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

[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.

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

"My favor" is what it says in The Constitution.

 

[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.

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

Maybe that's why the Clintons were penniless when they left the WH...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Isn't that usually a leftist argument, "You can't possibly know anything because you don't have XYZ elite position for me to worship as my social better"? Last time I checked, people on the right tend to believe that anyone is capable of reading, researching, possessing knowledge, and expressing an opinion based on that.

Sad how corrosively partisanship has spread, until both sides argue like petulant children for whom getting their way trumps (you should excuse the expression) every other consideration.

 

[nat4900]

First they need to conduct a witch hun

I believe "witch hunt" is what Nixon ALSO called his investigati..........Did him a lot of good.....LOL

 

[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.

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

Why the fuck are you asking ME?

 

[jc456]

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

well obammy wasn't ever asked to leave. and he is the worst president in forever!!!!! so you're wrong as usual. we accept our lumps come back in another election cycle and take the win through elections. but not our leftists friends obstruction of election is the point of order today.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that prevents it.

Just the common sense set of rules, regulations, or customs that we've developed over the years.

You know the set of rules we have, not necessary laws, that this so-called President loves to ignore, break and trample on. Like using the Emergency Declaration Powers to enable special powers granted by Congress in case the emergency caused the rest of the government to stop functioning, not as a solution to a presidents' inability to get his legislation passed in Congress.

So if there is evidence he committed a crime. Indict him. See what happens.

 

[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.

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.

"Dude", I'm not a dude, I'm not "crucifying" anyone, and I don't "need a crime" to have a hypothetical discussion on the law and legal precedent regarding the subject.

So why don't you take the advice I already offered Marion, and dial your partisan kneejerk "I must attack!!!" instincts back a notch? Maybe unplug your glands, replug your brain, and give two seconds clear thought to who the hell you're talking to.

I don't want to treat you like a hysterical leftist dimwit, so do us both a favor and stop acting like one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The $150,000 payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal by National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc. and the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels far exceeded permissible campaign contribution limits.

Individual contributions to campaigns were capped at $2,700 per election in 2016. That means Cohen could have only lawfully contributed $5,400 directly to Trump’s campaign during primary and general elections.

___

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES?

Cohen is charged with “causing an unlawful corporate contribution” and making an excessive campaign contribution.

Since both charges involve large dollar amounts above $25,000, they are felonies that each carry a maximum prison sentence of five years. Cohen also faces a maximum of three years supervised release and a potential fine of $250,000 on each count.

As part of his plea agreement, Cohen’s estimated sentence under federal guidelines on all the charges against him is 46 to 63 months in prison.

Trump appears to have paid back Cohen, who has presented copies of the checks signed by President Trump.

 

[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.

In this case, I refer to The Constitution.

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

In this case, you're "referring to the Constitution" the same way leftists do: by shouting, "The Constitution! It agrees with me! It DOES!" and then plugging your ears and refusing to hear anything else.

I'm disappointed in you.

Furthermore, what you do or don't think the OP was doing is irrelevant to me. Until and unless the OP indicates to me that he was doing anything other than introducing a theoretical topic, I am going to take the high road and treat it as such.

 

[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.

In this case, you're "referring to the Constitution" the same way leftists do: by shouting, "The Constitution! It agrees with me! It DOES!" and then plugging your ears and refusing to hear anything else.

I'm disappointed in you.

Furthermore, what you do or don't think the OP was doing is irrelevant to me. Until and unless the OP indicates to me that he was doing anything other than introducing a theoretical topic, I am going to take the high road and treat it as such.

I appreciate your optimism, however, I'm a bit more pragmatic.

PS: You'll never know that all he posts are "OrangeManBad" threads if you can't see him.

 

[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?

The $150,000 payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal by National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc. and the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels far exceeded permissible campaign contribution limits.

Individual contributions to campaigns were capped at $2,700 per election in 2016. That means Cohen could have only lawfully contributed $5,400 directly to Trump’s campaign during primary and general elections.

___

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES?

Cohen is charged with “causing an unlawful corporate contribution” and making an excessive campaign contribution.

Since both charges involve large dollar amounts above $25,000, they are felonies that each carry a maximum prison sentence of five years. Cohen also faces a maximum of three years supervised release and a potential fine of $250,000 on each count.

As part of his plea agreement, Cohen’s estimated sentence under federal guidelines on all the charges against him is 46 to 63 months in prison.

