Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Papageorgio]

this is a long thread and I have only read the op,

so let's start with what the constitution ACTUALLY SAYS on it


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.



...............

it simply states in the last sentence the person impeached SHALL be liable and subject to indictment in a court of law, according to Law...

SHALL means MUST be indicted for their crimes in a court of law....

Ford, pardoning Nixon, broke our constitution because this removed the SHALL.... no?

By waiting to charge the president, instead of while still sitting, removes the ability to indict them because of the new president, old VP's pardoning power...

but the constitution says THEY MUST be indicted by using the word SHALL?

No one has an issue with that, what nat and others want to do is indict before impeachment hearings.

 

[bendog]

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

I don't know about sealed indictments. I think people have a right to know about any allegation of misuse of power. Even if it's as lame as Corsi's birther bullshit.

I agree. Maybe we needed a guy so corrupted like this to sort of pressure test our system and get us thinking about the possible shortcomings inherent to our system.

I just feel that if the Senate fails to meet their moral obligation, then something like indictments needs to happen to remind us of why this was undertaken or to reiterate the significance of this moment in history. Some sort of black eye or shitstorm to highlight it for future generations.

Like I said before. If impeachment doesn't work in this case. When will it ever?

Well, it Trump does something like firing Mueller and putting a lid on any of files and unfinished investigation or report, then Pelosi may not have a choice. The House could conceivably just be the new home of an investigation.

But hopefully there are enough sane people still in the executive branch to tell Trump why it never has to go so far. His worst outcome of this - and that assumes he's guilty as hell of breaking election law with Assange and the Ruskies - is he goes back to making money in 2020 and can play the victim card to get the Trumpanzes money.

read my 2 posts above... it say a person impeached SHALL face prosecution???? SHALL means MUST....

the constitution does not say MAY face prosecution????

articles of impeachment in the House doesn't mandate (shall) impeachment, and impeachment in the House doesn't mandate conviction in the senate. So I don't really understand your emphasis on "shall"

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.

Don't forget to wipe, flush and wash your hands after that "conclusion" that SURELY came out of one of your orifices.....

(don't forget to also include being half black to your list of indictable Obama offenses.)

Bubba was the first half black...even though he don't look like it.

 

[Care4all]

What it is saying is that if a person being impeached for:


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

can't be given any punishment or Judgement for their misdeads by the impeachment process, by the Senate Trial....

And that they SHALL be judged and punished through the Courts for their crimes....


Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.


so, there is absolutely no restriction stopping an indictment while in office where they receive judgement...

the restriction appears to be for the Senate in not being able to give judgement in cases of impeachment if found guilty, other than removal from office.... so, they can't be sent to jail by the Senate only removal.



This does NOT stop or say that a President can not be indicted, while in office....?

Not a single word about it.... so I guess what I am saying is, there is nothing stopping an indictment while in office.

 

[xyz]

The problem with indicting a POTUS is not so much that it hasn't been done before, but I'm not sure it removes him from office (except physically). I'm thinking it might require some 25th Amendment scenario.

 

[Papageorgio]

What it is saying is that if a person being impeached for:


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

can't be given any punishment or Judgement for their misdeads by the impeachment process, by the Senate Trial....

And that they SHALL be judged and punished through the Courts for their crimes....


Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.


so, there is absolutely no restriction stopping an indictment while in office where they receive judgement...

the restriction appears to be for the Senate in not being able to give judgement in cases of impeachment if found guilty, other than removal from office.... so, they can't be sent to jail by the Senate only removal.



This does NOT stop or say that a President can not be indicted, while in office....?

Not a single word about it.... so I guess what I am saying is, there is nothing stopping an indictment while in office.

Are you sure?

 

[Papageorgio]

The problem with indicting a POTUS is not so much that it hasn't been done before, but I'm not sure it removes him from office (except physically). I'm thinking it might require some 25th Amendment scenario.

The procedure to remove I believe is start the impeachment process otherwise they are still President. I’d have to look it up but perhaps the VP would take charge until the President was impeached and removed legally.

I don’t think these scenarios are likely, what is most likely is impeach and remove and the VP once sworn in would pardon the former President.

 

[Care4all]

What it is saying is that if a person being impeached for:


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

can't be given any punishment or Judgement for their misdeads by the impeachment process, by the Senate Trial....

