Democrats To Pursue Law Change So Trump Can Be Indicted In Office

[babylonsister]

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/22/trump-indicted-office.html


Posted on Sun, Sep 22nd, 2019 by Jason Easley
Democrats To Pursue Law Change So Trump Can Be Indicted In Office


Rep. Kathrine Clark (D-MA) said that House Democrats are going to pursue changing the law so that a sitting president can be indicted while in office.

Rev. Al Sharpton asked Rep. Clark on MSNBC, “Speaker Pelosi has said there needs to be laws also that deals with this whole policy of the justice department that you can’t indict a sitting president. Is there something that you think the congress will pursue since your caucus is the majority now in the House?”

Rep. Clark answered, “I think that we will. I think we all have read the Mueller report, and we saw that there were many, many pieces of evidence there and how this president allowed Russia to interfere with our 2016 election and then tried to obstruct that investigation. But the Department of Justice is saying, we can’t indict a sitting president. Nobody should be allowed to use the white house and the powers of the presidency as a monarchy and not as a duly elected president who takes an oath to faithfully execute our laws. We’ve not seen that from this president, and we have to make sure that we safeguard our constitution, our very democracy, from this president and any other president in the future who may try and put himself or herself above the law.”

Link to tweet

An indictment would be more effective than impeachment because we all know that in practical terms impeachment carries no punishment for Donald Trump. A criminal indictment would put the fear of God into Donald Trump and any other future president who might want to emulate Trump’s behavior in the future. If the goal is to both punish Trump while making sure that this sort of presidency never happens again, changing the law so that a sitting president can be indicted is the best option.

[wasupaloopa]

1. Trump can't wait to sign that one.

[CaptYossarian]

3. He won't see it if MoscowMitch kills it.

[FakeNoose]

16. He'll pass it to take down the next POTUS, not the current one

We all know the next POTUS will be a Dem.

By the way, any new law that gets passed now won't be retroactive anyway.

[Zoonart]

2. It was my understanding that

This is not law. It is a judicial opinion that has been adhered to up to now.

[3catwoman3]

7. I think you are correct about that, and I further think...

...that such a judicial opinion, or whatever the hell it is, is complete bullshit! Should not a president of the United States be held to the highest standards in the land, rather than be exempt from any and all standards?

[Zoonart]

10. Absolutely.

[not_the_one]

15. somebody "mused" in a memo...

and we are stuck with the turd because that "musing" is now the equivalent of the secrets of the universe written in stone, by DOG himself.

[rampartc]

28. +1 it is not even a judicial opinion

it is a memo from some doj official that has never been tested in court.

[drray23]

4. thats stupid.

we already have the constitution and powers of impeachment. use that. I can see it coming a mile away. They pass that law, Trump does not sign it. Next president is a democrat and he/she signs it. Next thing you know, the republicans turn around and abuse that law to indict the dem president.

[leftstreet]

8. +1

:eye:

[shraby]

5. To make it a law that a sitting president can be indicted takes the house AND senate and

be signed by the president.
How would they manage that? With a magic wand?

[Voltaire2]

6. So we can't impeach because the senate won't convict

but we instead should propose legislation that can’t pass the senate.

Got it. They think we are idiots.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

9. Thoughts and prayers!

[lostnfound]

11. Way to create the perception that you absolutely CAN'T indict. Nt

[Autumn]

12. How? nt

[Vinca]

13. There's no law that says he can't. It's a rule. I was really surprised when Mueller actually said

it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. It's a rule crafted by a man who never expected it to become some kind of standard for all presidents.

[RainCaster]

14. What he said!

No need for a new law, just a need for correct interpretation of the laws we have.

Too bad we can get that from our partisan SCOTUS.

[Rainbow Droid]

17. An infallible narcissist cannot, in fact, fear God. By definition. The "thing" doesn't matter.

Not only are they God unto themselves (at least within their own minds), they cannot even fear that God (by extension of fearing self) because, wait for it... they are incapable of error.

It's like turtles all the way down except instead of turtles its just madness. Madness all the way down.

[Maven]

19. Pointless.

This legislation is already DOA. Like every other bill passed by Congressional Dems. And it's unnecessary. Nothing in the Constitution shields the President from indictment.

In fact, this bill is not just pointless, it's damaging, in that it reinforces the false notion that a change in the law is needed to indict.

WTF are they doing?

[bucolic_frolic]

20. A DOJ opinion about a rule is not a law

One idea surrounding the rule is that the President mustn't be interrupted while carrying out his duties. Republicans would have sued Obama for every little thing they could imagine.

But impeachment is certainly allowable, and monopolizes the President's time and fills his calendar. So much for that angle.

So they must be thinking they can overcome the DOJ opinion that made the rule by arguing the rule is invalid because it enables monarchy or dictatorship, putting the president above the law. If successful, it's just a hop skip and jump to home plate if his tax returns are ever released and shown to be made of swiss cheese.

How do they do this? Aren't some appeals made directly to the Supreme Court where one specific Justice rules for specific regions and states? I don't think it's just for death row stays of execution. Seems to me a Justice will sometimes give an opinion on this or that, and it has the rule of law.

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

Amazing they don't mention extortion, but Trump sure lights the lamps in this list.

[dalton99a]

26. +1

[Jake Stern]

21. Really haven't thought this through, eh Katherine?

Wonder how long it’ll take for some ultra-conservative prosecutor to use this law to get a grand jury in someplace like Tennessee to indict a Dem president?

What we have now is imperfect but are you sure the solution is to hand that kind of power to the other side?

[bucolic_frolic]

23. If they can do it, use it now

or there will never be another Democratic president. You do what you have to do, and clean up the detritus with more opinons, cases, and rules.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

22. This is BS. If they COULD indict someone, they could indict Rudy tomorrow.

Link to tweet

But they CANNOT indict someone, because Trump and Barr control all federal prosecutors.

So there is no point.

There is one remedy for a lawless President. It is impeachment. Do your job.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. But we don't have the votes in the Senate - shouldn't we just give up?

[EveHammond13]

25. can they do this without the Senate or the DOJ

[SCVDem]

27. Ex Post Facto

After the fact.

Would that apply?

[beachbumbob]

30. No law exist that prevents a sitting president from being indicted

[StarfishSaver]

31. Another alternative is a law that tolls the statute of limitations during the president's term

That way they don't have to get into a constitutional question of whether it's constitutional to indict a sitting president. If the statute is tolled - suspended - during his term, he couldn't use his presidency to run out the clock and could be indicted upon leaving office.

[Ilsa]

33. I think that is absolutely necessary.

Stop the clock on the statute of limitations for any crimes in a sealed indictment.

[StarfishSaver]

36. An indictment tolls the statute

As long as he's indicted before the statute runs out, we're fine, even if the indictment is sealed it is not tried until after he leaves office. The problem is when the statute of limitations sets a deadline for when an indictment can be filed but he's protected from indictment by virtue of his position until after that deadline passes. Stopping the clock during the pendency of a presidency would take care of that.

[Ilsa]

37. Thanks for the explanation. nt

[LudwigPastorius]

32. Uh..who has to sign the bill into law? n/t

[Maven]

35. Who has to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate?

This is an insult to our intelligence

[Pepsidog]

34. Wouldn't Trump need to sign a law like this? Subpoenas are not being enforced let alone a new law.

[dweller]

38. fuk it

put it to a vote and on the front pages daily

Dems want a vote,
repugs vote it down... let that simmer...

next Dem president, and NO INDICTMENTS, full repug vote... fuggitaboutit ...

remember?

✌🏼