There needs to be a major legal discussion about whether a sitting US president can be indicted.

[MoonRiver]

And I don't mean impeached. I'm wondering if Mueller can actually charge and try Chump for his crimes. I hear differing opinions in the media, and believe this issue should be resolved asap by prominent legal scholars.

[The_jackalope]

1. As I understand it, the question can't be resolved by scholars

There are respected scholars on both sides. The ultimate resolution will have to be in the courts - i.e. try it and see what happens.

[MoonRiver]

3. I don't mean an ultimate decision. But we do need a major debate about the issue.

I, for one, am confused and would like input from the experts.

[Hortensis]

7. There's been so much written about this, MoonRiver.

That major debate has taken place and continues--in written form. The screen simply cannot compete with reading for information. Never could, never did, never will.

[MoonRiver]

10. Should have stated PUBLIC discussion/debate.

A lot of us can't read legalese. But this question keeps coming up, and simple clarifications would be appreciated.

[Hortensis]

14. With you on legalese, but all the major journals have researched and

reported on the current state of knowledge in lay terms, no need to struggle through the dense discussions. Understand your feelings for what would be happening in a better world full of thoughtful, concerned, honest citizens. But even they would not decide anything. That's for our high courts.
As for the issue, here it is: Look at this little thing! That's the Constitution, and some of the back pages may be explanation (my old pocket one was half explanation). There are a lot of situations that aren't clearly addressed under existing law. That's why Jberryhill's right that we wait for the courts to decide, if it happens under Trump. And then we will know their DECISIONS on the matter, which are notably not the same as new truths, but they are the last word for usually some while.

By the way, if you are interested in reading the discussions in subscription journals that allow a few free articles, only you used up yours for this month already, you could try accessing them through an "incognito window." At least that's what Google Chrome calls it.

[CurtEastPoint]

16. Hillsdale...the conservative one the tax bill favored

[onenote]

33. It's not a simple legal issue and "simple" clarifications don't exist.

Short of: Some argue a president can be indicted, some argue that a president can be indicted under some circumstances, and some argue a president can't be indicted under any circumstances. By definition, distinguishing these situations requires "legalese."

[sofa king]

18. No need to try and see; we have a precedent.

531 US 98 (2000)

[The_jackalope]

21. That's not a criminal indictment of a sitting President. nt

[sofa king]

22. No, it's our bullshit government doing whatever the fuck the Republicans want.

That's the operational precedent in this case. And it will stick, and they will get away with everything.

[Nevernose]

23. You forgot the most important part

You’re not allowed to use that case as precedent. WestLaw had to make up an entirely new notation for it, because it goes against hundreds, if not thousands, of years of legal logic and tradition.

[sofa king]

25. I can use it as much as I wish.

Only American lawyers are forbidden from citing it as a precedent. American citizens are free to observe that it worked entirely and exclusively for the GOP, and all of us are worse off for it, too.

It works every time, and it's a brilliant predictive model of the future, too: Republicans will always win because they know that they can pervert the letter and spirit of the law to do and get away with whatever they wish.

So if you think that this Republican Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive Branch are going to allow themselves to be harmed by their criminal behavior, Bush v. Gore is right there to tell you that you are completely incorrect, and always will be.

[Nevernose]

26. I was just pointing out how insane it was

No need to be so literal. Sheesh.

[sofa king]

28. Sorry I'm so snippy.

I really hacks me off to see this bullshit happening again, as it has happened my entire life. A criminal Republican uses hate and racism to get into the White House, hands off half of America's wealth to the fabulously wealthy, crashes the economy, and hands things off to a Democrat to let the fleece grow back on the sheep. Then they do it again, and again, and again, and now again, and because they learned their lessons so well the first time, they always get away with it now.

It's so large and so obvious and so painfully repetitive that I'm pretty much fed up with it.

[Cicada]

2. Simpler to vote him out

[MoonRiver]

4. I would rather not take the chance that he could cheat his way into another term.

It's also just too long to wait. Can't imagine the damage that maniac could do between now and 2020.

[Cicada]

15. I dont like the precedent jailing a President would set

The Republicans would then jail a democratic president, on and on. I think almost all presidents break laws. JFK on his first day authorized assassination of a foreign official. That’s murder. Torturing Guantanamo prisoners is a crime. Clinton obstructed Justice in the Paula Jones case. Reagan approved cocaine smuggling.

Would we be better off if we could remove Presidents with criminal laws rather than votes? I don’t think so. I think that would lead to a loss of faith in our government which would have horrible consequences. Crimes should be punished but not if the costs exceed the value of punishing the criminal. We let a criminal go free into witness protection to achieve a higher goal. Waiving prosecution to achieve a higher goal is sometimes justified.

[Kentonio]

30. Or how about just set a standard that presidents aren't above the law?

Why shouldn't presidents be arrested for murder or torture? Why should they be allowed to commit horrific acts and then hide behind their office?

[Cicada]

32. Because they are going to get away with murder anyway, prosecuting them will not work

It is not possible to prosecute Bush for torture, not possible to prosecute JFK for murdering foreign officials, not possible to prosecute Dick Cheney for lying about Iraq having a nuclear bomb program. Our political system is incapable of punishing them, incapable of preventing those crimes except by voting them out of office. That is just the reality of our political system. The only practical way we have of restraining those crimes is by voting. If we jail Bush and JFK then we will screw up the good things they do while failing to actually prevent the bad things. We will cut off our nose to spite our face. The only practically effective way to stop these crimes is political, not criminal. Going criminal will just make things worse. Look at the experience of other countries when they start jailing political opponents. The ability of government to improve lives gets worse, not better.

