Can A President Be Indicted?

[DandyDonovan]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

 

[candycorn]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

I already said that I don't think he did. You idiot.

 

[candycorn]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

I already said that I don't think he did. You idiot.

Thanks.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

I already said that I don't think he did. You idiot.

Thanks.

Don't mention it and don't worry , I will NEVER expect you to show any similar signs of integrity.

 

[candycorn]

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

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

I already said that I don't think he did. You idiot.

Thanks.

Don't mention it and don't worry , I will NEVER expect you to show any similar signs of integrity.

You’d have to know the meaning of the word to recognize it. You come up way short fuck stain

 

[Dana7360]

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

It's a policy by the DOJ.

There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the president from being indicted.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

If you click your heels 3 times and hold your breath, it’ll happen any minute now.

 

[Dana7360]

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

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.

One thing conservatives don't realize is that what you do to one president applies to ALL presidents after him or her.

So if the Supreme Court rules that trump is above the law then all future presidents will be above the law. It doesn't matter the party they're in. Even though conservatives strangely believe that it does.

So in the future any democratic president can commit any crime he wants because the Supreme Court ruled it for trump.

I sure hope that the judges on that court realize this and rule accordingly.

If they don't, statute of limitations shouldn't apply to the president. He shouldn't be able to wait out the clock as president to when the statute of limitations apply and he's not prosecuted for his crimes.

 

[hadit]

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?

Why does that matter?

That the blob is paying off a porn star to buy her silence right before an election? Or that he didn’t report it as a campaign expenditure?

Which scandal are you talking about?

Do you think if he were not running he would not have paid her off? Honest question.

That depends. Has he done it before, and why wouldn't he do it? He has enough money that keeping something like that quiet could be worth more to him than a couple hundred grand. A ticked off wife could cost him a couple hundred million. In fact, if he has done it before, the defense could plausibly be that it was SOP and thus not a campaign expense. You never know what lawyers can come up with.

 

[hadit]

No he hid donors with the FEC takes seriously.

He paid a $375,000.00 dollar fine.

Was one of them a porn star?

Why does that matter?

That the blob is paying off a porn star to buy her silence right before an election? Or that he didn’t report it as a campaign expenditure?

Which scandal are you talking about?

Do you think if he were not running he would not have paid her off? Honest question.

That's exactly why he paid her off. Nothing says he had an affair with her. Its he said. She said. But it was a smart move on his part. Pay her off so she doesn't land in his campaign.

Nothing illegal about it.

And if he's done it before, the case can be made it's no more a campaign expense than privacy rules built into his other business contracts. It's really a pretty weak ediface on which to build this shrieking outrage.

 

[Dana7360]

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

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

I tried to read your post but the first sentence is so far from reality I just can't read the rest. It's obvious to me you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal court charges. Thus you probably don't understand the reality of this situation so it's a waste of my time to read any more of your post or future posts about this.

There are no indictments in a civil case. No one goes to prison with maybe the exception of being found in contempt of court but even that is usually a fine. The end results of a civil suit is monetary damages. Or changes in behavior. That is someone has been sued and will have to pay money to the person who sued them. Or change their behavior such as stop discriminating. It's ordered by a court so can be enforceable with a legal garnishment and or force the sale of assets to pay the amount declared by the court.

A criminal court involves indictments and people do go to prison.

Please learn about how our system works and the meaning of the words in the English language.

 

[pismoe]

just a comment , I just don't think that its PRACTICAL to indict a President and then Court and defense of himself no matter who the President is . ---------------- just a comment .

 

[Dana7360]

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

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.

Yes I do. The police in my state would have him extradited to my state to stand trial for murder.

My state isn't the federal government and my private home isn't federal government land.

So the authorities in my state can most certainly have trump extradited back to my state to stand trial for for murder by the authorities by my state. The only person who can pardon anyone of any crime in my state is the governor of my state so trump can't pardon himself or anyone else out of the crime.

