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

[jc456]

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

Because that slippery bitch is the greatest criminal mastermind ever!

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.

Clinton was actually a rock star for the economy. Never understood what the GOP was doing. It did absolutely nothing. I am sick and tired of the peoples house being dumped on by both parties. We need term limits.

Yeah, true. Once Gingrich beat him into submission

he complied. I give him credit for actually understanding the bigger picture rather than the party line. It was truly amazing.

 

[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

Clintonistas with high hopes but no facts. A President cannot be indicted while in office. That's why a President can be impeached...to be removed from office, and then indicted.

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you since you obviously failed your high school civics class. A President MUST be impeached prior to indictment.

Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President

All he is saying is that he "trusts" the Congress to do the right thing.

But what if they don't?

What IF a very wealthy President bribes those 34 Senators in order to protect himself and then pardons THEM! You have said he has that power. He can pardon anyone for any reason.

Trump supporters have even said that he has the power to pardon HIMSELF.

'So what then?

 

[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.

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.

I saw Ken Starr. My point is that anyone who's outraged by Stormy Daniels has no business dismissing Bill Clinton. Or vice-versa. Its hypocritical. Either "everybody lies about sex" and it's "no big deal", or it's hugely shocking and outrageous. They gotta pick one.

 

[jc456]

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!

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.

I saw Ken Starr. My point is that anyone who's outraged by Stormy Daniels has no business dismissing Bill Clinton. Or vice-versa. Its hypocritical. Either "everybody lies about sex" and it's "no big deal", or it's hugely shocking and outrageous. They gotta pick one.

seriously, I don't give a fk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

 

[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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Perhaps the Framers thought that the President ought to have more of a sense of decency than to commit criminal acts. I KNOW they expected Congressmembers to have more of a sense of decency than modern-day ones actually do. (Not to say that I think the current President has actually committed any criminal acts, so cool your jets.)

This certainly would not be the first time our Founding Fathers overestimated their descendants.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

We should try not to elect criminal presidents, or traitor ones. I have pretty good faith that most Americans haven't, and wouldn't. If Congress can't get arrested, the president damn sure can't either.

I bet you missed the part where Congress can't get arrested. These people have a lot of power.

Congressmembers can't get arrested while they're in session. Out of session, they can be arrested just like anyone else (theoretically).

The President is a bit different from them, in that he doesn't HAVE a session.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

We should try not to elect criminal presidents, or traitor ones. I have pretty good faith that most Americans haven't, and wouldn't. If Congress can't get arrested, the president damn sure can't either.

I bet you missed the part where Congress can't get arrested. These people have a lot of power.

Congressmembers can't get arrested while they're in session. Out of session, they can be arrested just like anyone else (theoretically).

The President is a bit different from them, in that he doesn't HAVE a session.

His term is his session. Same principle.

 

[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

Clintonistas with high hopes but no facts. A President cannot be indicted while in office. That's why a President can be impeached...to be removed from office, and then indicted.

Again, one can reasonably assume the Framers expected that to be the case. BUT . . . they did not specifically exclude the possibility of indicting him anyway, if Congress doesn't have the will or the virtue to impeach (in the event of it being necessary).

 

[BlindBoo]

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!

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.

Clinton was actually a rock star for the economy. Never understood what the GOP was doing. It did absolutely nothing. I am sick and tired of the peoples house being dumped on by both parties. We need term limits.

It was the computer boom. Clinton just happened to be president at the time.

I agree on term limits.

I support a balance budget amendment too.

 

[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

Clintonistas with high hopes but no facts. A President cannot be indicted while in office. That's why a President can be impeached...to be removed from office, and then indicted.

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you since you obviously failed your high school civics class. A President MUST be impeached prior to indictment.

Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President

I like how you assume "I found a blog that agrees with me, therefore it's basic civics taught in high school."

Except it's not, because it's not even remotely close to being a settled, written-in-black-and-white fact. For every lawyer you can find who insists it's clear to HIM that it's this way, I can find you an equally-qualified lawyer who says it's not that clear-cut and would require either legislation or a Court ruling to clarify it.

If you can find me someplace in an actual law or precedent that says the words "MUST be impeached prior", I'd love to see it.

