Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

[JimL]

Thanks. but a link would be nice.

And it wasn't an OLC rule. It was an legal opinion. An opinion. It isn't policy. or law.

I found this:

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm
---
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

Correct, and that is the policy of the Dept of Justice of whom Mueller is an employee and by which he made his decision to leave the report and the underlying evidence for Congress to examine and conclude on. I understand that none of you care much about transparency in government so long as your thieving traitor is in office, but you're in the minority, and if the total report ever gets out from under the continued obstruction of the executive branch, not to mention the republican lemmings in Congress, you might realize how easily conned you all are.

[Cow Poke]

Correct, and that is the policy of the Dept of Justice of whom Mueller is an employee and by which he made his decision to leave the report and the underlying evidence for Congress to examine and conclude on.

Because he followed the policy, never being under the idiot impression that it was "the law".

I understand...

This always means you're about to tell a big 'un....

that none of you care much about transparency in government so long as your thieving traitor is in office, but you're in the minority, and if the total report ever gets out from under the continued obstruction of the executive branch, not to mention the republican lemmings in Congress, you might realize how easily conned you all are.

Yup -- your nose just got longer.

pinocchio-new-crop-once.gif

[JimL]

Meanwhile, I think Trump is trying to goad the Democrats in to impeaching him.

You are correct, and they will, but in their own good time. Should they do it now, like many dems think they should, the republican Senate would vote against it. They want the full report, the underlying evidence, the witness testimony, all of which the president is obstructing, and they want the american people to see for themselves what is really going on so that the corrupt and unpatriotic republicans in the Senate will think twice when it comes time for the impeachment vote. They, the president and republicans, don't want the american people to see, what ya'll already know!

[Cow Poke]

You are correct,

Always.

and they will, but in their own good time. Should they do it now, like many dems think they should, the republican Senate would vote against it.

Jimmy, try really hard to focus --- the Senate has no vote in impeachment. That's entirely done by the House. IF the House votes to impeach, THEN it goes to the Senate to vote to convict or not.

They want the full report, the underlying evidence, the witness testimony, all of which the president is obstructing, and they want the american people to see for themselves what is really going on so that the corrupt and unpatriotic republicans in the Senate will think twice when it comes time for the impeachment vote. They, the president and republicans, don't want the american people to see, what ya'll already know!

There is no obligation to give them the full report, Jimmy. In fact, they're trying to force Barr to do that which is illegal. (but you never seem to understand the law, so...)

[Sparko]

Correct, and that is the policy of the Dept of Justice of whom Mueller is an employee and by which he made his decision to leave the report and the underlying evidence for Congress to examine and conclude on. I understand that none of you care much about transparency in government so long as your thieving traitor is in office, but you're in the minority, and if the total report ever gets out from under the continued obstruction of the executive branch, not to mention the republican lemmings in Congress, you might realize how easily conned you all are.

You say "correct" and then proceed to put your foot in your mouth and show you do not understand the difference between a legal opinion, a policy and a law.

Please give us a source of this policy. If it is official policy you should be able to find link to it online.

[Tassman]

OK JimL, please city the policy that Mueller was bound by. And provide a link.

The DOJ has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller indicated that he’s not prepared to put this policy to the test and that he was erring on the side of caution. In fact the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, the SCOTUS has not directly ruled on the question.

[Sparko]

The DOJ has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller indicated that he’s not prepared to put this policy to the test and that he was erring on the side of caution. In fact the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, the SCOTUS has not directly ruled on the question.

Show me this policy.

[Mountain Man]

I think the title of this thread should be changed: "Can a sitting president be indicted when there is no evidence against him?"

[Cow Poke]

The DOJ has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller indicated that he’s not prepared to put this policy to the test and that he was erring on the side of caution. In fact the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, the SCOTUS has not directly ruled on the question.

Now, perhaps, you can explain to Jimmy the difference between a policy and a law.

[JimL]

You say "correct" and then proceed to put your foot in your mouth and show you do not understand the difference between a legal opinion, a policy and a law.

Please give us a source of this policy. If it is official policy you should be able to find link to it online.

Hey dumbell, it doesn't matter what you call it, Mueller, a DOJ employee, was following DOJ policy, and that you can't indict a sitting President is DOJ policy. The solution in the case of a criminal sitting President, is impeachment. Muellers intention, as was made clear in the report itself, was to turn it over to Congress, and Congress will eventually get it in full as they always have and perhaps then your little brains will see what a treasonous, lying, con man, you've been snookered by in Trump.

[Tassman]

Show me this policy.

Too lazy to Google it yourself, are you?

"WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY? In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted......".

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1QF1D3

[Cerebrum123]

A) I have no idea.
2) Trump will be re-elected.
III) The Wall will never be built.

Pretty much this.

[Cow Poke]

Hey dumbell, it doesn't matter what you call it....

Actually it does. A policy can easily be changed, amended, excepted or ignored by the agency or entity that created it. A law can't.

And, as usual, when you're insulting the intelligence of others, you always manage to show what an ignorant dunce you are yourself.

[JimL]

Actually it does. A policy can easily be changed, amended, excepted or ignored by the agency or entity that created it. A law can't.

And, as usual, when you're insulting the intelligence of others, you always manage to show what an ignorant dunce you are yourself.

The policy can't be changed by Mueller, ergo he followed it. And if you are too stupid to recognize that the Atty Gen. is covering up for the President by mischaracterizing the Mueller report to the public and keeping it from Congressional analysis, then that just shows what a dunce you are. More likely you are a fraud, because I don't believe you are that stupid.

[Cow Poke]

The policy can't be changed by Mueller, ergo he followed it.

A) You don't know that
2) He wouldn't have to change it, he could simply opt to ignore it or make an exception to it -- THAT is the difference between a policy and a law

And if you are too stupid to recognize that the Atty Gen. is covering up for the President by mischaracterizing the Mueller report to the public and keeping it from Congressional analysis, then that just shows what a dunce you are.

Jimmy, honey, you're doing that thing again where you're like Pee-Wee Herman calling Hulk Hogan a weakling.

More likely you are a fraud, because I don't believe you are that stupid.

Wow, I'm hurt --- the dumbest poster ever to grace the pages of Tweb thinks I'm a fraud.