I actually don't think indicting a sitting president should be allowed. How about you?

[LAS14]

I for sure think he can be indicted after he leaves office.

And he should certainly be impeached and convicted for a high crime or misdemeanor.

But indictment rests on the decisions of too few people. What if Clinton had been indicted and tried? (I, personally, don't think he lied... But that's another story).

Hoping to hear from the rest of you.

[Lithos]

1. Depends on the charge

For instance, Election tampering - yes; Rape/Murder - yes; Financial or most Civil actions, no.

It gets sticky - because what if the Statute of limitations runs out?

L-

[grantcart]

40. I agree in part

I wouldn't on the current charges of campaign finance in regards to paying off the two women.

That should trigger a Congressional Censure.

On the other hand any action that shows that he personally took decisions that would result in financial reward would.

For example his interfering with the development of the FBI campus which would set up a competing hotel next to his current one should be an impeachable offense IMO.

It seems that we already have a written trail of documents on that alone.

Obviously any collusion with a hostile foreign government would be impeachable and was exactly the reason that they put it into the constitution.

[Salviati]

81. I feel that if the president is unable to be indited while president...

then the statute of limitations should be tolled while that is the case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolling_(law)#Equitable_tolling

Equitable tolling
Equitable tolling is a principle of law stating that a statute of limitations shall not bar a claim in cases where the plaintiff, despite use of due diligence, could not or did not discover the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period.

For example, when pursuing one of several legal remedies, the statute of limitations on the remedies not being pursued will be equitably tolled if the plaintiff can show:

Timely notice to the adverse party is given within applicable statute of limitations of filing first claim
Lack of prejudice to the defendant
Reasonable good faith conduct on part of the plaintiff.
It has been held that equitable tolling applies principally if the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his or her rights. Importantly, it has also been held that the equitable tolling doctrine does not require wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, such as fraud or misrepresentation.[4]

It seems to me that being unable to assert one's rights because the defendant is currently the president of the United States qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance

[In It to Win It]

86. Agreed!

If we, as a society, agree that a sitting president cannot be indicted on some crime that we would consider minor, the statute of limitations should be tolled until the president leaves office.

If we allow a President to commit a crime (even if we consider it minor) and not be punished, and the clock is allowed to run (possibly run until the clock times out), we are agreeing to let the president be above the law.

[brush]

89. Lock him up...asap. That's why there is presidential secession provisions written into...

the Constitution.

[Eric J in MN]

2. You make a good point about abuse

...of the power if there is a precedent.

That is a reason not to set a precedent.

However, I don’t interpret the US Constitution as containing a ban on indicting anyone who can be impeached. That would mean that if a Cabinet official were caught shoplifting then he couldn’t be indicted.

[unblock]

3. It's certainly possible to abuse prosecutorial powers,

and a sitting president may be a tempting political target.

However, such things should be determined on a case by case basis....

[Snackshack]

4. If

A crime has been committed and evidentiary proof exists the person should be indicted no matter their title.

[LiberalFighter]

59. Absolutely. Otherwise, if President or someone else in the Executive branch

could commit a murder or other serious crime and escape justice.

[Snackshack]

70. You are exactly right.

It appears that trump has clearly committed felonious acts. If he is not held accountable by the Judicial branch it will only embolden future occupants of the office to do the same if not worse.

IMO President Obama was the best President I have seen in my lifetime to date. However I think it was a grave mistake for him to have given the pass he did to Wall Street for their actions that brought about the 2008 financial collapse. Doing so only set that stage for it happen again which some economists are already warning about. We should have followed Iceland’s example and held the bankers accountable for what they did, not given them billions to cover the losses and then watch them give enormous bonuses to each other.

[Jim__]

5. What we are learning under Trump is that we need a stronger constraint on the president than can ...

... be provided by a political process.

A president with a senate controlled by the same party, a complicit senate, is virtually above the law. We need a way to control the president that is outside of the political process. Indictment can be one such way. We should define a procedure as to how the Executive Branch can function while the president is under indictment - e.g. the vice president assumes the duties of the president.

A complicit senate can essentially make the president a dictator. We need as much control over that possibility as we can get.

