General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere does the DOJ get the policy that a president can't be charged with a crime
while in office?????
He can be impeached for high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Crimes can be part and parcel of imipeachment. Something isn't square here.
elleng
(130,895 posts)and the thought a president can't be charged with a crime comes from a 'policy' adopted by DoJ from a legal memorandum from some years ago, 'just' a legal memo, not a 'law.'
https://fortune.com/2019/05/30/indict-a-sitting-president-doj-policy/
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)for a crime.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Has never been tested in the Supreme Court.
RockRaven
(14,966 posts)Nixon's hand-picked sycophants AND Clinton's both wrote different memos saying similar things.
And that's it. On two occasions a handful of lawyers hired by POTUS "coincidentally" decide that POTUS cannot be indicted precisely when the very POTUS which hired them was in danger of being indicted if they were to be treated like every other American citizen... Weird, huh?
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)we pulled it out of"
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)from MinnPost:
The reluctance to prosecute is derived from an extrajudicial, nonbinding, self-serving, outmoded memorandum written by second-tier personnel in the Department of Justice that has taken on an unwarranted mantle of legal probity. In fact, it is more vulnerable than venerable.
The concept stems from an opinion issued by a low-echelon lawyer in the bowels of a government body called the Office of Legal Counsel, known in the Beltway circles as the OLC. A unit within the Department of Justice (DOJ), it gives advice to the president and other executive departments, including DOJ lawyers who cant figure out the answers themselves sort of like a bench coach advising a baseball manager or a high school guidance counselor aiding an uncertain student. In some cases, the president has to approve the OLCs actions; fat chance that one would rebuke the view that the president is criminally immune while in office.
OLC staff opinions are just that: opinions of staff. They do not have any judicial imprimatur or the force of law. Views expressed by the OLC are the functional equivalent of a sign in a companys employee kitchen reminding personnel to stack dirty dishes and utensils in the dishwasher; they are precatory but hardly compulsory outside of that room or binding upon others who might be idling there.
- more -
yonder
(9,664 posts)It's not codified law, just policy adopted and reaffirmed by DOJ memos. I don't get it.
J_William_Ryan
(1,753 posts)The opinion is sound in the context of Article II, Section 4 if a president has committed a crime, the impeachment process is the appropriate remedy, not indictment.
The problem is the people are loathed to remove a president via the impeachment process, and the Senate is just as loathed to convict.
Understandably, citizens frustrated with a criminal president such as Trump, seek other remedies to address those criminal acts.
Last, indicting a sitting president would establish a precedent no one wants to create Republicans in particular as a future Republican president could be subject to indictment. Its the same rationale as to why the DOJ will never indict a former president.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)Its a legalese position that tries to give bones to Nixon's claim that "when the president does it, it isn't illegal".
I remember the bleating over Iran-Contra when people defended Reagan with similar word salads.
Bush/Cheney operated on it and extended the theory to the VP.
NCLefty
(3,678 posts)probably afraid to change it during a scandal for fear of being labeled "partisan" or "on a witch hunt."
In other words... apparently, no one saw this ahole coming. :p