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

[Auld Phart]

Lets see...

Pierce was arrested for running over an elderly woman while in office, charges dropped for lack of evidence.

Grant was arrested for speeding in his buggy, paid a $2o fine.

Which two United States presidents were arrested while in office and for what cr...

Sounds like a president CAN be arrested while in office, hmm?

Off the top of my head, I'm going to say that what amounts to traffic accidents in the 19th century is very different from pretty much anything today.

Not the point.

being president did NOT prevent them from being arrested.

 

[mudwhistle]

Allow the charges against Trump, whatever they may be, and let the courts decide.

Of course, if the charges are damning enuff, then there could be the possibility that Orange Clown would resign, like Tricky Dick.

He won't resign.
He's a Democrat, or at least what a Democrat used to be.
Today's Democrats are corrupt even before they take office. Just like AOC. Crooked as the day is long. The reason is they have to lie to win an election.

 

[jc456]

Just a word of caution to those who would want to see a sitting President indicted just because it’s Trump that precedent would not end with Trump so think carefully before going down that road.

Speaking for myself, it matters not if the criminal act is committed by a Republican or a Democrat - no man or woman is above the law.

True true but anyone who is being honest knows that there are people on both sides who would try and use such a precedent to remove a president from office and overturn election results or damage them so badly they would have no chance of re-election.

basically a coupe let's call it was it is. everything the dems are doing is still the coupe. this is all traitorous activity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets see...

Pierce was arrested for running over an elderly woman while in office, charges dropped for lack of evidence.

Grant was arrested for speeding in his buggy, paid a $2o fine.

Which two United States presidents were arrested while in office and for what cr...

Sounds like a president CAN be arrested while in office, hmm?

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.

Yes, but since it's not even remotely their call to make, that and $10 will buy you a cup of coffee in DC.

The truth is that it's an utterly open question that is not addressed by law at all, because it hasn't actually come up before. I'm guessing if it ever actually does, the Supreme Court will accept a lot of amicus briefs on the subject and decide for that occasion, and then lots of people will be looking to codify law on it.

 

[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.

You clowns are funny. The president can be impeached and removed from office at any time so DO IT. Grow a pair of balls you gutless cowardly hacks.

There has to be good cause to. Also a 2/3 Senate majority.

Sadly, these days, the majority seems to be more important than the good cause.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The left can't muster the votes to impeach Trump and remove him from office so they are seeking a way around this obstacle. That's all this thread is, partisan butthurt libtards still crying over losing to Trump.

Not entirely sure Blackhawk is looking to remove the President. Couldn't say for sure. Until such time as he proves me wrong, I'm assuming this is just a theoretical and hypoethical discussion of a point of law.

 

[caddo kid]

Allow the charges against Trump, whatever they may be, and let the courts decide.

Of course, if the charges are damning enuff, then there could be the possibility that Orange Clown would resign, like Tricky Dick.

He won't resign.
He's a Democrat, or at least what a Democrat used to be.
Today's Democrats are corrupt even before they take office. Just like AOC. Crooked as the day is long. The reason is they have to lie to win an election.

Trump is a Republican you dumb turd.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The left can't muster the votes to impeach Trump and remove him from office so they are seeking a way around this obstacle. That's all this thread is, partisan butthurt libtards still crying over losing to Trump.

Not entirely sure Blackhawk is looking to remove the President. Couldn't say for sure. Until such time as he proves me wrong, I'm assuming this is just a theoretical and hypoethical discussion of a point of law.

Oh you poor dear.

This is another "OrangeManBad" thread. It's quasi-couched in a Constitutional question, but yeah, it's just "Trump hurt my butt" thread #964865435785445874

 

[Cecilie1200]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment or 25 IV. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

Yes, but the question isn't about removing him from office. It's about prosecuting him for a criminal act. Theoretically, prosecution and even conviction doesn't affect the fact that he's President, although it would be quite the challenge to execute his duties from a jail cell. Again theoretically, one could say that if that situation arose, then the Vice President and Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that he's unable to discharge his duties while incarcerated.

Absent any legal codification or precedent on the subject, there are any number of ways it could end up.

Read post 21 above.

Would it surprise you to know that disagreeing with you does NOT mean I didn't read it your post? That it actually means I DID read your post, and then decided that you were wrong?

