Does the Constitution prevent the President from being indicted for a criminal act?

[Marion Morrison]

Clintonistas with high hopes but no facts. A President cannot be indicted while in office. That's why a President can be impeached...to be removed from office, and then indicted.

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Or the Court might rule remove from office via the impeachment process first then prosecute.

It might. Kinda the point is that they ARE going to have to rule something, because it's far from a settled question.

Why ARE they going to have to? Has a sitting president commited a Federal/Capitol crime or something?

I'd like to think Americans are smart enough in general not to elect someone that would do such things to be in the highest office in the land.

In fact, I do.

 

[Pogo]

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Or the Court might rule remove from office via the impeachment process first then prosecute.

It might. Kinda the point is that they ARE going to have to rule something, because it's far from a settled question.

Why ARE they going to have to? Has a sitting president commited a Federal/Capitol crime or something?

I'd like to think Americans are smart enough in general not to elect someone that would do such things to be in the highest office in the land.

In fact, I do.

It's a cute fantasy. But it's been proven wrong. The old adage "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" would seem to be a spot-on observation.

Wait'll I tell you about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Or the Court might rule remove from office via the impeachment process first then prosecute.

It might. Kinda the point is that they ARE going to have to rule something, because it's far from a settled question.

Why ARE they going to have to? Has a sitting president commited a Federal/Capitol crime or something?

I'd like to think Americans are smart enough in general not to elect someone that would do such things to be in the highest office in the land.

In fact, I do.

It's a cute fantasy. But it's been proven wrong. The old adage "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" would seem to be a spot-on observation.

Wait'll I tell you about the Tooth Fairy.

Who's the President of The United States?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you since you obviously failed your high school civics class. A President MUST be impeached prior to indictment.

Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President

I like how you assume "I found a blog that agrees with me, therefore it's basic civics taught in high school."

Except it's not, because it's not even remotely close to being a settled, written-in-black-and-white fact. For every lawyer you can find who insists it's clear to HIM that it's this way, I can find you an equally-qualified lawyer who says it's not that clear-cut and would require either legislation or a Court ruling to clarify it.

If you can find me someplace in an actual law or precedent that says the words "MUST be impeached prior", I'd love to see it.

You misunderstand. In high school civics, the lesson about impeachment/removal/indictment/trial is taught. I found an article from a noted scholar that supports that lesson. I'm sure you can find a partisan attorney to make your case, but even as late as the 1970's, in Spiro Agnew's case, it was accepted fact that members of the Executive could not be indicted until after removal from office. You should investigate that, and you'd find your precedent.

No, I don't misunderstand, you just vastly overstate, and make wild assumptions about "My opinion is fact, therefore only 'partisans' could disagree." And don't even get me started on, "Saying this name proves it. I'm not going to provide any evidence, YOU go research and prove my assertion."

Frankly, I can see why you'd rather just assert that you're right, rather than try to prove it, since you are, in fact, completely wrong about Spiro Agnew, and presenting facts would require you to admit that.

Spiro Agnew | Biography, Scandal, & Resignation

Spiro Agnew asserted that a sitting Vice President could not be indicted, he got the Solicitor General to issue a brief asserting that, but then he took a plea bargain and resigned from office the same day that he appeared in court and pled no contest to the charges. In other words, not exactly proof of your claim, especially since - if I'm understanding the story correctly - he asserted that he couldn't be indicted in reponse to being indicted.

So we're right back where we started: lots of people asserting that their personal understanding of the issue constitutes "the way it is", and it never actually having been established one way or the other.

If you intend to be a horse's ass, then my interest in a discussion wanes. I do NOT vastly overstate, I state it as a fact that it is taught in high school civics that the president must be impeached before indictment. I do not make any assumptions about "My opinion is fact, therefore only 'partisans' could disagree.", in truth, it's not my opinion. It is the prevailing view of reputable scholars and the United States Justice Department.

Agnew was NEVER indicted. He was trying to squash the investigation, but then he negotiated a plea deal and resigned. I'm sure you want to substitute your opinion for that of the Justice Department and reputable scholars throughout the history of the nation, but that's not persuasive. And, since you are obviously becoming obnoxious that your opinion is not being embraced, I'll bid you good afternoon and leave you to your snottiness.

If you intend to assume that disagreeing with you is "being a horse's ass", then my interest in pretending this is a discussion has already waned.

You state as fact something that isn't fact. High school civics courses do NOT teach that the President much be impeached before he can be criminally indicted, because the law does not say that. There's no number of times that you're going to sneer, "High school civics" that is going to change the fact that the law says nothing of the sort.

And you most certainly DID make that assumption. Here's your own post:

"In high school civics, the lesson about impeachment/removal/indictment/trial is taught." = Assertion of opinion as fact.

"I found an article from a noted scholar that supports that lesson. I'm sure you can find a partisan attorney to make your case," = further assertion, and assumption that the only disagreement would be from a "partisan attorney".

Don't blame me if your words mean something you wish you hadn't said.

Here's what Britannica says about Agnew:

"Agnew’s downfall began in the summer of 1973, when he was investigated in connection with accusations of extortion, bribery, and income-tax violations relating chiefly to his tenure as governor of Maryland. Faced with federal indictments, Agnew fought the charges, arguing that the allegations were false, that a sitting vice president could not be indicted, and that the only way he could be removed from office was by impeachment."

As I said, I can't guarantee I'm understanding it correctly - and I'm not old enough to remember Spiro Agnew - but it sounds like they're saying he was indicted. Given that, as I also mentioned, he resigned the same day he went to court and pled nolo contendre to the charges, it sounds very like he would have to have been charged before he resigned, or he wouldn't have had anything official to plead to.

I'm sure you want to believe your opinion is shared by the entire current Justice Department because one guy almost 50 years ago agreed, and by all "reputable scholars" - which apparently means to you what it means to leftists: "Agreeing with me makes you reputable" - but I'm afraid that's not the case. Sadly for your emotion-soaked "This is settled fact because I want it to be, and you suck for disagreeing with me!" approach, I don't think the American Bar Association Journal - just for example - can be classified as "non-reputable" and "partisan" simply on the basis of thinking something you don't like.

Can a sitting president be indicted? The Constitution doesn't give a definitive answer

The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided whether a president may be criminally prosecuted while in office, and the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give a direct answer.

But the prevailing view is that a president can’t be indicted while in office, the New York Times reports. Presidents can be prosecuted, however, after they leave office or after impeachment, according to conventional wisdom.

*****

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, doesn’t directly address the issue of prosecution in office.

*****

Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar agrees with most scholars that a sitting president can’t be criminally prosecuted. He says the Constitution designates Congress as the court that tries sitting presidents.

*****

Taking the other side is Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman, who wrote a 1999 law review article that argued sitting presidents have no constitutional immunity from criminal prosecution.

Seems pretty obvious to me that "reputable scholars" are actually disagreeing and debating on this topic.

 

[Pogo]

Right!

"
but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT. They made sure this thing was in plain English so people would understand it. I hope this clears that up for you.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and ban from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

Bottom line, these are two separate actions: Indictment addresses a violation of the law and if guilty, prescribes the penalty therefor. Impeachment simply removes an officeholder from office. Either one, or both, may apply.

It's the distinction between being "convicted" and being "fired". You can be fired without being convicted; you can be convicted without being fired; or both could happen --- but you don't need to be fired before you can be convicted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right!

"
but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT. They made sure this thing was in plain English so people would understand it. I hope this clears that up for you.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

I've been discussing for the sake of discussion the whole time. I keep telling you that, no matter how much you want to get your panties in a bunch about "Must defend TRUMP!!!"

Which in no way changes the fact that I've established a rational, supportable position that no one has yet managed to disprove, certainly not by the tidal wave of glandular secretions posing as fact which has presented itself.

Bottom line: I have no personal interest one way or another in prosecuting anyone, except for the fact that I would much prefer that our era wasn't so debased and lacking in dignity, honor, or decency. I'm simply stating a fact: there is not currently any clear-cut legal prevention for that happening.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and bad from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

"the party convicted" It doesn't say "The party not convicted" It says "The party convicted".

 

[Cecilie1200]

My response is, no man is above the law. And no where in the Constitution is there any clause excusing criminal conduct being investigated and indictable.

A ham sandwich can be indicted by a competent District Attorney. The issue is can the indictment be served and the President be forced to appear before a court.

I would say the President would have to be impeached and removed from office before he could be forced to appear before an inferior court, for the simple fact that any other method would allow abuse by State governments to indict federal officials for decisions they did not like.

So If Colorado and California have a water dispute and Colorado wins California can't go and indict the Secretary of the Interior to try to force the issue.

Well, actually, I definitely don't see any legal protection for the Secretary of the Interior.

And you can SAY that should be the case, because you think it's the best plan, but what you can't do is show where the law specifies that.

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

 

[martybegan]

A ham sandwich can be indicted by a competent District Attorney. The issue is can the indictment be served and the President be forced to appear before a court.

I would say the President would have to be impeached and removed from office before he could be forced to appear before an inferior court, for the simple fact that any other method would allow abuse by State governments to indict federal officials for decisions they did not like.

So If Colorado and California have a water dispute and Colorado wins California can't go and indict the Secretary of the Interior to try to force the issue.

Well, actually, I definitely don't see any legal protection for the Secretary of the Interior.

And you can SAY that should be the case, because you think it's the best plan, but what you can't do is show where the law specifies that.

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

 

[hunarcy]

Right!

"
but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT. They made sure this thing was in plain English so people would understand it. I hope this clears that up for you.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

And some of these morons think "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean "we don't like you and want to get rid of you"!

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

And some of these morons think "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean "we don't like you and want to get rid of you">

It is appropriate that you can't spell democrat without RaT - considering their rodent like mentality.

 

[Pogo]

Well, actually, I definitely don't see any legal protection for the Secretary of the Interior.

And you can SAY that should be the case, because you think it's the best plan, but what you can't do is show where the law specifies that.

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Or the Court might rule remove from office via the impeachment process first then prosecute.

It might. Kinda the point is that they ARE going to have to rule something, because it's far from a settled question.

Why ARE they going to have to? Has a sitting president commited a Federal/Capitol crime or something?

I'd like to think Americans are smart enough in general not to elect someone that would do such things to be in the highest office in the land.

In fact, I do.

Maybe because if they don't, it leaves the door open for partisan hacks to try to use this tactic to disrupt adminstrations from the opposing party?

I don't know if it's a matter of the American people being smart enough, so much as "how can they make a smart decision about something they don't know about"? It isn't as though there haven't been lots of people elected to office who then were found guilty of criminal activity. If it can and does happen on other levels, why not that one?

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and bad from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

"the party convicted" It doesn't say "The party not convicted" It says "The party convicted".

I'm very glad that that phrase makes you so happy, but since you're harping on a distinction that is irrelevant to the point, it's really a waste of energy.

 

[Pogo]

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and bad from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

"the party convicted" It doesn't say "The party not convicted" It says "The party convicted".

Correct. Now read the whole thing --- "the party convicted (i.e. impeached) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law"

That pretty much lays it out plain as day --- "impeachment" does not mean you're immune from the law. That's exactly what "shall nevertheless be liable" means.

What the hell kind of Constitution would do that? At that point you're all the way down to "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal" --- Richard Nixon, Crook

 

[Marion Morrison]

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

Thank God Tom and George and the boys were damn smart!

 

[Pogo]

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.

If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.

Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.

Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.

 

[martybegan]

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and bad from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

"the party convicted" It doesn't say "The party not convicted" It says "The party convicted".

Correct. Now read the whole thing --- "the party convicted (i.e. impeached) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law"

That pretty much lays it out plain as day --- "impeachment" does not mean you're immune from the law. That's exactly what "shall nevertheless be liable" means.

What the hell kind of Constitution would do that? At that point you're all the way down to "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal" --- Richard Nixon, Crook

And that also seems to lay out the sequence, you Impeach first, based on the evidence given by the local jurisdiction to Congress, they remove, and then you get to gun for the removed office holder.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

And that will be the crucial point in a court case. The presidency is a 24 /7 responsibility and thus has no session per se. Consequently, such protection extends throughout the term of office.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.

Except that Congress's immunity - which very carefully only covers relatively small portions of time, rather than their entire term of office - is explicitly spelled out. Still waiting on anyone to show me where the Constitution says, "The President shall be immune from arrest and prosecution" in those same explicit terms.

It's amazing how what the law is depends so much on WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

At this point you're arguing for argument's sake.

Bottom line: If you want to drag the elected President of the US in front of a Grand Jury Panel he/she either has to be successfully impeached or be done with serving the term of office.

Bottom line, this is bullshit. Unless of course you can point to its existence in the Constitution, and I don't mean that non sequitur bullshit above. Just to quash the shit out of that let's run the entire section:

>> Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. <<​

This means the impeachment process is not a legal remedy for the infraction of law; that remedy, with whatever penalty results, would be determined by the legal process, same as anybody else. In other words impeachment only leads to removal and bad from office, not to prison/fines etc. There is NOTHING in there about anybody who's not impeached being "immune" from the law. That's absurd and without foundation. All this passage does is limit what impeachment can do.

"the party convicted" It doesn't say "The party not convicted" It says "The party convicted".

Correct. Now read the whole thing --- "the party convicted (i.e. impeached) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law"

That pretty much lays it out plain as day --- "impeachment" does not mean you're immune from the law. That's exactly what "shall nevertheless be liable" means.

What the hell kind of Constitution would do that? At that point you're all the way down to "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal" --- Richard Nixon, Crook

The internet sucks balls, because I know damn good and well Obama paraphrased that as well, and there's fucking almost NOTHING about it.