Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[nat4900]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

 

[martybegan]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

he can be, but only by the House of Representatives.

It's designed that way to prevent any State that disagrees with federal policy from indicting a sitting president due to said dispute.

it's also designed that way to remove the inherent conflict of interest in a executive appointee being involved in indicting their nominal boss.

That the trial jury consists of the Senate is to remove any conflict of interest inherent in a judiciary appointed by the executive to be impeached and tried.

 

[MarathonMike]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.

 

[nat4900]

Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.

Don't forget to wipe, flush and wash your hands after that "conclusion" that SURELY came out of one of your orifices.....

(don't forget to also include being half black to your list of indictable Obama offenses.)

 

[Papageorgio]

The House can impeach, then the Senate elect to remove or not remove the President. This is to protect the office of the Presidency.

What goes around comes around and this would destabilize the office of the President. Short term, fine however the long term effects would be disastrous.

 

[Lesh]

The DOJ rule (and that's ALL it is) saying that President's can be indicted and thus are above the law...was a result of Nixon's DOJ.

 

[Lesh]

I can see passing a law making Presidents exempt from civil litigation while in office. But not criminal

 

[BlackFlag]

The House can impeach, then the Senate elect to remove or not remove the President. This is to protect the office of the Presidency.

What goes around comes around and this would destabilize the office of the President. Short term, fine however the long term effects would be disastrous.

Trump should do what’s best for the country and take the Nixon route of resignation. I wouldn’t support Pence pardoning him, though.

 

[nat4900]

The DOJ rule (and that's ALL it is) saying that President's can be indicted and thus are above the law...was a result of Nixon's DOJ.

I'm all for either a law be passed (and the SCOTUS make a final decision) that a president CAN be indicted as anyone else in an elected office.

THAT would keep corrupt charlatans and demagogues from running for the oval office and messing up with our representative democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

The House can impeach, then the Senate elect to remove or not remove the President. This is to protect the office of the Presidency.

What goes around comes around and this would destabilize the office of the President. Short term, fine however the long term effects would be disastrous.

Trump destabilized the office through his actions

 

[rightwinger]

I don’t think the intent was for a president to get away with murder

The founders wanted nobody to be above the law

 

[nat4900]

As I've stated often, I do NOT want to see Trump impeached......that would just make him a martyr in the ignorant eyes of his cult membership......I want to see him RESIGN in shame, taking all those spineless republicans down along with him.

 

[Polishprince]

The problem with this "idea" is that the Department of Justice and Attorney General work at the pleasure of the President. If a President is prosecuted, he's like prosecuting himself, which seem pretty pointless.

 

[Polishprince]

As I've stated often, I do NOT want to see Trump impeached......that would just make him a martyr in the ignorant eyes of his cult membership......I want to see him RESIGN in shame, taking all those spineless republicans down along with him.

Why would President Trump ever resign? He's getting things done, and enjoying life.

 

[Papageorgio]

The House can impeach, then the Senate elect to remove or not remove the President. This is to protect the office of the Presidency.

What goes around comes around and this would destabilize the office of the President. Short term, fine however the long term effects would be disastrous.

Trump should do what’s best for the country and take the Nixon route of resignation. I wouldn’t support Pence pardoning him, though.

Resign for what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Perhaps it's time for Jake to have his milk and cookies and study our form of government

Reading Rainbow (Official)

 

[nat4900]

If a President is prosecuted, he's like prosecuting himself, which seem pretty pointless.

Nitwits seem to want a "king" sitting in the oval office....someone who is sitting there by "divine right".......We CLEARLY have a separation of powers among equal segments of our governmental system....NO ONE should be above the law....NO ONE!!!.....

 

[Papageorgio]

The House can impeach, then the Senate elect to remove or not remove the President. This is to protect the office of the Presidency.

What goes around comes around and this would destabilize the office of the President. Short term, fine however the long term effects would be disastrous.

Trump destabilized the office through his actions

Again there is a process in place to remove a President to do so any other way would truly destabilize the government for decades and decades.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don’t think the intent was for a president to get away with murder

The founders wanted nobody to be above the law

Correct, hence Article II, Section 4.

Once removed from office via the impeachment process a former president and private citizen can be indicted and subject to criminal prosecution.

 

[nat4900]

and enjoying life.

Trump feels angry, unprotected amid mounting crises - The ...

Insiders claim Trump feels angry and unprotected as president attacks ...