Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

shraby

(21,946 posts)
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 12:28 AM Sep 2019

Where 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.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

elleng

(130,895 posts)
1. 'Charged with a crime' is very different from being impeached,
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 12:33 AM
Sep 2019

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)
9. But the President's attorneys also argued in the court case that he can't even be INVESTIGATED
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 04:34 AM
Sep 2019

for a crime.

RockRaven

(14,966 posts)
3. A bunch of lawyers working for the POTUS write a memo saying so & it becomes binding DOJ policy.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 12:37 AM
Sep 2019

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?

5. Who says a president can't be indicted? The OLC only, that's who
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 01:19 AM
Sep 2019

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 can’t 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 OLC’s 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 company’s 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)
6. I've had the same question.
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 01:25 AM
Sep 2019

It's not codified law, just policy adopted and reaffirmed by DOJ memos. I don't get it.

J_William_Ryan

(1,753 posts)
7. Well...
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 01:42 AM
Sep 2019

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. It’s the same rationale as to why the DOJ will never indict a former president.

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
10. Look up the Unitary Executive theory
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 04:51 AM
Sep 2019

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)
11. It's a "memo." But Barr certainly isn't going to modify it. And the other recent directors were
Thu Sep 26, 2019, 05:02 AM
Sep 2019

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Where does the DOJ get th...