So, say Mueller used Manafort to set Trump up...

[regnaD kciN]

...and Mad King Donald, relying on passed-along false information, fell into the “perjury trap.”

What then?

Even if Trump commits clear-cut perjury, the general consensus is that a sitting president can’t be indicted — and there’s little doubt the current SCOTUS would rule in his favor, as well (and, according to Kavanaugh’s previous statements, may rule he can’t be charged even after leaving office, if the statute of limitations has expired by then).

Of course, blatant and provable perjury would make impeachment quite likely — but would it be enough to get twenty Republican senators to convict?

Certainly, unquestionable proof of Trump committing perjury would make for a big news day — but haven’t most people, for good or ill, already concluded that Trump will always lie for his own benefit, and it either already bothers them or doesn’t?

I’m just wondering what consequences would result from Trump being caught red-handed, as it were?

[Achilleaze]

1. What "general consensus" are you citing that says he* can't be indicted?

No man is above the law. There ain't no damn "consensus" otherwise.

* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief

[Vinca]

2. It's the current policy of the Justice Department. And it deserves a court challenge.

[regnaD kciN]

3. It's been the policy ever since Watergate...

...which is why Jaworski only names Nixon an “unindicted co-conspirator.” And, while I agree it was due for a court challenge, it might have had a better chance with the SCOTUS as it was before this summer…because is there the slightest doubt how the current Court would rule?

[Vinca]

4. That's true. The only sure thing is making sure Trump is ousted either by impeachment or

nonelection. You might think Republican Senators would come to their senses given the midterm bloodbath the House GOP just took.

[Perseus]

5. But its not the law, it is just an agreement that has been followed

but the law does not prevent a sitting president from being indicted.

[Perseus]

6. Here is an article about that

[link:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/24/donald-trump-not-above-law-sitting-president-can-indicted-column/634725002/|

[Achilleaze]

11. So it's a "consensus" among pols & lawyers

for their own political reasons. But I don't think it's a consensus among the citizens. I should be very surprised if a majority of Americans were in favor of some Latter Day republican imposition of THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.

I mean, screw republican perversions. "Above the law" is the opposite of what democracy is all about.

[unblock]

9. It's very hard to find good reason to think a sitting president can't be *indicted*

Being indicted doesn't interfere with a president's constitutional duties.

Standing trial, that's another story. There may be an argument there, as this can be time consuming. That said, a civil cases against Clinton was allowed to proceed while he was president, so it's harder for the court to say civil yes, criminal no.

Of course, the question may never come up if a doj never opts to indict a sitting presidential.

A related question is if a state ag can indict or try a sitting president. Also never has come up, but may.

[cannabis_flower]

7. Well...

Perhaps he wouldn't be re-elected or would chose not to run for reelection. If he did get impeached and the Republican Senators didn't convict him, I would think that some voters might have a problem with that.

Could he be impeached, not convicted, win reelection, be impeached again and removed by a new Democratic Senate?

[unblock]

8. There's no limit on the number of times someone can be impeached

Obviously, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this as the question has never come up, but they generally stay away from meddling in the procedures of congress, so it's unlikely they would impose any concept of "double jeopardy".

Even if they did, the house could always tweak the charges and find different grounds for impeachment.

All that said, it takes 67 senate votes to remove, so even if we have a majority, we would still need a good number of republicans.

[kentuck]

10. But what they lied about...?

...may be more interesting?

[Volaris]

12. If those 20 repub senators took the dirty money and there are charges for

Money laundering AND conspiracy?

They'll throw him from office and into a prison cell to save their own asses.

IF those 2 charges exist.