Can A President Be Indicted?

[DandyDonovan]

Trumpers are saying no, based on a Nixon era policy...

But you might remember that Clinton was forced to testify in a CIVIL SUIT regarding an event that occurred years before he was elected.

That sets the bar considerably LOWER than what we are discussing here

I'm not sure about the Slick analogy. I think we'd both agree that the legal process and constitution were misused in impeaching a man for lying about extramarital sex.

But, unless Justice Kavenaugh would secure a majority to change things, it seems clear to me that a President must comply with legal process to turn over documents or answer questions in legal matters. But the courts should not allow any questioning that interferes with executive privilege.

The question is whether a potus can be indicted. Federal judges can be indicted while in office, and even tried while in office.

And indictments and trials are different animals. Non-federal prosecutors and AG's have pretty much unfettered discretion to indict. A county DA for example doesn't need anyone's approval. A governor can't keep a state AG from indicting. However, I think US attorneys have to have approval from higher up in the DOJ to indict.

A trial is more difficult. A potus could ask a court to toss or delay trial on any indictment.

Logic would dictate that a President who couldn't be indicted would not have to take part in a criminal proceeding at all. I mean why for example would Bill Clinton have had to testify in regards to a criminal matter in which he couldn't possibly have been indicted? What's the point in that.

Are you suggesting that a president could be indicted while in office? That seems to be the direction of your logic, in asserting Clinton might not have had to testify to a grand jury on Starr's subpoena

What? Can you people not read? I CLEARLY stated that he ONLY thing that could have happened had Clinton ignored that subpoena, even if SCOTUS had ruled that he MUST obey the subpoena would be that Congress could have impeached him. No, he could NOT have been indicted.

Seriously, the President of the United States could walk into Congress with an M4 and mow down every member of Congress live on Cspan and he couldn't be indicted. And I suppose he couldn't be impeached at that point either because there would be no members of the House, but at that point one would think the 25th Amendment would be used to remove him from office LOL

 

[Thinker101]

Can he? Yes. One would not like to consider the president being a criminal but it more and more looks like he is. The “I don’t care” responses from his supporters become more and more ridiculous.

Well his "crime" sure isn't one to take seriously as it seems its pretty common in political circles.

Hell Barry did the same thing and I don't remember anyone calling him a criminal. He paid a fine.

No Obama didn't do the same thing.

No he hid donors with the FEC takes seriously.

He paid a $375,000.00 dollar fine.

Was one of them a porn star?

Females weren't his thing.

 

[candycorn]

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!

If the Supreme Court decides the issue that TRUMP is above the law they are setting a dangerous precedent, and opening the door for him to violate the Separation of Powers clearly enunciated in The Constitution of the United States.

That is correct, and in the case of the President the law in impeachment, not indictment. Why you morons don't understand this is anyone's guess.

Trump could show up at your house right now, shoot you in the face and fly back to DC and then post a video of himself doing it on Twitter and you know what would be the outcome if your local police tried to arrest him? I do.

Really? What would the outcome of that be you think?

I don't think anything you moron.

Correct, for once.

Please don't chop my quotes to change their meaning.

I think it sums you up perfectly; you support someone you confirm to be a pervert yet the same guy you support denies any sort of perversion.

Time to cue up the “what-about-isms”….

Which only underscores the dishonesty.

 

[bendog]

Trumpers are saying no, based on a Nixon era policy...

But you might remember that Clinton was forced to testify in a CIVIL SUIT regarding an event that occurred years before he was elected.

That sets the bar considerably LOWER than what we are discussing here

I'm not sure about the Slick analogy. I think we'd both agree that the legal process and constitution were misused in impeaching a man for lying about extramarital sex.

But, unless Justice Kavenaugh would secure a majority to change things, it seems clear to me that a President must comply with legal process to turn over documents or answer questions in legal matters. But the courts should not allow any questioning that interferes with executive privilege.

The question is whether a potus can be indicted. Federal judges can be indicted while in office, and even tried while in office.

