Can a sitting president be indicted for obstruction of justice?

[chicofaraby]

If so, does that warrrant impeachment?

Does conviction require impeachment?

Should the impeachment process require an inctment or a conviction?

I'm just curious about DUs opinions...

[Post]

1. Irving Libby Nails the Boss's Boss

Scooter's saving his own skin. More here: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/irving-nails-bosss-boss.html#links

[NYC]

2. Yes, probably, and no.

Yes, a sitting president can be indicted for obstruction of justice.

If a president is convicted of obstruction of justice, he really ought to be impeached.

It isn't necessary to indict or convict a president of any charge before impeaching.

That's my opinion.

[serryjw]

12. This is so fun

did you read this?
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06129.html

[NYC]

15. Yes, I read the Greg Palast article at Truth Out.

I guess it is getting around. :) Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Remember, Watergate started small. Also, remember Nixon resigned in August of the second year of his second term. I keep waiting for August. I can't help myself.

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. Someone get ** an intern who will save a stained dress.

:evilgrin:

[unblock]

4. yes, not necessarily, it depends, no.

i think he can be indicted, but the supremos would probably say that a criminal case cannot be permitted to proceed until he's out of office.

does indictment warrant impeachment? in this case yes, but generally, mere indictment may or may not be meaningful.

does conviction require impeachment? conviction of a felony would disqualify the president from holding office, but isn't the proper procedure for removing him from office. so if he's convicted of a felony, i think he should be impeached. if he's convicted of a misdemeanor, then congress can decide if it warrants impeachment or not.

impeachment should not require a criminal indictment or conviction. impeachment is about removal from office -- firing someone -- it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with breaking the law.

[sutz12]

5. As opposed to perjury, a related crime?

Think Clinton.

[chicofaraby]

6. Clinton was never indicted.

Not for any charge.

[alfredo]

7. I think they called Nixon an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Not sure if you can indict a sitting president. The impeachment process takes its place.

[berni_mccoy]

8. It is an untested scenario that would lead to a Supreme Court ruling

The U.S. Constitution is pretty clear that the President can only be removed by Impeachment for Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and misdemeanors. The problem is that Impeachment is considered a political process that is designed to remove the president from office. Afterward, he can be charged and tried for crimes. There was an article that came out last year when the DSM were discovered and the result was basically, it's never been tried before and depending on the Supreme Court, it could go either way. In fact, Nixon WOULD HAVE BEEN indicted if he did not resign. If he would have been indicted, he would first be impeached and then he could face the charges. If he was not impeached, he could not be compelled to face the charges. Nixon saved us all the time and effort by resigning first (figuring that Ford would Pardon him, which he did).

The most likely scenario for Bush in Plamegate is that Fitzgerald will name Bush as an "unindictable" co-conspirator, saying that unless Bush is impeached, justice can not be realized. This would lead to Bush's resignation (and likely pardon). However, some speculate that Bush is so obstinate that he would face his impeachment... it's hard to say what will happen if he is named as a co-conspirator in Plamegate.

[troubleinwinter]

10. If he is "unindictable",

Is there a statute of limitations... in other words, could he then later be indicted after leaving office at the end of this term?

[gator_in_Ontario]

9. Can a king be impeached?

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Can a dictator be impeached?

"This would be easier if it were a dictatorship, so long as I am the dictator." GW bush, 12/18/2000.

[jobycom]

13. That's as debated as what a president can be impeached for.

There is nothing specifically forbidding indictment of a sitting president in the Constitution, however long-term legal opinion has been that a president can't be indicted while in office because the indictment would interfere with his Constitutional duties. That's never been tested by SCOTUS, though, so if someone tried, it would be decided by SCOTUS. Picture, though, a president under idictment and on trial in a court of law. The judge would have authority over the president. Could the judge order the president to reveal classified info? What if we were attacked while the trial was being carried out? Would the judge have the authority to detain the president, thus preventing him from presiding over his duties? What if the president refused to show for court? Who could arrest him? It would be hard to argue that any court other than the Supreme Court could have jurisdiction over a sitting president.

There is another argument based on the Constitution. The C says a president can be indicted, tried and punished after being removed from office. This could be construed to mean the president can't be indicted while in office--otherwise, why would the C have to specify that he could be removed AFTER office? If he could be indicted any old time, why even mention it?

Basically, though, it would be up to SCOTUS to decide.

An indictment would not warrant impeachment. The Constitution is specific (though it was ignored when Clinton was impeached): a president can only be removed from office for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors (meaning "distinctly political crimes against the state," similar to treason or mutiny or other "high crimes" that directly betray the government). Impeachment can only happen in the House. The crime--if the president were indicted--would have to be impeachable for them to impeach him. (In the case of revealing classified info, it would be a "slam dunk" for impeachability).

Impeachment doesn't require indictment or conviction--it is simply a term meaning an official accusation made against a public official. A president can be impeached for anything Congress wanted to impeach him or her for, but can only be removed from office for the above offenses, so no one impeaches a president unless the crime can result in removal.

After a president is impeached and removed, then he or she can be indicted, per the Constitution.

That's how I understand it. I'm usually wrong, though.

[MiniMe]

14. Impeachment would be the indictment

The special prosecuter can't indict Bush, the House has to do it through impeachment. The Senate is then the body that decided guilt or innocence.

That's what happened with Clinton, the house impeached or indicted, the Senate found him innocent.

[DelawareValleyDem]

16. Most legal scholarship seems to indicate

that a sitting President can't be indicted, although presumably the Supreme Court would ultimate arbiter of that issue if an enterprising grand jury ever did hand up a true bill.

Edited to add this link to a Justice Department paper on the topic.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm