Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[debbiedowner]

Indictment has been debated by many legal scholar's, no clear answer but as far as I can see has never been brought to SCOTUS.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It ain't really too complicated, and it's based on the Constitution AND LOGIC, which is where it leaves Leftists scratching their pointy little heads.

The President cannot be indicted WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. If he commits a real crime, sufficient to invoke the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language for impeachment, then he can be impeached by the HR and removed from office after trial in the Senate. Then he would be a private citizen and could be indicted.

Could he peremptorily pardon himself while President? Nobody knows. It would certainly be rude.

But if it's a bullshit charge, President Pence would likely pardon him after he leaves office. Promptly, would be my guess.

So where in the constitution does it say a sitting President cannot be indicted?

It doesn’t.

However, the Framers clearly intended for a president to be removed from office via impeachment – either because of alleged criminal acts or because he’s unfit to be president, rendering the question as to whether a sitting president can be indicted moot.

Once out of office he could be subject to criminal prosecution.

 

[Papageorgio]

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.

I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.

Boomerang?

You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.

Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.

 

[harmonica]

o --NOW's the time

 

[Papageorgio]

o --NOW's the time

I thought the time was last month? Oh wait, two months...no, no, four months, wait last year was the time. They sure keep dancing around about the time.

 

[nat4900]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

 

[Lesh]

What the Mule fails to realize is that paying Hush Money is 100% legal.

You may want to talk to John Edwards about that...or Cohen for that matter

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Indictment has been debated by many legal scholar's, no clear answer but as far as I can see has never been brought to SCOTUS.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

The question of indictment has come up the result of frustration on the part of those who know the House won’t impeach Trump; and if it did the Senate won’t vote to convict – it’s part of the same overall partisan gridlock.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.

I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.

Boomerang?

You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.

Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.

Why?

Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.

 

[Lesh]

This is just stupid.

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

 

[Papageorgio]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The whining from the right over impeachment is rich given how Clinton was treated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

An opinion that would be likewise moot if Congress would only do its job and remove Trump via impeachment – and if the people were to abandon their willful ignorance of, and unwarranted opposition to, the impeachment process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

You honestly don't see a difference with Trump and how this all went down with the election?

 

[Polishprince]

This is just stupid.

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

In that theoretical case, the Democrat President wouldn't be indicted either. He wouldn't appoint a special counsel, and his own men in the DOJ would never pursue and indictment.

Further, I wouldn't want to see any President rule the nation from a jail cell, even a liberal one. I don't think it would be a good role model for the children to see the President deliver his SOTU in an orange jumpsuit.

 

[Lesh]

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached,

Trump ass kissers are simply "amazing".........

Just a simple question that even you could understand....

Would it be much SIMPLER to impeach AFTER a president were indicted?...Yes or Np?.

This thread is NOT about impeachment...it is about the NON-Constitutional opinion by the DOJ to never indict a president while in office.

I have said over and over that it would not be a good idea, First the indictment leading to impeachment would be lack of due process, secondly, it doesn’t take much to indict anyone and it would clog up the Presidency not only now but for future Presidents would fall under the same scrutiny. Look at the Obama and Hillary examples. We were inundated with investigation after investigation into vast nothing. Do we really want to continue investigating every President or potential President to death? I was finished with it under Bush and it got worse with Obama, yet we keep going. We continue to divide the country.

What?

Impeachment wouldn't "clog up the Presidency"?

 

[Lesh]

This is just stupid.

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

In that theoretical case, the Democrat President wouldn't be indicted either. He wouldn't appoint a special counsel, and his own men in the DOJ would never pursue and indictment.

Further, I wouldn't want to see any President rule the nation from a jail cell, even a liberal one. I don't think it would be a good role model for the children to see the President deliver his SOTU in an orange jumpsuit.

You're dodging the question

Say we have a Democratic President elected in 2020 and he gets caught in a Teapot Dome scandal and takes bribes to enrich himself but a Democratic House refuses to Impeach.

Wouldn't you think indicting him would be the appropriate remedy?

Of course you would. And you'd be correct

 

[Kondor3]

...If the libs think they can impeach President Trump, I welcome them to try.

If the Mueller Investigation discovers that Trump committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' , the House will gladly oblige.

If the Mueller Investigation uncovers behavior on Trump's part considered disloyal to the Republic, the GOP-held Senate will vote to convict.

Mike Pence may be lacing his spikes and heading to the bullpen to warm-up sometime fairly soon.

 

[Papageorgio]

So indicting a President means he needs to be impeached? Isn’t there due process? Would we need to have a trial?

Congress would have to weigh the evidence.
Firstly, don't think this would be the only indictment.
Secondly, congress would no doubt want closed door testimony to review the evidence for the indictment(s).

Don't forget, we know Trump authorized the payments.

Then impeach him, I don’t understand why you think he needs indicted before being impeached, it is all the same unless you are looking for an advantage somehow, if that is the case be careful what you wish for because it will boomerang on the Dems one day, just the way it is.

I never said indictments were needed.
They would certainly make it more politically tricky for the Senate to vote no.

Boomerang?

You dopes have made political investigations against democratic admins a matter of course. The only difference is you always end up with nothing. This is your boomerang, dope. Enjoy it.

Why the name calling, especially when you don’t know where I stand on investigations and why I think this exception could boomerang? The name callings tells me you are intellectually deficient, don’t have a clue other than a partisan fool.

Why?

Because you make dopey, statements.
Also don't believe that your backhanded insults are any more sophisticated than my direct approach.

You actually believe that this won’t hurt Presidents in the future, we came off 8 years of stupid scandals and judges could be found all over the country to indict Obama on nonsense and take up the country’s time and assets along with the Presidents time to defend indictments. It’s time that dividers like yourself are taken to a prison where you can all sit in a prison and rot, while peaceful good Americans can life in peace without the extreme left or right nuts.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And the Left laughs loud and hard.....

Since there's no opposition.....and since all those supposedly backing Trump will quietly accept ANYTHING the Left does.....
(meaning the American people who supposedly support Trump will remain silent)
Sadly, Trump's on his own. He may realize this now.

I think the Left can pull it off.
We all called the French "weak" puzzies, but I think Americans who call themselves patriots earned that badge of shame hands down.