And that they SHALL be judged and punished through the Courts for their crimes....


Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.


so, there is absolutely no restriction stopping an indictment while in office where they receive judgement...

the restriction appears to be for the Senate in not being able to give judgement in cases of impeachment if found guilty, other than removal from office.... so, they can't be sent to jail by the Senate only removal.



This does NOT stop or say that a President can not be indicted, while in office....?

Not a single word about it.... so I guess what I am saying is, there is nothing stopping an indictment while in office.

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure...

how hard would it have been for the founders to simply say in the constitution in these articles, ''The President, can not be indicted for a crime, while serving in office''

easy peasy, IF this is what they wanted and meant....

What they were clear on, is that an impeachment, IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL in a court of Law, where judgement and punishment can come from... and removal from office, was the only result that could be had if found guilty by 2/3's of the Senate, in an impeachment trial.

 

[whitehall]

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes "separation of church and state" or the "right to privacy" that justified the murder of the unborn. If lefties want to go down the Constitutional road lets clean up those issues first.

 

[Papageorgio]

What it is saying is that if a person being impeached for:


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

can't be given any punishment or Judgement for their misdeads by the impeachment process, by the Senate Trial....

And that they SHALL be judged and punished through the Courts for their crimes....


Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.


so, there is absolutely no restriction stopping an indictment while in office where they receive judgement...

the restriction appears to be for the Senate in not being able to give judgement in cases of impeachment if found guilty, other than removal from office.... so, they can't be sent to jail by the Senate only removal.



This does NOT stop or say that a President can not be indicted, while in office....?

Not a single word about it.... so I guess what I am saying is, there is nothing stopping an indictment while in office.

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure...

how hard would it have been for the founders to simply say in the constitution in these articles, ''The President, can not be indicted for a crime, while serving in office''

easy peasy, IF this is what they wanted and meant....

What they were clear on, is that an impeachment, IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL in a court of Law, where judgement and punishment can come from... and removal from office, was the only result that could be had if found guilty by 2/3's of the Senate, in an impeachment trial.

Yeah, I knew that. However nothing is easy peasy

 

[Care4all]

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes "separation of church and state" or the "right to privacy" that justified the murder of the unborn. If lefties want to go down the Constitutional road lets clean up those issues first.

there is an implicit separation of church and state in the constitution,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The right to privacy, is iffy-er with 2 amendments referring to it, the 4th and the 9th, I believe

The right to privacy is alluded to in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath

Basically, the gvt has no power to even know, if you are pregnant or not

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Don't forget to wipe, flush and wash your hands after that "conclusion" that SURELY came out of one of your orifices.....

(don't forget to also include being half black to your list of indictable Obama offenses.)

I always flush after taking an Obama.

Comrade, you Stalinists want to murder Trump for defeating Hillary .

But you have become convinced, because it feeds into your psychotic hatred, that you can indict a sitting president for alleged campaign violations.

Is that what we did with little queer Barry?

{
While known for his use of hyperbole, Trump was actually understating how “big” Obama’s campaign violation was. As Politico reported back in 2013, “President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign.” Prior to that, Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines from his 1996 presidential campaign, paying $100,000.

Among many miscellaneous reporting errors, the main issue with Obama’s campaign finances was a series of missing 48-hour notices for almost 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million. The notices must be filed out for contributions of over $1,000 that are received within 20 days of election day.}

Obama FINED for Campaign Violations - Paid Biggest Fees for Presidential Campaign EVER!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe a President is a private citizen and should not be above the law

I believe you are a troll and don't in the slightest believe the retarded bullshit you post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

What IS the sentence for defeating Hillary anyway?

I think gnat and shitflinger demand nothing less than death.

 

[Uncensored2008]

this is a long thread and I have only read the op,

so let's start with what the constitution ACTUALLY SAYS on it


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.



...............

it simply states in the last sentence the person impeached SHALL be liable and subject to indictment in a court of law, according to Law...

SHALL means MUST be indicted for their crimes in a court of law....

Ford, pardoning Nixon, broke our constitution because this removed the SHALL.... no?

By waiting to charge the president, instead of while still sitting, removes the ability to indict them because of the new president, old VP's pardoning power...

but the constitution says THEY MUST be indicted by using the word SHALL?