And indictments and trials are different animals. Non-federal prosecutors and AG's have pretty much unfettered discretion to indict. A county DA for example doesn't need anyone's approval. A governor can't keep a state AG from indicting. However, I think US attorneys have to have approval from higher up in the DOJ to indict.

A trial is more difficult. A potus could ask a court to toss or delay trial on any indictment.

Logic would dictate that a President who couldn't be indicted would not have to take part in a criminal proceeding at all. I mean why for example would Bill Clinton have had to testify in regards to a criminal matter in which he couldn't possibly have been indicted? What's the point in that.

Are you suggesting that a president could be indicted while in office? That seems to be the direction of your logic, in asserting Clinton might not have had to testify to a grand jury on Starr's subpoena

What? Can you people not read? I CLEARLY stated that he ONLY thing that could have happened had Clinton ignored that subpoena, even if SCOTUS had ruled that he MUST obey the subpoena would be that Congress could have impeached him. No, he could NOT have been indicted.

Seriously, the President of the United States could walk into Congress with an M4 and mow down every member of Congress live on Cspan and he couldn't be indicted. And I suppose he couldn't be impeached at that point either because there would be no members of the House, but at that point one would think the 25th Amendment would be used to remove him from office LOL

I can read, but your thinking is circular.

Nothing in the constitution says one way or another about indictments.

And your post 115 illustrates your ignorance of what Starr was investigating.

 

[candycorn]

Well, we know Trump paid off a porn star. Your conjecture about President Obama is funny and completely irrelevant (much like yourself)

Why does it matter? He was a celebrity before becoming POTUS, that was in his normal course of business. No judge would ever find this as an outside of course of dealings for DJT. Are you just trolling?

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

 

[candycorn]

Well, we know Trump paid off a porn star. Your conjecture about President Obama is funny and completely irrelevant (much like yourself)

Why does it matter? He was a celebrity before becoming POTUS, that was in his normal course of business. No judge would ever find this as an outside of course of dealings for DJT. Are you just trolling?

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

Yes, that's the question. The answer is because TRUMP!! it's quite obvious that you don't care if politicians are dishonest. But TRUMP!!!

Well, yeah; he’s the highest elected official in the nation. So as a citizen of the nation, his actions are a cause for concern. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) who had to resign from office due to his sex scandal has zero bearing on the national debate or the nation’s health.

Apples and Oranges. Farenthold and Trump have zero in common. LOL. Is it about Sex? Russia? Campaign Finances? You're all over the place. Mueller was hired to investigate Russian collusion, he came back with "Trump likes hot women"...thanks for that Bob.

When you uncover other crimes during an investigation, you report them to the appropriate authorities. So the SDNY moved on Cohen..

The noose is tightening.

Good.

 

[candycorn]

Very creepy.

And how does this make Trump paying off Stormy acceptable?

Paying a whore to not tell the world she's a whore isn't acceptable?

Once again Candy, we know you don't really care about this issue and are just whining about Trump because I searched and could not find a single post of yours demanding to know which members of Congress have used tax payer money to pay actual victims of their sexual misconduct to keep quiet. Instead you pretend to be outraged that Trump paid a whore to not talk about the consensual sex that they had.

You are truly a pathetic person.

Ahh…we’ve had RFK, JFK, WJC, and now it’s members of Congress….. Anyone else you guys want to try to implicate as some sort of air cover for the blob?

And how does any of their actions excuse the actions of the blob?

Jesus you are truly stupid. My post wasn't meant to excuse Trump's behavior. It was meant to illustrate your blatant dishonesty. Not that everyone who reads a post of yours doesn't see that first and foremost.

You are truly dumb. Wait , I just remembered you're the same dumb bitch who was in a thread last week screaming that Trump wanted to power our aircraft carriers with steam power based on some statements he made about returning to using the steam powered catapults instead of the new electromagentic catapult in the Ford class carrier, damn you are stupid.

Your personal attacks are gratifying…that I occupy so much space in your head is interesting.

But back to the topic…you’re admitting Trump is a sleaze bag, right? C’mon…you can summon some manhood and admit it; can’t you?