Trump appears to have paid back Cohen, who has presented copies of the checks signed by President Trump.

except it wasn't a crime. no matter how much you want it to be so. it was used as a rule 35 plea to bring the sentence down. It never went before the judge and tried. It isn't a crime. just isn't.

 

[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.

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

Funny, absolutely nothing you just said did anything but convince me how right I am.

When I talk about unhinged partisan ass napkins who feel the need to turn every thread into the same boring, indistinguishable mess of "Trump sucks!!" "Trump is great!!" "Trump sucks!!" to the point where all conversation is utterly smothered in infancy, I didn't mean the aforementioned ass napkins were all on one side.

I haven't said anything about "it's both sides" in regards to actual political actions. I'm just talking about this message board. There are threads aplenty about frothing Trump fans and rabid Trump haters screaming incoherently at each other, but for some odd reason, both sets of daft buggers can't bear the possibility that ALL threads aren't about that.

 

[jc456]

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.

Isn't that usually a leftist argument, "You can't possibly know anything because you don't have XYZ elite position for me to worship as my social better"? Last time I checked, people on the right tend to believe that anyone is capable of reading, researching, possessing knowledge, and expressing an opinion based on that.

Sad how corrosively partisanship has spread, until both sides argue like petulant children for whom getting their way trumps (you should excuse the expression) every other consideration.

I don't need to get my way, I want what is right. and what is right is not what the left wants. again, you bring in the right as if they are the left and dude, there is no place on the planet that puts that with the left. nope!! no matter how many fking times you write it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"My favor" is what it says in The Constitution.

No, it isn't. Do you actually need me to diagram the frigging sentence for you? I can, if you insist, but since you're not in 5th grade, I shouldn't have to.

 

[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

Funny, absolutely nothing you just said did anything but convince me how right I am.

When I talk about unhinged partisan ass napkins who feel the need to turn every thread into the same boring, indistinguishable mess of "Trump sucks!!" "Trump is great!!" "Trump sucks!!" to the point where all conversation is utterly smothered in infancy, I didn't mean the aforementioned ass napkins were all on one side.

I haven't said anything about "it's both sides" in regards to actual political actions. I'm just talking about this message board. There are threads aplenty about frothing Trump fans and rabid Trump haters screaming incoherently at each other, but for some odd reason, both sets of daft buggers can't bear the possibility that ALL threads aren't about that.

no you have a basket and you wrap everyone in the same basket. it's all you did/ you have no particular good thing to say, you are worse than the extremes from either side. the left are evil and are the evilist of evil I give a fk what you say. you wish to be worse then them is very odd.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

then why isn't hitlery in jail? speaking out both sides again?

Because that slippery bitch is the greatest criminal mastermind ever!

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.

Nah, just lying about a blowjob is enough.

Of course you're right about the Senate. Which is why I can wait 20 months.

 

[jc456]

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.

"My favor" is what it says in The Constitution.

No, it isn't. Do you actually need me to diagram the frigging sentence for you? I can, if you insist, but since you're not in 5th grade, I shouldn't have to.

and boom, there you go. it's fascinating.

 

[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

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.

In this case, you're "referring to the Constitution" the same way leftists do: by shouting, "The Constitution! It agrees with me! It DOES!" and then plugging your ears and refusing to hear anything else.

I'm disappointed in you.

Furthermore, what you do or don't think the OP was doing is irrelevant to me. Until and unless the OP indicates to me that he was doing anything other than introducing a theoretical topic, I am going to take the high road and treat it as such.

I appreciate your optimism, however, I'm a bit more pragmatic.

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.

then why isn't hitlery in jail? speaking out both sides again?

Because that slippery bitch is the greatest criminal mastermind ever!

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.

Nah, just lying about a blowjob is enough.

Of course you're right about the Senate. Which is why I can wait 20 months.

You mean 68 months, don't you?

 

[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.

In this case, I refer to The Constitution.

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

In this case, you're "referring to the Constitution" the same way leftists do: by shouting, "The Constitution! It agrees with me! It DOES!" and then plugging your ears and refusing to hear anything else.

I'm disappointed in you.

Furthermore, what you do or don't think the OP was doing is irrelevant to me. Until and unless the OP indicates to me that he was doing anything other than introducing a theoretical topic, I am going to take the high road and treat it as such.

and there it is again. fascinating.