 

[jc456]

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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

quote the piece that says that. Cause it sounds to me like your interpreting something that isn't there.

 

[jc456]

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

Because that slippery bitch is the greatest criminal mastermind ever!

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.

Clinton was actually a rock star for the economy. Never understood what the GOP was doing. It did absolutely nothing. I am sick and tired of the peoples house being dumped on by both parties. We need term limits.

It was the computer boom. Clinton just happened to be president at the time.

I agree on term limits.

I support a balance budget amendment too.

he didn't fk it up. that was what was great!! we all did well. I give kudos for not fking it up. definitely not dem like.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

You should stop assuming that disagreeing with you MUST mean I didn't read it all. It's not only possible that I read the whole thing, PLUS numerous position pieces on both sides, and I just think you're wrong, it's highly likely.

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." - Article 1, Section 6

By all means, Grammar King, show me where that says they can't be arrested at all while holding office.

 

[Lesh]

Again, one can reasonably assume the Framers expected that to be the case. BUT . . . they did not specifically exclude the possibility of indicting him anyway, if Congress doesn't have the will or the virtue to impeach (in the event of it being necessary).

First sensible post I have ever seen you make.

Yes...an indictment IS the correct course if the Senate doesn't take it's duties seriously or honestly

Glad we cleared that up

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

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.

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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

 

[martybegan]

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.

A ham sandwich can be indicted by a competent District Attorney. The issue is can the indictment be served and the President be forced to appear before a court.

I would say the President would have to be impeached and removed from office before he could be forced to appear before an inferior court, for the simple fact that any other method would allow abuse by State governments to indict federal officials for decisions they did not like.

So If Colorado and California have a water dispute and Colorado wins California can't go and indict the Secretary of the Interior to try to force the issue.

 

[hunarcy]

Clintonistas with high hopes but no facts. A President cannot be indicted while in office. That's why a President can be impeached...to be removed from office, and then indicted.

A president can be impeached, since he is no different than you or I, we are all citizens of the United States and no one of us is above the law.

The matter my go before the Supreme Court, but I suspect the vote in Trump v. The United States of America will be 9 - 0 for the United States of America.

Yes, that's what I said. A president can be impeached. THEN, if he's removed, he can be indicted. If not, that'd have to wait until he is out of office.

Wrong. He can be indicted, and that's when the fun begins. Will the Supreme Court support the claim that he is above the law, or vote 9-0 that he can be charged and prosecuted by a jury.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with you since you obviously failed your high school civics class. A President MUST be impeached prior to indictment.

Indicting and Prosecuting a Sitting President

I like how you assume "I found a blog that agrees with me, therefore it's basic civics taught in high school."

Except it's not, because it's not even remotely close to being a settled, written-in-black-and-white fact. For every lawyer you can find who insists it's clear to HIM that it's this way, I can find you an equally-qualified lawyer who says it's not that clear-cut and would require either legislation or a Court ruling to clarify it.

If you can find me someplace in an actual law or precedent that says the words "MUST be impeached prior", I'd love to see it.

You misunderstand. In high school civics, the lesson about impeachement/removal/indictment/trial is taught. I found an article from a noted scholar that supports that lesson. I'm sure you can find a partisan attorney to make your case, but even as late as the 1970's, in Spiro Agnew's case, it was accepted fact that members of the Executive could not be indicted until after removal from office. You should investigate that, and you'd find your precedent.

 

[hunarcy]

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

It's in plain English, but it still doesn't say what you want it to say. For the third or fourth time. I hope THIS time, that clears it up for you.

It's saying that just because the Senate can't do any more than remove him from office and disqualify him from future, that doesn't mean that he can't still be prosecuted criminally for whatever it was that got him impeached, if it's criminal.

At no point does it indicate that impeachment/removal is required for criminal prosecution.

Kinda like the Second Amendment lists "well-regulated militia" as a reason for protecting the right of people to own guns, but at no point does it say that only the militia can own them.

Mentioning one specific case scenario does NOT automatically rule out all other scenarios.

You should read more of it than what I linked. Congress people aren't allowed to be arrested until out of office either. If that's the policy for Congress, it damn sure is the policy for their superiors.

Congress is protected from arrest only during transit to and from and while performing legislative duties.

Just as the President is protected while performing his duties. Same principle.