Is There Any Chance That The Dems Could Mount A Challenge To - You Can't Indict A Sitting.....

[global1]

president?

It just makes me sick that Trump can commit crimes and get away with them under the cover of the presidency.

I don't know if it's possible - but is there a way that the Dems could challenge this 'can't indict a sitting president' rule.

Help me here - this is just an interpretation and not a law or not written into the Constitution.

Even if it's a long shot to challenge this. I think the Dems should go for it. We can't have this guy continue to give us that smug look like he's laughing at us because he knows he getting away with no consequences.

[mopinko]

1. i suspect they would need to pass a new law, tho, yeah, it's bs.

not sure how else you get rid of it.

[drray23]

4. It's not a law, just a justice department opinion

Meaning it can be reversed any time by the AG ( obviously Barr wont do that) and I think can be challenged in court. I guess somebody would have to defy the justice department rules and indict anyway. I imagine this would go to courts for resolution.

[bluestarone]

2. AGREE

NO ONE should be above the law!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It would probably have to be a court decision in order to stick.

Right now it's just an opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, which isn't the law but has been the accepted policy of the DoJ since the '70s. The current OLC isn't about to change its mind. Since the opinion addresses a question of constitutionality, if a statute were to be passed by Congress (and good luck getting that through the Senate and signed by Trump) it would be challenged in the courts, and the ultimate decision would be made by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure we want this court deciding the issue. But the short answer is that the Democrats can't do anything about it.

[at140]

5. Your realistic appraisal of issues is admirable!

You obviously use both your brain and heart.

[drray23]

6. Would it trigger a court review if a prosecutor

Defied/ignored the justice department policies and indicted anyway ?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Probably.

[jberryhill]

11. The prosecutor would be fired

And the DoJ would withdraw the case.

[StarfishSaver]

12. True. But a state prosecutor could trigger a court challenge by indicting him

[jberryhill]

18. ...which would raise different issues

The questions of whether "can a sitting president be indicted by a state prosecutor" versus "can a sitting president be indicted by a federal prosecutor" raise distinct issues. In the federal context, it is a separation of powers issue. In the state context, it is a federalism issue.

If you want a sitting president to be indictable by a state prosecutor, then you are opening up a real can of worms. Tell me, with a straight face, that you wanted the AG of Alabama to have had the power to lock up Barack Obama.

[StarfishSaver]

21. I never said I want a state prosecutor to indict a president

I simply noted that a state indictment of the president would trigger a challenge to the assumption that that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

[jberryhill]

22. Indeed it would

[StarfishSaver]

23. They're discussing a state prosecutor indicting a president on Lawrence O'Donnell right now

Interesting discussion - check it out if you can.

[Karadeniz]

7. I'm confused! I thought the supreme court ruled that Clinton could be indicted and that's why

He taped a deposition.

?????

It's senseless that it's against protocol. How does it work that an indictment would interfere with a presidents performing its job...impeachment doesn't?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. The Clinton v. Jones decision was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution.

Big difference. Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment that she claimed happened while Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. The Supreme Court ruled that the separation of powers doctrine does not require that private civil lawsuits against a president have to be delayed until he is out of office. The OLC memos, however, addressed only the question of whether a president could be criminally prosecuted.

[hlthe2b]

8. They'd have to either revive the old Special Prosecutor statute (Kenn Starr era) and

appoint an SP to act upon Mueller's findings, which won't happen because it would not get through the Senate. But, if they could, a Ken Starr-type Special Prosecutor would have the autonomy (regardless of DOJ) to bring charges and it would wind its way up to the SCOTUS.

[uponit7771]

17. +1,

[unblock]

13. The courts won't rule on that until a president is actually indicted.

This doj clearly won't let that happen, though it is possible he could be indicted at the state level.

[Firestorm49]

14. The Dems could do a lot if they had control.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. And if my aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart.

Even if the Dems had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency they'd still have to deal with this Supreme Court.

[jberryhill]

19. Wouldn't it be cool to have an aunt who is a pastry cart, though?

If she's got baklava, I want to be adopted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Her wheels are wobbly because she's 93, and all she's got is

skolebrød and bløtkake.

[moondust]

16. OLC memo's justification

seems pretty weak:

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Um, they know there's a Vice President and a line of succession, right? Isn't it his/her job to step in and maintain "the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in the absence of the President?