Can A President Be Indicted?

[Esmeralda]

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.

He is also guilty of obstruction of justice and will be charged with that; there is little doubt about it and that Mueller has the evidence. Trump is a criminal, always has been. It will all come out by the time Mueller is done. Starr took 4 years to find Clinton guilty of a sexual dalliance, mutually consensual. Trump has been hiding his tax returns: probably because he is also guilty of tax evasion. He's going down, way, way down. If Mueller takes a couple of years or more, so what?

IF Trump had ran as a Democrat, you would love him. You know that, I know that, the whole world knows that.

Liberalism is a brain disorder.

That is BS. Don't make assumptions about what I think or how I'd vote. I would never vote for such a complete asshole as Trump is.

 

[easyt65]

This is a dead thread - DOJ Precedence dating back decades, and Liberals are all about 'Precedence' (especially when it comes to 'Roe-vs-Wade').

Besides, the Democrats should have learned by now that when they change a rule so they can 'stick it to the GOP' it usually comes back to bite them in the ass...hard.

 

[Claudette]

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.

He is also guilty of obstruction of justice and will be charged with that; there is little doubt about it and that Mueller has the evidence. Trump is a criminal, always has been. It will all come out by the time Mueller is done. Starr took 4 years to find Clinton guilty of a sexual dalliance, mutually consensual. Trump has been hiding his tax returns: probably because he is also guilty of tax evasion. He's going down, way, way down. If Mueller takes a couple of years or more, so what?

IF Trump had ran as a Democrat, you would love him. You know that, I know that, the whole world knows that.

Liberalism is a brain disorder.

Yup. If Trump were a Dem they would all be singing his praises. He'd be the greatest President the US ever had.

These lefty loons sure are funny.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

He should be indicted. No one in America should be above the law, bottom line!

Jesus Christ you people are stupid. The President is NOT above the law. The law is quite clear when a President breaks the law , The House impeaches and the Senate convicts if they find him guilty.

He's outside the Justice System, but that doesn't mean he's above the law, try reading the ******* Constitution.

He should face the same penalties anyone else does who breaks the law.

 

[Claudette]

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.

He is also guilty of obstruction of justice and will be charged with that; there is little doubt about it and that Mueller has the evidence. Trump is a criminal, always has been. It will all come out by the time Mueller is done. Starr took 4 years to find Clinton guilty of a sexual dalliance, mutually consensual. Trump has been hiding his tax returns: probably because he is also guilty of tax evasion. He's going down, way, way down. If Mueller takes a couple of years or more, so what?

IF Trump had ran as a Democrat, you would love him. You know that, I know that, the whole world knows that.

Liberalism is a brain disorder.

That is BS. Don't make assumptions about what I think or how I'd vote. I would never vote for such a complete asshole as Trump is.

Of course not but I'd bet you voted for that POS Hitlery.

That's the complete asshole you voted for.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

He is also guilty of obstruction of justice and will be charged with that; there is little doubt about it and that Mueller has the evidence. Trump is a criminal, always has been. It will all come out by the time Mueller is done. Starr took 4 years to find Clinton guilty of a sexual dalliance, mutually consensual. Trump has been hiding his tax returns: probably because he is also guilty of tax evasion. He's going down, way, way down. If Mueller takes a couple of years or more, so what?

IF Trump had ran as a Democrat, you would love him. You know that, I know that, the whole world knows that.

Liberalism is a brain disorder.

That is BS. Don't make assumptions about what I think or how I'd vote. I would never vote for such a complete asshole as Trump is.

NO ONE believes you. Primarily because you are lying. If Trump were a Dem you wouldn't care one bit about anything he does or says.

Funny that he wasn't a racist, or a misogynist, or his wife wasn't a whore, or he wasn't a criminal UNTIL he declared himself for the Republican primary then all the sudden all the Hollywood types who had been kissing his ass for decades decided they hate his guts.

 

[basquebromance]

TRUMP'S LIES ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST. IT'S OOOOOOOVER!

 

[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

He should be indicted. No one in America should be above the law, bottom line!

Jesus Christ you people are stupid. The President is NOT above the law. The law is quite clear when a President breaks the law , The House impeaches and the Senate convicts if they find him guilty.

He's outside the Justice System, but that doesn't mean he's above the law, try reading the ******* Constitution.

He should face the same penalties anyone else does who breaks the law.

No he shouldn't you ******* idiot, because that is not what the law calls for. You are screaming that Trump's above the law all the while it is YOU who wants to disregard the law. Just how stupid are you?

 

[candycorn]

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.

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

I don't think anything you moron.

Correct, for once.

 

[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

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.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You asked. There might have been a porn star among his donors. You never know.

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.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You asked. There might have been a porn star among his donors. You never know.

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.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

I think we already knew that about the Trumpster.

And that's why I think that Miss Stormy didn't hook up with him.

Our President likes the tall, thin, supermodel types. Ms. Daniels just isn't that.

 

[DandyDonovan]

LOL --- sometimes you just need to use common sense. Something you seem to lack. There is proof about WJC. With an intern no less. Creepy.

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 ***** 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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Sorry but if a sitting President is liable in a civil matter he certainly is liable in a criminal one

You're wrong . How many times must this be explained to you. A civil case does not involve an indictment. A criminal case does.

And as far as that goes, is a sitting President really liable in a civil matter? Let's suppose Clinton had said "screw you" and just ignored the civil case against him. What could anyone have done. Even if SCOTUS had ruled "Bill Clinton, you MUST attend" and Bill had said "FU SCOTUS" what could be done? Oh that's right, impeachment. Nothing else.

And I 100% believe had Clinton ignored that subpoena he would have been impeached , but not convicted. So same result for him..

That you people are stupid and don't understand the law changes nothing.

 

[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.

I think we already knew that about the Trumpster.

And that's why I think that Miss Stormy didn't hook up with him.

Our President likes the tall, thin, supermodel types. Ms. Daniels just isn't that.

Whatever happened with Stormy or didn't happen had zero impact on the election. 99.9% of the voters knew Trump liked women, a lot of women.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[bendog]

Sorry but if a sitting President is liable in a civil matter he certainly is liable in a criminal one

You're wrong . How many times must this be explained to you. A civil case does not involve an indictment. A criminal case does.

And as far as that goes, is a sitting President really liable in a civil matter? Let's suppose Clinton had said "screw you" and just ignored the civil case against him. What could anyone have done. Even if SCOTUS had ruled "Bill Clinton, you MUST attend" and Bill had said "FU SCOTUS" what could be done? Oh that's right, impeachment. Nothing else.

And I 100% believe had Clinton ignored that subpoena he would have been impeached , but not convicted. So same result for him..

That you people are stupid and don't understand the law changes nothing.

What was Ken Starr investigating?

 

[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