[yuiyoshida]

58. What happened to "No one is above the law"?

I don't get it.

[DallasNE]

59. Supreme Court Tossed Special Prosecutor Law

So the Special Counsel law was written to replace. The OLC then wrote this ruling. It has not been tested in court. It came out of the Clinton impeachment.

[Honeycombe8]

60. The argument is something like: Because he is the sole Executive of the Exec Branch,

and the sole Commander in Chief, etc., it would disrupt the country and govt too much for him to be indicted. He is in a unique position in the govt.

I don't agree with that logic because there is a V.P. If the VP is also indicted, there is the Speaker of the House.

He can be sued civilly, though.

Go figure. But it's not party-based. It's been the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion for decades.

Impeachment is the process that the govt is given to deal with a criminal President. We have that, but because the President's loyalists own the Senate, we can't remove him.

[slumcamper]

62. The rule cries loudly to be put to judicial test.

-for more than one reason. Some include:

Is the principle of "rule of law" paramount, or is it constrained or bound by considerations of "executive privilege"?

Does the "rule of men" supercede the authority of "rule of law"?

Is reason the objective guiding force underlying judicial consideration and decision making?

[Polybius]

64. Nope

A cop or FBI agent can't just walk in and arrest a President. The Secret Service could and would intercept them. He or she would impeached and removed quickly however, and then arrested after.

[Xolodno]

66. Move the DOJ from the Executive to the Supreme Court.

This would change the role of the USSC from non-active to active. And sure is hell politicize it. But what would that look like, hell if I know.

Of course, I think the Federal Bank should be realized as a separate, but lesser branch of government...immunizing it further from politics. Right now, Both Congress and the Executive recognize the Fed as something you don't want to screw with and is on the honor system.

[lastlib]

67. Nor does it make sense for a nation that fought a revolution against the idea....

that "the king can do no wrong". It is an abhorrent doctrine to me that the president cannot be indicted for a crime.

[coti]

68. I would bet a poll would show a vast majority of Americans would disagree with it, too

Though it's tough to put such faith in people nowadays....maybe I shouldn't be so sure.

[lastlib]

70. Be careful--one poll showed 80% of Americans could name all of the "Simpsons" characters...

...but only 12% could name all five of the freedoms in the First Amendment. There are some very poorly-informed folks out there.

[Generic Other]

69. My tweet

If a hypothetical deranged president dropped paper towels off Trump Tower on pedestrians' heads, killing them, he couldn't even be charged with littering.

[rockfordfile]

71. Yes he would. A sitting President can be charged with crimes. Only a traitor would say otherwise

We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. That's one of the main issues we fought for.

So if any person that doesn't think a sitting President can't be charged is un-American. The only persons that seem to think otherwise are right-wingers who hate the USA.

[OliverQ]

73. The people who wrote that DoJ policy did it to prevent Spiro Agnew

from becoming President after Nixon. Even they said it's a terrible opinion and has no real legal basis.

Sadly, the current corrupt DoJ headed by Barr doesn't care that it creates a King, because it works to their benefit.

[Oneironaut]

76. Imo, the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee a time where half the government is complicit.

If Trump murdered someone on live tv, the usual apologists would go on tv and say the footage was doctored, and would blame “the socialists” somehow. Their worldview does not extend beyond “Republicans good, Democrats bad!”

I believe the Trumpers would excuse anything at this point. There could be soldiers in the street rounding people up, and they would cheer it on.

[beachbum bob]

77. DOJ guidance would not usurp local DA's power to indict anyone, including a president