Don't get snotty with me, hon. Right now, we're just having a peaceful, civil conversation about legal hypotheticals. I'd advise that you let it remain that way.

 

[jc456]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

This ^^^ is an opinion; there is not phrase, clause, section or article in COTUS which prevents a sitting president from being indicted and tried in a criminal court.

Right, but he has to be impeached successfully first.

I believe that's Article I section 3 of The Constitution.

It is, here's the same thing yet again:

"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."

See how the "convicted" come before the "liable and subject to indictment"? That's by design.

Article I

Nope, that's not actually what that Article is saying.

Grammatically speaking, it is saying that when someone - in this case the President - is impeached, the Senate cannot render judgement against him beyond removing him from office and declaring him disqualified from holding any other federal office. However, other legal bodies - like a criminal court - are still free to prosecute him for whatever it is he was impeached for and render whatever judgement is applicable by law.

Doesn't say a damned thing about impeachment being a requirement for criminal prosecution.

the courts can't touch the president until removed from office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment or 25 IV. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

Yes, but the question isn't about removing him from office. It's about prosecuting him for a criminal act. Theoretically, prosecution and even conviction doesn't affect the fact that he's President, although it would be quite the challenge to execute his duties from a jail cell. Again theoretically, one could say that if that situation arose, then the Vice President and Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that he's unable to discharge his duties while incarcerated.

Absent any legal codification or precedent on the subject, there are any number of ways it could end up.

Presidents are protected from left wing assholes doing this precisely because a president could not perform his duties if left wing assholes are constantly filing criminal charges against him because they are butthurt over losing the election.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the President has no actual legal protection from criminal prosecution at all, beyond the fact that people in government USED to have a sense of dignity and propriety, and some respect for the office of the Presidency and the higher good of the nation.

For the record, while the left-wing is more likely to push this particular envelope at the moment, I can't honestly say that there aren't far too many people putatively on the right who wouldn't gleefully follow suit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment or 25 IV. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

Yes, but the question isn't about removing him from office. It's about prosecuting him for a criminal act. Theoretically, prosecution and even conviction doesn't affect the fact that he's President, although it would be quite the challenge to execute his duties from a jail cell. Again theoretically, one could say that if that situation arose, then the Vice President and Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that he's unable to discharge his duties while incarcerated.

Absent any legal codification or precedent on the subject, there are any number of ways it could end up.

Presidents are protected from left wing assholes doing this precisely because a president could not perform his duties if left wing assholes are constantly filing criminal charges against him because they are butthurt over losing the election.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the President has no actual legal protection from criminal prosecution at all, beyond the fact that people in government USED to have a sense of dignity and propriety, and some respect for the office of the Presidency and the higher good of the nation.

For the record, while the left-wing is more likely to push this particular envelope at the moment, I can't honestly say that there aren't far too many people putatively on the right who wouldn't gleefully follow suit.

That is correct, but not while in office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

This ^^^ is an opinion; there is not phrase, clause, section or article in COTUS which prevents a sitting president from being indicted and tried in a criminal court.

Right, but he has to be impeached successfully first.

I believe that's Article I section 3 of The Constitution.

It is, here's the same thing yet again:

"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."

See how the "convicted" come before the "liable and subject to indictment"? That's by design.

Article I

Nope, that's not actually what that Article is saying.

Grammatically speaking, it is saying that when someone - in this case the President - is impeached, the Senate cannot render judgement against him beyond removing him from office and declaring him disqualified from holding any other federal office. However, other legal bodies - like a criminal court - are still free to prosecute him for whatever it is he was impeached for and render whatever judgement is applicable by law.

Doesn't say a damned thing about impeachment being a requirement for criminal prosecution.

"
but the party convicted 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.

Dude, I just explained the plain English for you, and you're very, very wrong about how you're trying to interpret this. Do NOT take it upon yourself to get shirty with me about grammar, just because your partisanship has gotten all inflamed. We are not on opposite sides of the political aisle, and there is no dimension in this universe where you are EVER qualified to lecture ME about English grammar.

Dial the political drama back, Kneejerk.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

This ^^^ is an opinion; there is not phrase, clause, section or article in COTUS which prevents a sitting president from being indicted and tried in a criminal court.