I never denied that Trump is a sleazebag. But our criminal code doesn't make being a sleazebag a crime, nor does it make being a Republican a crime.

You're just an idiot.

Nah, I just love making Trump supporters admit they are supporting a sleazebag. You’ve been played like a fiddle.

 

[Crepitus]

I don't think he can be indicted until he is removed from office, which is unlikely as long as his criminal co-conspirators control the Senate. As soon as he is out, whether voted out, impeached, or resignation, he's toast.

----------------------------------- 6 years eh , might be on crutches and full of maladies if you guys dreams come true Crep . And close to 80 years old and writing books and giving Speeches on how to Govern the USA in an American manner eh Crep ??

2 max

 

[Moonglow]

Trumpers are saying no, based on a Nixon era policy...

But you might remember that Clinton was forced to testify in a CIVIL SUIT regarding an event that occurred years before he was elected.

That sets the bar considerably LOWER than what we are discussing here

They can be indicted by one authority-Dept. of Justice..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Someone, anyone, please quote the part of the Constitution which puts the President above the law?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why does it matter? He was a celebrity before becoming POTUS, that was in his normal course of business. No judge would ever find this as an outside of course of dealings for DJT. Are you just trolling?

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

I never brought up BHO. You did.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why does it matter? He was a celebrity before becoming POTUS, that was in his normal course of business. No judge would ever find this as an outside of course of dealings for DJT. Are you just trolling?

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

Yes, that's the question. The answer is because TRUMP!! it's quite obvious that you don't care if politicians are dishonest. But TRUMP!!!

Well, yeah; he’s the highest elected official in the nation. So as a citizen of the nation, his actions are a cause for concern. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) who had to resign from office due to his sex scandal has zero bearing on the national debate or the nation’s health.

Apples and Oranges. Farenthold and Trump have zero in common. LOL. Is it about Sex? Russia? Campaign Finances? You're all over the place. Mueller was hired to investigate Russian collusion, he came back with "Trump likes hot women"...thanks for that Bob.

When you uncover other crimes during an investigation, you report them to the appropriate authorities. So the SDNY moved on Cohen..

The noose is tightening.

Good.

LMAO when you cannot find a crime you make one up you mean? What? Zero chance of impeachment. 2/3 of senate vote is needed. Will never happen. You’re delusional if you believe otherwise.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Why does it matter? He was a celebrity before becoming POTUS, that was in his normal course of business. No judge would ever find this as an outside of course of dealings for DJT. Are you just trolling?

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

 

[candycorn]

Why does it matter that the President of the United States paid off a porn star and lied about it numerous times?

Is that your question?

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

According to Acog, Obama didn’t lie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump's crime was obstructing Hillary from the Oval Office

 

[DandyDonovan]

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

According to Acog, Obama didn’t lie

I don't happen to believe that was a lie either. I was just saying that those who believe it was, none have ever suggested that was a crime as far as I know.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Trump's crime was obstructing Hillary from the Oval Office

That really is the bottom line here.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He lied about it under oath? Please provide some proof.

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

According to Acog, Obama didn’t lie

Lie about what? Campaign promises are not the same as testifying under oath.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

According to Acog, Obama didn’t lie

Lie about what? Campaign promises are not the same as testifying under oath.

Candy Corn is a moron, and dishonest. A dangerous combination, but one I'm starting to realize many who post here possess.

 

[candycorn]

Did I say under oath? Please provide some proof.

If it is not under oath it doesn't matter. WJC lied under oath.

Oh, okay. Can’t wait to use that “logic” later on. Obama wasn’t under oath when he made his claim about keeping the doctor.

Fantastic. So since Obama was never under oath as President, he told no lies. Wonderful!

The rationalization-fest you guys have undertaken is quite remarkable.

This Candy Corn is a moron. Has ANYONE , ANYWHERE, EVER suggested that Obama committed a crime when he lied about keeping your doctor ?

According to Acog, Obama didn’t lie

Lie about what? Campaign promises are not the same as testifying under oath.

Most people (the honest ones anyway) don’t differentiate between the two. If you told a lie, you’re a liar.