[jberryhill]

11. "A president with... a complicit senate, is virtually above the law"

But whose fault, ultimately, is that set of circumstances?

[dpibel]

38. What's the answer?

I'm not sure what the (apparently) obvious answer to that question is.

I'd think the president who engaged in criminal conduct would have a share of the fault.

I'd propose that politicians who refuse to discharge their constitutional duty might bear some of the blame.

I'm guessing, and it's obviously just my best stab, that the answer you intended is "The voters who put them there." I can see some merit in that. But when the criminal actions are concealed from the voters, is that really the case?

[jberryhill]

39. Yep - be careful who you vote for

Was there anything about Trump's nature which was "concealed" from anyone? Really?

As far as "the answer" aside from "get better voters", I believe we are seeing the process work itself out. There's going to be some lasting damage which will take quite a while from which to recover, but I haven't given up on the immune system just yet.

You can see in this thread the constant refrain "no one is above the law" as if "the law" wasn't a process administered by particular people.

I agree that if "the law" were some divine entity, that would be fine. But it's not.

[Jim__]

63. Ultimately the fault lies with the structure of our government.

We need to structure the government in such a way that no one is above the law. For instance, the Justice Department, which is in charge of the investigation, is under the president. That type of problem needs to be handled structurally.

[Caliman73]

88. It is a delicate balance.

If we structure it too rigidly, then it can be abused by opportunists (like Donald Trump) who could use the rigidity of law to go after political opponents under the cover of "it's the law".

If structured too loosely it can be abused by opportunists (like Donald Trump and the GOP) who use the structures and traditions of power to hide their illicit activities under cover of civil government.

[LiberalFighter]

61. 25th Amendment provides for that.

[empedocles]

6. What if trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue, and the Senate refuses to Impeach?

[LAS14]

8. I guess this is an example of why refraining from indicting should be a strong...

...norm, and not a law.

[empedocles]

9. Of course refraining from indicting is not a law, but an opinion of [OLC]

[LiberalFighter]

62. An opinion that is a conflict of interest because their boss is the President. nt.

There should be an independent agency for this purpose.

[HopeAgain]

7. Absolutely should be able to indict.

Checks and balances -- First, ittakes someone in the President's own administration to do it, and second the judicial branch becomes involved upon the indictment. Otherwise we are relying on a political body which, as we are seeing, can be purely partisan and not interested in removing someone from their own party from office. U.S. v. Nixon made clear no president is above the law.

[Liberal In Texas]

14. Agree. The judicial is an equal branch of the government.

They should be allowed to use their power as a check on criminal activity of a sitting president.

[LAS14]

18. He could be indicted on a state charge. nt

[HopeAgain]

101. If he breaks a valid State law, maybe they should; States have courts

that are limited by the US constitution as well. Much of this could be decided under the supremecy clause.

[jberryhill]

10. I agree with you, but there is a line somewhere

The classic example being something like the president shooting someone on Fifth Avenue which remains one of the campaign promises Trump thankfully hasn't tried to follow through on yet.

What most people miss is due to what I call the "people in charge" fallacy. It's easy to get kids to understand that mature, responsible adults are "in charge" of making important decisions. And, for the purpose of being a kid, that's straightforward enough. A lot of people never really get past the idea that, for any given problem, there's "someone in charge of that", whose job it is to deal with that kind of problem. Some folks develop a pathological sense of it, to believe there is a secret cabal of some kind who is ultimately in charge of everything.

So the idea of "Hey, if the president commits a crime then the people who deal with crime should deal with that too" is superficially appealing.

What they don't get is that, at that level and with those stakes, then the "person in charge", or a group of them, is subject to discharging that power corruptly or for political purposes.

Like you said, if Ken Starr thought he had the power to indict Clinton, he'd have found a way to do so.

Any such process, without some really, really clear lines, would be susceptible to politicization by whomever is given that power. And, to the extent you draw clear lines around it, then it is subject to loopholing by the president.

[marylandblue]

104. Ken Starr did think he had the power to indict Clinton and chose not to

So, the worst case objection scenario- fanatical prosecutor with unlimited jurisdiction pursues President for years until he entraps President into a crime already happened and that prosecutor did not indict.