If by some weird judicial ruling prevents that, there are no statute of limitations on murder so when he leaves office he is immediately extradited to my state to stand trial then prison for the rest of his life. He will be happy that my state no longer has the death penalty.

The president isn't above the law and there is no place in the constitution that says the president can't be indicted and held to the same laws the rest of us have to follow.

Impeachment in the constitution is referred to as a way to remove the president from office. It's not there to give the president immunity from justice.

One person in the justice department decided over 40 years ago to not indict nixon. That one person's decision doesn't apply to all presidents. It's not law, just one person's decision.

 

[Dana7360]

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

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

Please post an example of anyone found culpable in a civil matter being sentenced to jail or prison. Only if the defendant in a civil matter is found in contempt of court can S/He be incarcerated.

I think Clinton was found guilty of contempt wasn't he? But again that is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Though in certain instances it can land you in a cell at least temporarily.

No Clinton wasn't found guilty of anything by any court.

What did happen was paula jones' case was thrown out of court. Clinton paid her to not appeal.

 

[Polishprince]

just a comment , I just don't think that its PRACTICAL to indict a President and then Court and defense of himself no matter who the President is . ---------------- just a comment .

Really depends on what your goal is for the exercise as to whether its "practical" or not.

If the goal is handcuff the President, and make him ineffective by demanding his appearances in court or making bail and appealing, etc., it would seem to be a very practical way of accomplishing the goal.

Our liberal friends are looking to make President Trump as ineffectual as possible, they would hope that they could make him as ineffectual as Mr. Peanut.

 

[Polishprince]

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

Please post an example of anyone found culpable in a civil matter being sentenced to jail or prison. Only if the defendant in a civil matter is found in contempt of court can S/He be incarcerated.

I think Clinton was found guilty of contempt wasn't he? But again that is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Though in certain instances it can land you in a cell at least temporarily.

No Clinton wasn't found guilty of anything by any court.

What did happen was paula jones' case was thrown out of court. Clinton paid her to not appeal.

What's really most distressing and hypocritical of the Clinton case is how his Liberal Pals refused even to censure him, and created the precedent that bad behavior shouldn't even be criticized when done by a liberal. Not even a condemnation of his behavior which was IMHO, unbecoming of a President. The Democrats alone, lowered the bar to abysmal depths.

 

[pismoe]

just a comment , I just don't think that its PRACTICAL to indict a President and then Court and defense of himself no matter who the President is . ---------------- just a comment .

Really depends on what your goal is for the exercise as to whether its "practical" or not.

If the goal is handcuff the President, and make him ineffective by demanding his appearances in court or making bail and appealing, etc., it would seem to be a very practical way of accomplishing the goal.

Our liberal friends are looking to make President Trump as ineffectual as possible, they would hope that they could make him as ineffectual as Mr. Peanut.

------------------------------Sure , they'd like to make the TRUMP as Ineffectual as possible and thats not good for the USA . And I think that's why a President can't be Indicted and that's why Impeachment exists . --------------------- might be an 'emp Attack' tomorrow and we need the TRUMP to handle that rather than getting ready to go to Court PPrince . In my opinion eh .

 

[pismoe]

just a comment , I just don't think that its PRACTICAL to indict a President and then Court and defense of himself no matter who the President is . ---------------- just a comment .

Really depends on what your goal is for the exercise as to whether its "practical" or not.

If the goal is handcuff the President, and make him ineffective by demanding his appearances in court or making bail and appealing, etc., it would seem to be a very practical way of accomplishing the goal.

Our liberal friends are looking to make President Trump as ineffectual as possible, they would hope that they could make him as ineffectual as Mr. Peanut.

-------------------------------- agree PPrince . Just more Trump hate rather than the good of the USA . ---- Go TRUMP !!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

But in one case you're a criminal and in the other you're not.

Also, most rational people IE not Democrats realize that campaign promises are wish lists of sorts sand no one is expected to be able to make every single of them happen.

Great So Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Fantastic

I have No idea. I am not under the ACA but the whole ACA premise is stupid.