I'm pretty sure a president can be indicted while in office but can't be PROSECUTED

[Baltimike]

while in office.

I am also pretty sure there are also some sealed indictments already.

[marylandblue]

1. No settled law on indictment or prosecution of Presidents, only opinions.

Long term sealed indictments are discouraged by DOJ policy and the courts. They are mostly used if a suspect can't be apprehended right away and might disappear if they knew they were indicted. Assange might have a sealed indictment against him because US law can't reach him right now. But I don't think anyone else meets that criteria.

[hlthe2b]

7. Yes... People can cite their opinions all they want on that. It is NOT settled law at all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It's bound to go to the Supreme Court

and be the subject of law review articles for years to come.

All sorts of fun questions might come up:

-Sealed indictments usually don't get unsealed until they arrest the target. So would they bust his ugly orange ass at 12:01 on January 20? If so, can I watch?

-Most federal crimes have a five-year statute of limitations. Some of Tiny's likely crimes (money laundering, etc.) were committed before he became president. Can he be indicted for those crimes while he is president to prevent the statute of limitations from running before he leaves office?

-What effect would impeachment proceedings have on a trial that takes place after Tiny gets 86'd out of the White House, assuming that happens? Is impeachment trial evidence admissible in a criminal trial?

-If a court won't issue a sealed indictment, what effect on a possible impeachment would a public indictment have? What if, once Tiny knew he'd been indicted, he fired everybody related to the prosecution and replaced them with his stooges?

[J_William_Ryan]

3. The reason why

there’s no precedent or guidance for this is because the Framers expected the impeachment process to be used to remove a president from office accused of criminal wrongdoing.

Once removed from office he could then be subject to criminal prosecution.

The Founders had it all worked out – unfortunately, we the people are too ignorant to realize that.

[NewJeffCT]

8. then why is Congress specifically exempted from prosecution

for acts done as a member of Congress, but not the president?

The Founders also likely never expected a Congress that would utterly fail in its "checks and balances" duty, either.

[marylandblue]

11. They are only exempted for official actions or speeches on the chamber floor

This was to allow them to speak and act freely in their official duties. But many Congresspeople have been prosecuted for bribery and campaign finance violations. It's about to happen to Duncan Hunter.

[duforsure]

4. If a President can be gone after for a civil matter,

He should also be gone after for criminal matters also, just like everyone else. HE is not above the rule of law, and the judicial system. I do think that'll eventually be determined , and officially be allowed like civil matters are in court.

[Vinca]

5. The "no indictment" thing is a rule. It's not in the Constitution and is not a law.

The thought seems to be that it would take too much time for a POTUS to prepare a criminal defense and would harm the country. Trump has no defense to this since he spends most of his time either golfing or watching television. He's got plenty of time on his hands. No one is above the law.

[marylandblue]

9. "Takes too much time" was also not a thing in 1789

The President's job was much less demanding, everything moved slower, but trials were generally short and had little of today's procedural maneuvering.

Preparing for a court trial would have been less time consuming than preparing for impeachment.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Trump has shattered so many norms and unwritten rules

that he may need to be stopped by the good guys breaking some "unwritten" rules like that.

DoJ rules are not laws, they are the opinions of legal staff of DoJ at the time - under Nixon, it was a Republican appointee of Nixon making that opinion. And, under Clinton, it was a Democratic appointee of Clinton, Janet Reno, who ultimately reaffirmed that rule.

[Autumn]

6. So it's good to be the king? We don't have one of those "rules" in the constitution..

[Hortensis]

15. Agree, and we need this argument settled once

and for all to put the fear of the people into these scumbuckets. Special circumstances should be involved when considering prosecution of a president, of course, but absolutely no one is above the law.

Btw, we have no law against a convicted criminal being president, even if in prison. There would be difficulties fulfilling the duties, but perhaps the court would agree to public service and/or serving a delayed sentence instead.

[bdamomma]

12. I wish he would

just get arrested, he illegally obtained the presidency and committed treason.

[LiberalFighter]

13. It is only a DOJ policy.

There is nothing in the Constitution that exempts or prohibits the President from being prosecuted.

[Adrahil]

14. I can't see anything in the Constitution that prevents indictment OR prosecution. NT

I think the framers imagined a Congress with integrity that would remove a criminal President who would then be prosecuted, if the impeachable offense were also a crime.

But there is nothing I can see which precludes the prosecution of a sitting President.