On the other, the worst case scenario of an openly criminal President using corrupt means to get into office with a complicit Congress is happening right now before our eyes.

When your house is on fire, the fire department puts the fire out with water, even though that could cause water damage worse than the original fire.

[GeorgeGist]

12. I disagree.

[marylandblue]

13. Presidents should be subject to indictment or else he is above the law

There a legal and practical constraints on unscrupulous prosecutors. We can't avoid the problem in front.of us because it will set a "bad precedent." If it ever got the point where our norms no longer constrain unscrupulous operators then a little thing like precedent is not going to stop them anyway.

We have an unscrupulous operator in the White House right now. It's much worse to place him above law than it is to try constrain through the law.

[LAS14]

20. He's not above the law if the indictment is simply delayed till he leaves office. nt

[marylandblue]

23. Still above the law, he can continue to commit crimes in office

He can even enter corrupt bargains with military generals and the Secret Service to ensure he never has to leave office. What could he NOT do if he knew any consequences were years away at worst, and possibly avoidable altogether if he can completely subvert the rule of law. Delaying prosecution creates a perverse incentive to commit even worse crimes.

[LAS14]

105. That's why we have impeachment.

[drray23]

93. Well the campaign finance violations

Have a 5 year limit. If he gets reelected in 2020 he would be immune from it after he steps down because of the statute of limitations..

[marylandblue]

99. What if he refuses to step down?

And a ring of tanks around the White House. Are you going to indict him then, or just say, "Oh well, I guess Nixon was right and it isn't illegal if the President does it."

[Claritie Pixie]

15. Use logic.

There is no comparison to Clinton, and no precedent to follow.

If there is clear and compelling evidence that Trump conspired with a hostile foreign entity, laundered money from that entity, and who knows what else - then abdolutely he should be indicted.

[violetpastille]

19. +1

[Hoyt]

16. I think we have to be careful about his. I definitely see indicting someone like trump, but

it's too easy for some prosecutor in white wing Idaho to trump up a charge on someone as honest as Obama or go after someone like Hillary Clinton for email BS.

I suspect, Clinton would have all kinds of threatened indictments if she had been elected, none of which has any validity except to ignorant white wingers.

[bluestarone]

36. I kinda have to agree here BECAUSE

The Rethugs would absolutely use this in the WORST possible way!!! Look at how they are abusing almost every regulation on the books!!! When WE get full control of ALL 3 branches of Government, THEN we can make a move on lots of things!! (even constitutional things) JUST TO ADD HERE. that a SEALED indictment i feel is the correct way to deal with a law breaking president. This would STOP him from self pardoning.

[angrychair]

17. The inability to indict is not absolute

Nor should it be.

The Founding Fathers did not perceive the election of a corrupt and dangerous person to the highest office as likely or even possible. Or that an equally corrupt congress would be complicit with that person.

I think in these extreme circumstances it is the last refuge of the people to get relief, when real and significant crimes, especially when there is fraud to mislead the American people in order to get elected and conspiracy with foreign powers to serve those foreign interests to the detriment of the American people, can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, than indictment and arrest and a free trial, should not only be allowed but required to protect the people of the United States but to safeguard the the office and power of the US around the world.

[marylandblue]

31. Actually, they did contemplate a corrupt President

And other corrupt officials and judges. They put in impeachment as a bulwark against that. Impeachment process for everyone is the same, with the minor exception that the Chief Justice presides in the Senate whenit's impeachment. That's probably because the Vice President normally presides, but would have a conflict of interest when it's the President.

Impeachment never meant you couldn't be indicted. In fact one judge was indicted, convicted and served his sentence, continuing to draw a salary, before he was impeached.

Did the founders really intend the President be treated differently? If so, there is literally nothing in the Constitution or case law to support that.

[jberryhill]

42. You get into a separation of powers issue, though

This conversation seems to be missing the point that the necessary implication is that indicting the president renders it possible for one branch - Article III courts - to have a sole power to deep six the president.

The basic idea is that it takes two branches to serve as a check on the other one, in any scenario you come up with. If you control the presidency and the courts, you can render the legislature ineffective. If you control Congress and the courts, you can render the presidency ineffective. (the other out is that if you control 3/4 of the states, you can do as you please) That's the "50,000 foot view" of the separation of powers.

