Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can a Sitting President be Indicted?

    This issue keeps getting tossed around, for example, to explain why Mueller didn't indict, or call for the indictment of, Trump.

    Here's an example of the argument....

    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    How many times do you need to read the Mueller report before your able understand that he, according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president.
    A) There is ZERO "Justice dept. law [sic]" addressing the issue - if this is incorrect, please cite the statute
    2) There is, apparently, a Justice Department POLICY
    c) The Constitution is silent on the matter.

    Even Eric Holder, Obama's unelected wing man, expresses doubt that a sitting president can NOT be indicted.



    So, aside from opinion, can somebody provide CASE LAW to positively state that a POTUS can NOT be indicted?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    Edited by a Moderator

    Moderated By: DesertBerean

    Argument by weblink not allowed

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-10-2019, 06:48 PM.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      This issue keeps getting tossed around, for example, to explain why Mueller didn't indict, or call for the indictment of, Trump.

      Here's an example of the argument....



      A) There is ZERO "Justice dept. law [sic]" addressing the issue - if this is incorrect, please cite the statute
      2) There is, apparently, a Justice Department POLICY
      c) The Constitution is silent on the matter.

      Even Eric Holder, Obama's unelected wing man, expresses doubt that a sitting president can NOT be indicted.



      So, aside from opinion, can somebody provide CASE LAW to positively state that a POTUS can NOT be indicted?
      The other issue is that there is no rule that would have prevented Mueller from plainly stating if he thought the President had committed a crime or recommending indictment.

      Furthermore, Barr said in his letter to Congress that "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

      So really, this whole issue is moot.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Edited by a Moderator

        A) That's argument by weblink, which is a no-no
        2) I specifically asked for somebody to cite case law, not just another opinion.

        But thanks for trying - always good to see you around.
        Last edited by DesertBerean; 05-10-2019, 06:51 PM.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          This issue keeps getting tossed around, for example, to explain why Mueller didn't indict, or call for the indictment of, Trump.

          Here's an example of the argument....



          A) There is ZERO "Justice dept. law [sic]" addressing the issue - if this is incorrect, please cite the statute
          2) There is, apparently, a Justice Department POLICY
          c) The Constitution is silent on the matter.

          Even Eric Holder, Obama's unelected wing man, expresses doubt that a sitting president can NOT be indicted.



          So, aside from opinion, can somebody provide CASE LAW to positively state that a POTUS can NOT be indicted?
          Do you know of a sitting President that was indicted?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Do you know of a sitting President that was indicted?
            Ah, the ignorant "because something has not yet happened is proof that it cannot happen" argument!

            Here, lemme help you out... what you actually said was....

            he, according to the Justice dept. law, can not charge/indict a sitting president.
            What law? Or are you prepared to admit there isn't one.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Ah, the ignorant "because something has not yet happened is proof that it cannot happen" argument!

              Here, lemme help you out... what you actually said was....



              What law? Or are you prepared to admit there isn't one.
              Jim just says whatever it takes to make himself sound authoritative, but never backs it up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Ah, the ignorant "because something has not yet happened is proof that it cannot happen" argument!
                You asked a question, I gave you the answer you should have easily figured out all by yourself. How could there be case law, if there has never been such a case?
                Here, lemme help you out... what you actually said was....



                What law? Or are you prepared to admit there isn't one.
                The policy is the law of the Justice dept. Why do you think they have that policy, just for the fun of it! Mueller was following Justice Dept. policy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  You asked a question, I gave you the answer you should have easily figured out all by yourself. How could there be case law, if there has never been such a case?
                  Well, I'm not the one who said "according to the Justice dept. law" when no such law exists. That was you, JimmyPoo.

                  The policy is the law of the Justice dept.
                  No. That's just stupid. Policy is NOT law.

                  Why do you think they have that policy, just for the fun of it! Mueller was following Justice Dept. policy.
                  Jimmy, honey, when you say something really stupid, it's best not to double down and say even stupider stuff. Tassman wants so badly to think you're smarter than that.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    You asked a question, I gave you the answer you should have easily figured out all by yourself. How could there be case law, if there has never been such a case?


                    The policy is the law of the Justice dept. Why do you think they have that policy, just for the fun of it! Mueller was following Justice Dept. policy.
                    That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Policy is not law. And you still haven't shown the law that says a sitting President can't be indicted. Nor any policy to that effect.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Policy is not law. And you still haven't shown the law that says a sitting President can't be indicted. Nor any policy to that effect.
                      The poor boy screwed up badly with his "according to the Justice dept. law" nuttery, and just doesn't have the good sense to admit it and move on.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Policy is not law. And you still haven't shown the law that says a sitting President can't be indicted. Nor any policy to that effect.
                        Nor is there any policy that would have prevented the special counsel from unambiguously stating that the president had committed a crime and recommending to his boss, the AG, that the president be indicted.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Nor is there any policy that would have prevented the special counsel from unambiguously stating that the president had committed a crime and recommending to his boss, the AG, that the president be indicted.
                          If it were policy that a president could not be indicted, then why did they have an investigation in the first place? They just wasted 2 years and 35 Million dollars.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            If it were policy that a president could not be indicted, then why did they have an investigation in the first place? They just wasted 2 years and 35 Million dollars.
                            If there was clear proof that a crime had been committed then the AG could inform congress who could seek impeachment and removal from office, and then the former president could be indicted. But this is all a moot point as far as Trump is concerned because Mueller himself said that he could not conclude that the President had committed any crimes, and Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials affirmed this finding.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Policy is not law. And you still haven't shown the law that says a sitting President can't be indicted. Nor any policy to that effect.
                              Policy is law as far as those who are bound by it is concerned. You guys just want to play semantical games in order to protect the villainous traitor you adore.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              50 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              234 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              190 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              313 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X