Is a sitting president immune from prosecution?

[nat4900]

We are not talking here about "simple political fallout" and possible resignation, we are talking about downright prosecution after a grand jury bill of indictment.

The Constitution (like in several other instances) is silent on the issue as to whether a president is above the law, as that law would apply to commoners. However, we have this:

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New York Times has uncovered a buried memorandum that says otherwise.....that a president MAY NOT be immune from prosecution like commonly presumed......and for that, we have to "thank" Kenneth Starr when he was doggedly after Bill Clinton and who wrote:

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” ..............“....in this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

As Shakespeare wrote, "...the evil that men do lives after them......"

 

[LA RAM FAN]

does a dog shit?

politcians ESPECIALLY presidents get away with crimes everyday we go to jail for.

 

[nat4900]

politcians ESPECIALLY presidents get away with crimes everyday we go to jail for.

....but THAT is not the point of the O/P regarding all the investigations surrounding this incompetent Trump administration...

The question is: COULD Trump be indicted even as a sitting president....Yes or No?

 

[TomParks]

Yes they are

 

[Harry Dresden]

politcians ESPECIALLY presidents get away with crimes everyday we go to jail for.

....but THAT is not the point of the O/P regarding all the investigations surrounding this incompetent Trump administration...

The question is: COULD Trump be indicted even as a sitting president....Yes or No?

is he above the law?....if he is than the answer is no he cant be....otherwise yes he can be.....i hope that helps nat....

 

[DarkFury]

He is not liable for many.

 

[nat4900]

Yes they are

Just for grammar sake.....the thread's title states "a sitting president" (SINGULAR).........your response, "Yes they are" kind of smacks of a 5th grader's response, don't you think?......LOL

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yes they are

I had to break off a friendship with this one idiot one time who seriously thinks there is no different law for politicians than there is for us.Obviously the real world frightens him. His arrogant attitute is he is right and everybody else in the world is wrong.He is the ONLY one in REAL life i have ever heard come out and say it besides paid trolls on message boards which are everywhere at this site and many others. watch out for rightwinger,he is a classic prime example.

 

[occupied]

The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.

 

[nat4900]

He is not liable for many.

??????...Many what? ..........LOL

 

[Eloy]

Kenneth Starr makes sense but the extent of the pardon power has not been tested when applied to himself and I doubt that there is any limit regardless of how shocking that might be to non-Trump supporters.

 

[eagle1462010]

The standard is Impeachment by Congress..............the number 241 and 181..................what does that mean....

Maybe it will come to me later.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.

CAN be but will never happen. not in this corrupt country.Not as long as we have this corrupt system we have of demopublicans and reprocrats.I wisely call them that because there is no difference in the two parties.It is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two so the sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected plus we dont elect these people the establishment does,whoever they want in gets in. oh and judges are corrupt as well.got news for you,presidents have ALWAYS been above the law.

 

[nat4900]

Kenneth Starr makes sense but the extent of the pardon power has no been tested when applied to himself and I doubt that there is any limit regardless of how shocking that might be to non-Trump supporters

One of Nixon's biographers wrote that Nixon DID contemplate "pardoning" himself, since the Constitution does NOT state that he could not; however, (and to his credit) he chose not to have that decision further divide the country and set a precedent in the Supreme Court that would have likely voted against Nixon's own pardon.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The standard is Impeachment by Congress..............the number 241 and 181..................what does that mean....

Maybe it will come to me later.

unfortunately in this day and age the majority of congress is corrupt which is why presidents are above the law.That is not the way it should be but thats the REAL world we live in I am afraid.a president is never going to be put behind bars as long as we have this corrupt system we have which i do not see changing anytime soon.

 

[OldLady]

We are not talking here about "simple political fallout" and possible resignation, we are talking about downright prosecution after a grand jury bill of indictment.

The Constitution (like in several other instances) is silent on the issue as to whether a president is above the law, as that law would apply to commoners. However, we have this:

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New York Times has uncovered a buried memorandum that says otherwise.....that a president MAY NOT be immune from prosecution like commonly presumed......and for that, we have to "thank" Kenneth Starr when he was doggedly after Bill Clinton and who wrote:

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” ..............“....in this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

As Shakespeare wrote, "...the evil that men do lives after them......"

What I've been wondering is, what if the President is investigated and it's found that he did something illegal PRIOR to being President--back in his business past--but that he is no longer involved in such dealings. Would he still be impeachable?
I just remember from far back at the beginning of the campaign, a clip of Don Jr. saying Trump Enterprises makes a lot of money in its dealings with Russia. Then crickets. Then a concerted no, we have no dealings with Russia. I also remember someone looked into it and found no ties to Russia. Don't know if it was journalists who looked into it or someone else. I'm short on specifics, here, but it has led me to wonder--did they clean up their act or ditch all their connections when Trump decided to run?

 

[BluesLegend]

The people who write the laws, exempt themselves from the very laws they write, that tells you all you need to know about corrupt government.

 

[Eloy]

The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.

You are forgetting that the Supreme Court is now Republican.

 

[eagle1462010]

The standard is Impeachment by Congress..............the number 241 and 181..................what does that mean....

Maybe it will come to me later.

unfortunately in this day and age the majority of congress is corrupt which is why presidents are above the law.That is not the way it should be but thats the REAL world we live in I am afraid.a president is never going to be put behind bars as long as we have this corrupt system we have which i do not see changing anytime soon.

I believe that the system is corrupt...............I agree..............

But should something come forward that violated ethics and the law so badly I do not think you'd see the the GOP considering it a laughing matter as do the Dems..................What Obama did in Office and the abuses there with no prosecution is testimonial to what you just said............

But unlike the left..............conservative Reps would go after Trump should they find something........

Problem is this is a witch hunt and nothing more.............Politically motivated.

 

[TomParks]

Yes they are

Just for grammar sake.....the thread's title states "a sitting president" (SINGULAR).........your response, "Yes they are" kind of smacks of a 5th grader's response, don't you think?......LOL

Sorry I was busy at the time...Trump is immune from prosecution.