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

[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.

"
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.

dude, first you need a crime. and making one up for the point of crucifying a sitting president I don't think counts. And then you need the pres impeached, then removed from office and then go for the arrest. until then, he's pres.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

First they need to conduct a witch hunt, go back 40 years and try to dig up some jaywalking offense. The Dem's enemies are guilty until (even if) proven innocent.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

In this case, I refer to The Constitution.

OP was and is reaching, searching desperately nonstop for a "Gotcha!" on Trump.

 

[jc456]

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.

funny you write that as the democratic house reaches out to 81 Trump members to find a crime. too fking funny, yep it's both sides. I'm fking sick of you fks on the both sides shit. the repubs never did this ever. benghazi was a crime. and that is all that was brought up under obammy. stop with the fking it is both sides shit. YOU ARE FKING WRONG!!!! FK

 

[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

Suppose the President were indicted, how would you expect him to continue to rule over us while defending himself before 12 angry men?

Say, he was convicted- and sent to the penitentiary. I know socialist Eugene V. Debs ran for president while in the joint- but how does one serve his nation under those circumstances? If the House doesn't want to impeach and there aren't enough votes to convict, he has to continue as President.

I dunno about Wry (I can't even SEE Wry), but I have mentioned two possible scenarios in the hypothetical case of the President being arrested for criminal malfeasance.

First is that, ideally, Congress would have the moral fortitude to impeach him and remove him from office IF there was enough substantive evidence to truly warrant prosecution and conviction in the first place.

Second is that, if Congress could not muster the moral fortitude to do the right thing, and he were to still be the sitting President while undergoing trial and/or incarceration, then the VP and Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that he certainly can't discharge his duties under those circumstances (always assuming the President himself didn't invoke the 25th by signing over his power to the VP, as he would do while undergoing surgery or something of that nature).

 

[Lesh]

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

It actually doesn't say...so it's not prohibited.

The "can't indict" thing is nothing but POLICY

 

[Lesh]

If Impeachment is the only way to remove a corrupt President...then he could bribe 34 Senators and avoid it.

Hell he could get caught DOING that and still not be liable for it.

Does that sound like a problem?

It is

 

[Lesh]

And he could just as easily pardon those Senators and possibly even himself.

Does this sound like a problem?

 

[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?

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.

Yes, because being arrested for something relatively minor in the 19th century is a far cry from being arrested for literally anything today. For that matter, being President back then was a far cry from being President today.

I doubt very much that in a world where the President can't even visit the john without being followed by a handful of Secret Service agents and the guy with the nuclear football, anyone would be dumb enough to think that slapping the cuffs on him and reading him his rights just as simply as if he was Joe Schmoe is really a happening thing. And anyone who WAS that dumb would be disabused of that notion in a tearing hurry by whole battalions of people, starting with his own bosses.

I'd have to say I really doubt either of those cases would be seen as valuable or useful precedent.

 

[Defiant1]

If Impeachment is the only way to remove a corrupt President...then he could bribe 34 Senators and avoid it.

Hell he could get caught DOING that and still not be liable for it.

Does that sound like a problem?

It is

Politics is a rough and tumble game.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, Nixon only resigned because the leaders of his own party informed him that they did not have his back, and he should resign. I think the leaders of today's GOP would probably do the same thing, but I honestly can't say whether or not Trump would listen. And sadly, given the way politics are today, it's often better to try to hold on and ride it out, issues of what's right or decent being largely irrelevant.

 

[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.

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

I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, until such time as they prove that they don't deserve it. I'm not a fan of kneejerk reactions.

And it's an interesting theoretical question to discuss.

 

[Lesh]

If Impeachment is the only way to remove a corrupt President...then he could bribe 34 Senators and avoid it.

Hell he could get caught DOING that and still not be liable for it.

Does that sound like a problem?

It is

Politics is a rough and tumble game.

If we had a corrupt President such as I described..it would not be a joke.

And were he a Democrat you folks would sound a lot different than you do now.

You ain't foolin nobody

 

[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.

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

Oh? Based on what law or legal precedent?

I believe the point here is that that is a question which has never really been addressed.

 

[Lesh]

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

I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, until such time as they prove that they don't deserve it. I'm not a fan of kneejerk reactions.

And it's an interesting theoretical question to discuss.

Yea...as long as their a Republican and even then only a long as they are in the good graces of Trump

 

[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.

That is correct, but not while in office.

Sorry, but as much as you want to believe it's cut-and-dried in your favor, it really isn't.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Impeachment is an indictment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

True. I'm discussing this based on a hypothetical of a prosecutor actually compiling enough substantial evidence to actually prove that the President committed a crime and building a case he/she would take before a jury if the accused was anyone OTHER than the President.

"You should die for being from the other party" does not impress me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Seems to me that the quote function on the board is even more simple and easily understood than the English grammar in Article I.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I think we know by now that what Democrats "run on" is irrelevant, since everyone assumes they're BSing to win.