Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I reject your argument, there are clear differences in the parties and those differences are getting bigger everyday especially on social issues and how American power should be exercised in the world.The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.
CAN be but will never happen. not in this corrupt country.Not as long as we have this corrupt system we have of demopublicans and reprocrats.I wisely call them that because there is no difference the two parties.It is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two so the sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected plus we dont elect these people the establishment does,whoever they want in gets in. oh and judges are corrupt as well.got news for you,presidents have ALWAYS been above the law.
Problem is this is a witch hunt and nothing more.............Politically motivated.
Yes they are
Just for grammar sake.....the thread's title states "a sitting president" (SINGULAR).........your response, "Yes they are" kind of smacks of a 5th grader's response, don't you think?......LOL
Sorry I was busy at the time...Trump is immune from prosecution.
It has only been 6 months so far so it is too early to come out and judge but every president since Reagan has been an evil corrupt bastard and mass murderer.the sheep are so brainwashed and programmed by the CIA controlled media and our corrupt school system on Reagan,that he was such a great man and great president BECAUSE he was the grandfather of them who got the ball rolling for the destruction of america we have now.that is why there is so much propaganda by the media how great he was since he started it all.
You've been at it nearly a year................show proof.......................Problem is this is a witch hunt and nothing more.............Politically motivated.
You SHOULD realize that ANY investigation (political or not) is, by definition, a "fishing expedition" or, as you wrongly conclude "a witch hunt".......Otherwise, even the most ignorant of Trump supporters would have to admit that they made a mistake.
No I'm not. There is no constitutional argument I can think of that makes a president immune to prosecution. Since Trump may end up forcing the question they will have no choice but to conclude that he is not above the law. They will probably limit who has the legal standing to issue an indictment to special investigators appointed by congress and the AG.You are forgetting that the Supreme Court is now Republican.The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.
You've been at it nearly a year................show proof.......................
waiting.
You are confusing conviction of a crime and pardoning for a crime once convicted.No I'm not. There is no constitutional argument I can think of that makes a president immune to prosecution. Since Trump may end up forcing the question they will have no choice but to conclude that he is not above the law. They will probably limit who has the legal standing to issue an indictment to special investigators appointed by congress and the AG.You are forgetting that the Supreme Court is now Republican.The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.
Negates the time frame of ongoing investigations before that now doesn't it..........You've been at it nearly a year................show proof.......................
waiting.
Again, just to educate the morons among Trump ass-kisser......
Mueller, who is heading the investigation for criminal and civil infractions WAS APPOINTED ON MAY 17...just over 2 months ago.
Why are Trump nitwits so damn impatient?
What I've been wondering is, what if the President is investigated and it's found that he did something illegal PRIOR to being President--back in his business past--but that he is no longer involved in such dealings. Would he still be impeachable?
On which Comey testified under oath that Trump was NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION and to that point NO COLLUSION WAS FOUND.
No I am talking strictly on criminal indictments, they may strictly limit who can hand down an indictment and where the case goes to trial but the supreme court cannot simply say that the president is immune to prosecution, it would fly in the face of the clear intent of the founders that we are a nation of laws, not men. The republican justices are not so partisan that they would risk what could very well happen if they say the president cannot be touched by the law. Presidential self-pardons are another question.You are confusing conviction of a crime and pardoning for a crime once convicted.No I'm not. There is no constitutional argument I can think of that makes a president immune to prosecution. Since Trump may end up forcing the question they will have no choice but to conclude that he is not above the law. They will probably limit who has the legal standing to issue an indictment to special investigators appointed by congress and the AG.You are forgetting that the Supreme Court is now Republican.The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.
Trump is immune from prosecution.
The reason why the Constitution doesn’t address the issue of a president being subject to criminal prosecution is that the Framers considered it moot – the impeachment process was intended to remove from office a president unfit to be Chief Executive, where a president could be impeached and convicted in the Senate absent alleged criminal wrongdoing.No I'm not. There is no constitutional argument I can think of that makes a president immune to prosecution. Since Trump may end up forcing the question they will have no choice but to conclude that he is not above the law. They will probably limit who has the legal standing to issue an indictment to special investigators appointed by congress and the AG.You are forgetting that the Supreme Court is now Republican.The supreme court may be asked that question soon, I just can't see a bunch of judges deciding that anyone is above the law. We may safely assume their answer is, Yes, a president can be indicted.
Thinking that a president can survive while telling people, "I am IMMUNE from prosecution because, as president, I am above the law"....then we're worse off than previously thought.
We are not talking here about "simple political fallout" and possible resignation, we are talking about downright prosecution after a grand jury bill of indictment.
The Constitution (like in several other instances) is silent on the issue as to whether a president is above the law, as that law would apply to commoners. However, we have this:
Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New York Times has uncovered a buried memorandum that says otherwise.....that a president MAY NOT be immune from prosecution like commonly presumed......and for that, we have to "thank" Kenneth Starr when he was doggedly after Bill Clinton and who wrote:
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” ..............“....in this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
As Shakespeare wrote, "...the evil that men do lives after them......"
You've been at it nearly a year................show proof.......................
waiting........