Right, but he has to be impeached successfully first.

I believe that's Article I section 3 of The Constitution.

It is, here's the same thing yet again:

"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."

See how the "convicted" comes before the "liable and subject to indictment"? That's by design.

Article I

I think you have misunderstood the word, "nevertheless".

nevertheless meaning - Google Search

 

[jc456]

Everyone has an opinion on the subject but it’s not settled law as far as I know a sitting President has not been indicted so if it was to happen it would likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The only reasonable answer. Imo personally they should not be exempt from any prosecution. Course I swing a hammer for a living not a legal notepad.

well IMO, I think there should at least be a crime. just saying. I don't think winning an election is a crime, or at least it hasn't since we've been voting. but please, if that is now a crime, I want all of DC arrested.

 

[Marion Morrison]

A sitting president can only be removed from office via impeachment. Once out of office, for whatever reason, a former president is subject to all laws - just like any other citizen.

This ^^^ is an opinion; there is not phrase, clause, section or article in COTUS which prevents a sitting president from being indicted and tried in a criminal court.

Right, but he has to be impeached successfully first.

I believe that's Article I section 3 of The Constitution.

It is, here's the same thing yet again:

"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."

See how the "convicted" come before the "liable and subject to indictment"? That's by design.

Article I

Nope, that's not actually what that Article is saying.

Grammatically speaking, it is saying that when someone - in this case the President - is impeached, the Senate cannot render judgement against him beyond removing him from office and declaring him disqualified from holding any other federal office. However, other legal bodies - like a criminal court - are still free to prosecute him for whatever it is he was impeached for and render whatever judgement is applicable by law.

Doesn't say a damned thing about impeachment being a requirement for criminal prosecution.

"
but the party convicted 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.

Dude, I just explained the plain English for you, and you're very, very wrong about how you're trying to interpret this. Do NOT take it upon yourself to get shirty with me about grammar, just because your partisanship has gotten all inflamed. We are not on opposite sides of the political aisle, and there is no dimension in this universe where you are EVER qualified to lecture ME about English grammar.

Dial the political drama back, Kneejerk.

Are you talking to me?

 

[jc456]

Allow the charges against Trump, whatever they may be, and let the courts decide.

Of course, if the charges are damning enuff, then there could be the possibility that Orange Clown would resign, like Tricky Dick.

He won't resign.
He's a Democrat, or at least what a Democrat used to be.
Today's Democrats are corrupt even before they take office. Just like AOC. Crooked as the day is long. The reason is they have to lie to win an election.

they ran on no impeachment. that lasted one month.

 

[BluesLegend]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the President has no actual legal protection from criminal prosecution at all, beyond the fact that people in government USED to have a sense of dignity and propriety, and some respect for the office of the Presidency and the higher good of the nation.

That's why you are not a SCOTUS justice, no legal experience.

 

[jc456]

Lets see...

Pierce was arrested for running over an elderly woman while in office, charges dropped for lack of evidence.

Grant was arrested for speeding in his buggy, paid a $2o fine.

Which two United States presidents were arrested while in office and for what cr...

Sounds like a president CAN be arrested while in office, hmm?

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.

Yes, but since it's not even remotely their call to make, that and $10 will buy you a cup of coffee in DC.

The truth is that it's an utterly open question that is not addressed by law at all, because it hasn't actually come up before. I'm guessing if it ever actually does, the Supreme Court will accept a lot of amicus briefs on the subject and decide for that occasion, and then lots of people will be looking to codify law on it.

well I'd just like to hear the crime. what is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

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

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

Trump certainly offers the most pressing of occasions to test out whether a president IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Trump also offers us a scenario regarding whether someone like him, who has gathered a CULT following that is willing to overlook ANY ethical, moral and legal infraction, has managed to frighten both our law makers and DOJ to conspire with him and become his Praetorian guards.

I frankly think both sides of the aisle should do everyone else a favor and resist the urge to turn this - as with virtually every thread on this board - into another boring cookie-cutter recitation of "Trump is EEEVVVIIILL!!!!" "No, he isn't!!!" "Yes he is!!!" "No, YOU are!!!"

Lately, it seems like every time a semi-interesting discussion of a topic or issue starts up, the exact same crowd of unhinged partisan ass napkins has to come running in and ruin it.