Can A President Be Indicted?

[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

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

It would be fun to watch Trump frog-marched out of the White House. I doubt it will happen but it would be fun.

MAGA? LOL.

 

[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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

You are 100% wrong. The Justice Department has ruled on this tie and time again. Why do you liberal hate facts so much?

 

[candycorn]

Is there any proof JFK and RFK had an affair with Monroe?

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 bitch 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.

Oh yeah, I remember he was holding the phone up to his ear when the Naval Officer he was talking to was on speaker phone. Real intelligent.

PS: Apparently he does think steam power is more dependable than nuke power from his own words.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

Please post an example of anyone found culpable in a civil matter being sentenced to jail or prison. Only if the defendant in a civil matter is found in contempt of court can S/He be incarcerated.

 

[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?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

You are 100% wrong. The Justice Department has ruled on this tie and time again. Why do you liberal hate facts so much?

The Justice Dept. rules on the law of the land? WOW, does Chief Justice Roberts know about this?

 

[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

Your example of a civil suit has NOTHING to do with an indictment. No a sitting President can not be indicted, that it standing Justice Department finding since at least the 1970s.

A civil suit has a LOWER standing than a criminal one. If Clinton can stand trial for a civil matter and President can stand trial for a criminal one

I suppose a President can rule from prison if convicted in a civil court too.

But I don't see this as a benefit.

What would it say about America if the President was forced to attend G20 meetings in an orange jumpsuit accompanied by shotgun wielding marshals?

Please post an example of anyone found culpable in a civil matter being sentenced to jail or prison. Only if the defendant in a civil matter is found in contempt of court can S/He be incarcerated.

I think Clinton was found guilty of contempt wasn't he? But again that is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Though in certain instances it can land you in a cell at least temporarily.

 

[TheDude]

JFK was before I was born. WJC? He had a ton of extramarital affairs.

Well both JFK and RFK were in my time and neither of them would get elected today.

Both were notorious bed hoppers. Both had affairs with Marilyn Monroe.

Back then the press new about what they did but it was never reported. It just wasn't done back then.

Today. Every twenty four hour news station would have had it on twenty four/seven.

JFK would have never made it to the WH.

Is there any proof JFK and RFK had an affair with Monroe?

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?

I will explain because you're dumb:

#1) Trump was a celebrity before being a candidate. Paying small $$ (to him) to hush up affairs is likely a normal course of dealings for him. Meaning (again since you're dumb) he would have paid that money had he not been running. If that is in his normal course of dealings then it is not a crime of any kind.

#2) Stormy was not an employee and he didn't have any power over her. It was 100% consensual. Clinton was POTUS and ML his intern...creepy as it would have been tough for her to say "no".

#3) Trump has a history of "dating" models and attractive women. He was very well liked until he ran under the GOP umbrella. This is a giant witch hunt.

BINGO.................Kicker is politicians pay hush money all the time on the tax-payer's dime and nobody makes a fuss of it. That's a fucking crime to society, but they're crooks. In Trump's case it was his money. Even if it was campaign cash it was Trump's to begin with, I believe he financed most of his campaign. If unreported so what...................Obama and MANY others had unreported expenses as well, and nobody came.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

You are 100% wrong. The Justice Department has ruled on this tie and time again. Why do you liberal hate facts so much?

The Justice Dept. rules on the law of the land? WOW, does Chief Justice Roberts know about this?

SCOTUS can not MAKE the Justice Department indict anyone, and good luck to any local or state police who attempted to arrest a sitting POTUS LOL

 

[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. I KNOW what the outcome would be. The House would impeach, the Senate would convict, and THEN local police could make an arrest. But not before. That's the point. A SITTING US President can not be indicted, not even for murder.

 

[Lesh]

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. I KNOW what the outcome would be. The House would impeach, the Senate would convict, and THEN local police could make an arrest. But not before. That's the point. A SITTING US President can not be indicted, not even for murder.

Based on a NIXON era DOJ Policy

Oh...

 

[Polishprince]

I'd like to see the Congressmen who paid off their Rape and Sex Harassment victims with the special slush fund pay the money back and then get sent to prison as it wasn't reported on their campaign finance reports and helped their campaign.

 

[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!

 

[Polishprince]

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!

You don't have a problem with a sitting President in jail or in prison, still ruling over us?

 

[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 fucking Constitution.

 

[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?

 

[Claudette]

LMAO Sure hope you are holding your breath waiting for those charges to be filed.

Oh and we will all probably die of old age before Muellers report is out.

 

[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.

 

[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!

You don't have a problem with a sitting President in jail or in prison, still ruling over us?

Nope.