So you Stalinists need to impeach successfully first.

Well, good luck with that.

 

[Care4all]

this is a long thread and I have only read the op,

so let's start with what the constitution ACTUALLY SAYS on it


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.



...............

it simply states in the last sentence the person impeached SHALL be liable and subject to indictment in a court of law, according to Law...

SHALL means MUST be indicted for their crimes in a court of law....

Ford, pardoning Nixon, broke our constitution because this removed the SHALL.... no?

By waiting to charge the president, instead of while still sitting, removes the ability to indict them because of the new president, old VP's pardoning power...

but the constitution says THEY MUST be indicted by using the word SHALL?

So you Stalinists need to impeach successfully first.

Well, good luck with that.

I personally do not want to impeach him, unless he and his team were acting as agents of a foreign power, in a conspiracy to defraud the United States elections, by working with the Russians and other Foreign Nations throughout his campaign, to win the election.

Or maybe even for being a money launderer for the Russians, Saudis and the Lord only knows who else.

That puts him in a position of compromise, and makes it very concerning that he may not be putting the United States FIRST....

I'd rather him being crushed in the next election,

or better yet... him not running at all.... and him going back to his crooked, and morally empty life as a real estate tycoon and pussy grabbing Reality TV star.

 

[oreo]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Totally agree with you there. BUT--there is a process called impeachment to remove a President from Office first, and then he can be indicted.

That's probably the better way to go, which is why the DOJ will not indict a sitting President who could easily take out his frustration and anxiety on this nation while he's still in power.

I hope that is exactly what happens as soon as Democrats are sworn in as majority leaders on January 20, 2019.

A great book for everyone to read to prepare for the open public hearings and testimony. Reads just like one of the best spy novels ever, and it's non-fiction.

 

[Care4all]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Totally agree with you there. BUT--there is a process called impeachment to remove a President from Office first, and then he can be indicted.

That's probably the better way to go, which is why the DOJ will not indict a sitting President who could easily take out his frustration and anxiety on this nation while still in power.

The Justice Dept rule is simply a memo.... it is not a law, nor in the Constitution...

If, as example, a President, strangled and killed his vice-president, with witnesses, or shot and killed some innocent person on 5th Avenue, he would be charged and jailed immediately, before an impeachment process could take place... which takes time... they probably would have to use the 25th amendment to immediately rule him incapable of being President... then maybe go through impeachment, I dunno.... but one thing I do know, is he would be indicted and arrested, immediately.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I personally do not want to impeach him, unless he and his team were acting as agents of a foreign power, in a conspiracy to defraud the United States elections, by working with the Russians and other Foreign Nations throughout his campaign, to win the election.

The Inquisition feloniously leaks on a constant basis. So we know that the Russian angle is a bust, unless Torquemada charges Hillary and Queer Barry for buying the Dossier from the Russians

Since collusion led to his side, he abandoned that long ago.

Or maybe even for being a money launderer for the Russians, Saudis and the Lord only knows who else.

That puts him in a position of compromise, and makes it very concerning that he may not be putting the United States FIRST....

I'd rather him being crushed in the next election,

or better yet... him not running at all.... and him going back to his crooked, and morally empty life as a real estate tycoon and pussy grabbing Reality TV star.

Maybe he sold uranium interests to Russia?

Either way, even Communist commentators acknowledge he will win reelection.

The incredibly boring reason Trump is on track to win in 2020

You don't get more commie fuck than Vox.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Justice Dept rule is simply a memo.... it is not a law, nor in the Constitution...

If, as example, a President, strangled and killed his vice-president, with witnesses, or shot and killed some innocent person on 5th Avenue, he would be charged and jailed immediately, before an impeachment process could take place...

If Queer Barry Obama had done that you and the press would cover for him and demand he has to power and right to do such things.

The Justice memo simply explained WHY one can not indict a sitting president - it lays out the legal reasons.

Look, TDS is a terrible disease, it eats away any reason or rationality the victim may have once had. Hate replaces thought

which takes time... they probably would have to use the 25th amendment to immediately rule him incapable of being President... then maybe go through impeachment, I dunno.... but one thing I do know, is he would be indicted and arrested, immediately.

You fantasize a great deal about the depths of your hatred.