Former Watergate Counsel Argues Trump Can Be Indicted

[marylandblue]

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=.e9a527e59fed

[SHRED]

1. I can't believe this is even a debate

Strange days indeed.

[marylandblue]

2. I can't believe it either

But here we are.

[Nevernose]

3. SCOTUSs decision is all that matters

And we can safely assume where they would stand.

Otherwise, I don’t see why — based on SCOTUS’s own precedent that the Executive can be civilly sued for actions occurring before the presidency — that a president couldn’t be indicted and tried. As long as the SENTENCE didn’t happen unt afterward.

In reality, even with a friendly court, this would be a terrible precedent to set. Can you imagine how many “crimes” a black president would have committed by now?

(There are statutes and precedents, by the way, for criminally prosecuting a sitting executive, although not an American president)

[marylandblue]

4. Well, nothing about Trump's presidency is a good precedent for anything

But if a president were in fact legitimately prosecuted and convicted, do you really think it makes sense to have a convicted felon running the country?

[Nevernose]

5. I want to vomit most days

And most of the time. Please do t put pro-Trump words in my mouth.

I’m just saying that’s the reason we got Gorsuch, besides the GOP, is that we changed the rules because of the GOP’s obstructionism.

They’re greedy and dumb, but they’re cunning at “the game.” Probably because they have no morals. Democrats are the ones who refuse to steal from the bank, even when they’re the banker and the asshole that everybody secretly hates went to go pee.

[L. Coyote]

6. K & R

[Gothmog]

7. I also believe that trump is subject being indicted