[Kentonio]

36. The system is not incapable of punishing them

The method for doing so is written into the constitution. Politicians choose not to punish them, and we go along with it. It doesn't have to be that way.

[L. Coyote]

5. And the best way to start is to indict one.

[Zoonart]

6. Talked to a prominent local lawyer about

this yesterday and his take was that Rump's main problem is that he is likely to be indicted for crimes committed before he became president... during the campaign, and during the transition in the case of collusion. Also, the cases involving money laundering that could come from the State of NY and encompassing years well before the run for the presidency. The Presidency cannot be used as a get out of jail free card for acts committed before the oath of office. Just his opinion.

[MoonRiver]

8. Does that mean he thinks Chump CAN be indicted?

[Zoonart]

12. He thinks yes.

He feels that the charges will NOT stem from obstruction, which he feels is problematic in terms of prosecution, but rather the collusion case and events before he took the oath of office.

[MoonRiver]

13. Cool!

[PunksMom]

11. Exactly!

[jberryhill]

9. There's only one discussion that matters

"this issue should be resolved asap by prominent legal scholars"

That's not how legal issues get resolved.

On a given issue, legal scholars can put together a set of good reasons for why a question should be resolved one way or another way, and what factual circumstances might cause it to come out one way or the other.

But on what is called a "case of first impression" - i.e. a court hasn't gotten ahold of it before - then the bottom line is whatever five people in robes are going to agree on.

Practically every lawyer has seen this dynamic in action. Occasionally, in an erupting legal dispute, you run into a lawyer, usually a fairly inexperienced one, who seems to want to argue some proposition in correspondence with you. The typical run of events is that one of my clients gets a legal nastygram threatening some sort of action, I write back and give that lawyer several reasons why their dog won't hunt, and then that lawyer sends me a reply with a bunch of arguments the other way. I used to get sucked into that sort of thing, but these days I'm more inclined to say, "Hey, how about we do this in front of someone who can decide who wins?"

[J_William_Ryan]

17. Impeachment is the correct process,

with Trump being prosecuted as a private citizen.

The problem is a partisan Republican Congress.

[Lurks Often]

19. Probably not for Federal crimes committed while in office

My comments apply to any President

For state crimes committed before or during being in office, it is likely the charges would be held in abeyance until the person leaves office.
For Federal crimes committed before being in office, it is likely the charges would be held in abeyance until the person leaves office.

Anything aside from the above will end up before SCOTUS. As an aside, does anyone really think the Secret Service would allow ANYONE to arrest Trump and take him into custody without their consent, which would require a SCOTUS decision?

Any Federal crimes committed while in office would require impeachment and conviction in Congress.

[Codeine]

20. Why? It isn't going to happen regardless.

Wasting time on fantasy scenarios makes little sense.

[Nevernose]

24. The answer would be from SCOTUS

And it would be the only discussion that ultimately mattered.

I’d argue that if a president can be sued for a civil matter occurring before she took office, then she could be indicted and maybe even tried for crimes occurring before office. I don’t think she could actually be sentenced. Also, in my world all presidents after 2016 are “shes.”

But Judges Thomas and Gorsuch will do whatever they want, and it’s really kind of a bad precedent. For instance, Sheriff Arpaio would have had Obama in court every five minutes for Arpaio’s lunacy, at least if he could have gotten a prosecutor to go along with it.

[bench scientist]

31. But the standards for civil suits vs. criminal indictments are very different

So your argument makes no legal sense.

[democratisphere]

27. It will ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court Room.

[marylandblue]

29. It will be decided in the Supreme Court

And for those worried about a president being dragged into court for political reasons, our main protection against malicious prosecution in any sphere is an independent judiciary. It's also our main protection against tyranny. A decision by the SCOTUS that a president can violate the law with impunity as long as Congress lets him is the end of the independent judiciary and the end of the Republic. And they know it. I don't think the SCOTUS is ready to go there...yet. If Trump gets more appointees on the court, maybe it will be different, but for now, no.

See also this article by a former Watergate counsel:

...The principal argument in favor of presidential immunity is that the president, as chief executive, is the officer ultimately responsible to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, for the government to pursue a criminal indictment of the president would be like the president prosecuting himself.

The argument is misguided. In England, it used to be said that “the king can do no wrong.” Indeed, when the Colonies declared independence, English prosecutions were in the name of the king — Rex v. Smith, for example. But the Founders rejected the tradition of royal supremacy. In writing the Constitution, they created a limited immunity for members of Congress protecting them against — but only against — prosecution for “speeches or debates” during congressional proceedings. By contrast, the Constitution is silent on any comparable immunity for the president.

In fact, in the Nixon tapes case, the Supreme Court rejected essentially the same point that Trump supporters are making. There Nixon argued that, as chief executive overseeing enforcement of the federal laws, he was not subject to demands by the special prosecutor that the president produce evidence sought by the prosecutor. The court unanimously upheld the fundamental constitutional principle that no person is above the law, and even the president is subject to the ordinary obligations and prohibitions of federal law applicable to everyone else. The caption of the case says it all: United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States...




https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-a-president-can-be-indicted-the-nixon-tapes-case-proves-it/2017/12/07/26339e32-db4d-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.4ee7191b0ddc

[VermontKevin]

34. Already resolved by Ken Starr. Yes.

[randr]

35. Two of the things that make America great

Anyone can grow up to be the President

No one is above the law.