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

[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.

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

I'm not an optimist. Pragmatism is taking what comes as it comes, which is what I'm doing. You're being a pessimist.

 

[jc456]

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.

I'm not an optimist. Pragmatism is taking what comes as it comes, which is what I'm doing. You're being a pessimist.

I thought he cited the constitution. that would make him a constitutionalist.

 

[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.

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.

Again, I wouldn't have to "bring in the right as if they are the left" if so many people who are putatively on the right weren't adopting behaviors from the left. Your goals may not be the same, but your methods are becoming less distinguishable by the second. Think how much the right has been enjoying the sight of the left eating its own in the news lately; now look at you, getting your panties all in a wad at me for leftist views you assumed I'm holding, just because my posts weren't filled with, "Leftists suck! Leave Trump alone, you bastards!" Tell me your behavior is any better, or even any different.

 

[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.

Again, I wouldn't have to "bring in the right as if they are the left" if so many people who are putatively on the right weren't adopting behaviors from the left. Your goals may not be the same, but your methods are becoming less distinguishable by the second. Think how much the right has been enjoying the sight of the left eating its own in the news lately; now look at you, getting your panties all in a wad at me for leftist views you assumed I'm holding, just because my posts weren't filled with, "Leftists suck! Leave Trump alone, you bastards!" Tell me your behavior is any better, or even any different.

well the leftists are unconstitutional. period. any other comment is pure bullshit. The coupe and this new coupe going after trump's staff is just more unconstitutional. they keep trumping themselves. the right has never and will never do what they do. they are truly unamerican. the president has a right to declare a national emergency. no matter what anyone says. that is just his right given to him like every other president. orangemanbad has no more rights than any other president.

I have never said leave trump alone, I've asked for the crime to go after him. to date fkwad, there is no crime. That's all I've asked for. if he has committed a crime impeach him. if the left has to invent a crime through witch hunts that is unconstitutional. sorry you don't see it that way, but that is what I've been watching.

 

[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.

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.

No, I have no basket. YOU are sticking ME in your basket of "people who disagree with me are all THIS". I am simply stating my observation, which is that you're acting like a fucking leftist, and assuming that your good goals and principles make it okay. If you don't like the characterization, rather than leaping emotionally to the conclusion that I'm a person who "always" says the left and right are the same, perhaps you should take a deep breath and consider whether I'm actually speaking the truth.

Or you can be the pseudo-right wing version of leftists, with your brain shorted out and your emotions always at full steam, and wonder why it is that fewer and fewer people on your own (alleged) side of the aisle respect you or even acknowledge that you exist because you're such an embarrassment. Your choice. I know I'M done treating you as though you're a real member of my side who deserves to be reasoned with as a thinking person.

Bye, Jethro.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Speaking of lying, that tired canard about "just about a blowjob" becomes particularly laughable considering how much time and energy has been spent and continues to be spent on Stormy Daniels.

 

[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.

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.

Yup.....the Democrat base is a bunch of dishonest triggered snowflakes that only want to vote for people that are lying assholes.
The most important thing in their lives is attacking Trump and white people......because white people are all racists.....unless they're gay, vote for Democrats, Muslim, or from another country.

 

[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.

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.

I think that Trump should send US Marshals to every sanctuary city and state, arrest all of the officials who are harboring illegals, and ship them all off to federal prison to await trial.
Better yet, put them in detention camps with all of the sick illegals they're trying to get into the country.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

 

[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.

Speaking of lying, that tired canard about "just about a blowjob" becomes particularly laughable considering how much time and energy has been spent and continues to be spent on Stormy Daniels.

You must not have read what I wrote. I clearly said "just lying about a blowjob is enough." That's what we hear all the time. He committed perjury (because he lied about a hummer.).

Why bother with impeachment. when the Senate wouldn't convict Clinton then and I doubt the current Senate would ever convict Trump now.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

It absolutely is. Next!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

It absolutely is. Next!

Wrong.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Speaking of lying, that tired canard about "just about a blowjob" becomes particularly laughable considering how much time and energy has been spent and continues to be spent on Stormy Daniels.

If you think there's a lot of time and energy being spent on that, you should have seen Ken Starr with the Whitewater crap. Much more time and energy.

It took millions of dollars to get to that blowjob. Tbh, I'd rather have the taxpayer money back and never have heard about it. Maybe have 100 more miles of border wall built instead.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

It absolutely is. Next!

Wrong.

Right!

"
but the party convicted (of impeachment) 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.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

 

[Wry Catcher]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

It absolutely is. Next!

Wrong.

Right!

"
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.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

You and I read it differently. Simply because the Senate won't convict, is not exculpatory of wrong doing. Trump can be indicted in State Courts for sure, the SC will decide if your reading of the section or mine will prevail.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

Thats not what that says.

It absolutely is. Next!

Wrong.

Right!

"
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.

Article 1, Section 3

Article I

You and I read it differently. Simply because the Senate won't convict, is not exculpatory of wrong doing. Trump can be indicted in State Courts for sure, the SC will decide if your reading of the section or mine will prevail.

Not until after he's done serving unless he's impeached. If he committed a crime so heinous as to be indicted by a state court, that may would be grounds for impeachment, and then after a successful one, (or the end of his term if no longer in office) the president would have to answer that indictment.


You see, these safeguards were put in there to be almost idiot-proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT.

No it doesn't. That's absurd.

 

[Marion Morrison]

but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT.

No it doesn't. That's absurd.

No, it's not. Why should a president have to worry about the running of the country and showing up in court the next day at the same time?

That definitely would hurt the interests of everyone.

 

[Lesh]

A. The Constitution does NOT say a President can't be indicted. It just doesn't.

It describes how to remove a President who has NOT been indicted. That's all.

It's a Dept of Justice POLICY only...that says a President can not be indicted.

B. If a President can not be indicted he is above the law.

Should a blatantly corrupt President be impeached by the House and then BRIBE 34 Senators...he could not be indicted even for THAT.

And he could then PARDON those very Senators and possibly even himself

Is that where you folks are going?

A President above the law completely?

 

[Lesh]

but the party convicted (of impeachment) shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

That means the party unconvicted is NOT.

No it doesn't. That's absurd.

All that means is that impeachment is not the final verdict.