I am not aware of anything in the Constitution which says president can't be indicted or

[Atticus]

subpoenaed. The arguments that urge that he can't be consist mostly of "BUT, HE'S THE PRESIDENT!!!"

It really isn't complicated. We have a choice of either "No man is above the law" or "When the president does it, it's not illegal".

Don't know about you, but if it comes to that, I'll be in the street.

[tazkcmo]

1. I'll be with you

But I might need a ride!

[RainCaster]

2. When the Pres was a Dem there was never a question

So why do we even ask that now?

[Atticus]

3. IOKIYAR! nt

[former9thward]

7. Yes, there was.

It was Bill Clinton's DOJ that said a president could not be indicted.

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/08/14/indicting-president-president-clintons-justice-department-says-no

[GeorgeGist]

8. Last I checked, the DOJ doesn't make those decisions ...

the SCOTUS does.

[Adrahil]

9. In this case, the DOJ makes the decision....

Rod Rosenstein would have to approve any indictment.

[shanny]

10. SCOTUS does not make any decisions until cases arrive at their doorstep

which generally happens after there are disagreements between lower courts. This has never been tested in practice so there is no case to decide one way or the other. So yeah, actually, the decision would be with DOJ, for now.

[marylandblue]

4. Yup, that's pretty much the choice

All of the people arguing otherwise are either basing themselves on one of two things. Either, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel opinions under Nixon and Clinton, which both may have been designed to protect the President against possible indictments. Or they are pedantic legal scholars who are only looking at it theoretically, rather the way a court would look at Trump.

A court would look at Trump and see that Trump is accused of serious republic-busting crimes, and his lawyer is arguing that the Judiciary as coequal to the Executive can't do anything about it? I don't see any court going for that. Nixon's own lawyer refused to own it in court, saying "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”

[RockRaven]

5. DOJ memos/opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt anyway

Bush lackey Yoo wrote memos saying torture was legal. Obama admin didn't think so.

They reflect the attitude of the administration (or their peons) at that time, not precedence from the judiciary.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. The essential lesson of Watergate was that no one is above the law.

Not even the President.

That lesson has been large forgotten since then, but it still is true.