If you let one branch have an absolute check on one of the others, then you lose the inherent safeguard of needing two to nullify one.

[marylandblue]

46. There is no separation of powers issue

The Senate controls impeachment trials, period. Congress alone decides the issue and the court has no say. The Chief Justice presides over the proceeding, but he is not there as a judicial officer, he is only there as a stand-in for the Vice President, who, as President of the Senate, is actually performing a legislative duty.

[jberryhill]

47. There IS one if you allow the president to be indicted

[marylandblue]

50. That is not a counterargument to my post.

[angrychair]

72. Well, I accounted for that

In the case of Nixon, though the republicans had a majority they were still willing to put country over Party and would have impeached Nixon. Therefore the prescribed solution in the Constitution would have worked as intended.

The problem here is that we have a republican majority that is and will continue to put Party first over country. By all accounts there is nothing that trump could possibly do that would change that. The republicans are morally and ethically bankrupt.
Since that is the case, without the possibility of relief from the judicial branch, the nation would be forced to live under the yoke of a criminal and corrupt president in which he has full license to act as he wanted without fear of repercussion.
That is, as it stands today, our current situation. Trump has little to no fear of impeachment nor of the judicial branch so it talks and acts with impunity as, in his mind, there is nothing anyone will do about it.

[marylandblue]

80. Nixon had a Democratic House and Senate

But you are correct they didn't anticipate a complicit Congress.

However, I think they did intend that the President could be indicted and prosecuted, for several reasons. One of which is that because there is only one explicit immunity from prosecution in the Constitution - Congress members cannot be arrested for anything they said when Congress is in session. So if they thought the President also should not be arrested, why didn't they say so?

Second, the Constitution says the Judiciary tries all crimes except in cases of impeachment. There is no limit stating someone can't be indicted while still in office or while being impeached.

I've got more legal reasons, but maybe the most compelling is simply thinking like a real human judge, not a legal scholar. If a judge is faced with overwhelming evidence that a President engaged in massive corruption and it creates a consitutional crisis, is a judge whose entire purpose in life to defend the Constitution and enforce the law going to let a nation-destroying criminal go and say "only Congress can catch this criminal?" I think most real judges are going to want to punish the criminal and end the crisis whether Congress has the will or not.

[Demsrule86]

21. No president can be above the law.

[dalton99a]

37. +1. And it is that simple.

[LAS14]

106. That's why we have impeachment.

[Demsrule86]

107. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with bringing a criminal

president to justice.

[LAS14]

108. How do "high crimes and misdemeanors" have nothing to do with criminality?

[Demsrule86]

109. It is not a criminal proceeding. It removes a president from office...nothing more.

This assumes conviction in the Senate of course.

[FreepFryer]

22. Yes, especially if the charge is for a crime that led to him or Congress taking their offices.

Otherwise you incentivize grand conspiracy.

[Saboburns]

24. I could not disagree more vehemently.

Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2018, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the fundamental question that defines the entire concept of America.

All men treated the same. No one is above the law.

The fundamental concept of America. The Holiest of Holies. A concept does not change, ever. No matter who is POTUS, no matter which political office they represent.

I fervently believe that a sitting President can be indicted, because in America all people are treated equally under law, and no one is above it.

Full stop.

I can not fathom why any American would want it different, and I do not understand why any American would promote exceptions that would allow a criminal go unpunished and a crime go ignored.

When I hear someone say no sitting President should be indicted I think of this guy.

[Ponietz]

54. +1 The law is our ONLY recourse

We are not going to prevail waiting for a free and fair election in 2020 while every single day, outrage upon infamy is visited upon us. A confrontation is coming and we’d best do it sooner, than later.

The alternative arguments are, sorry, ignorant. Stop worrying what the pukes might do in the future—they’ve already demonstrated their perfidy is depthless.

[Cousin Dupree]

91. I agree 1000% !

[FakeNoose]

25. We know that the GOP has no moral compass

... and we can't open the door for them to abuse the privilege of high office. I mean, they're already doing that but they need to know that there will be consequences for their abuse. It's going to get worse as they become more desperate. For sure the GOP would have indicted Obama (as a means of obstruction) if they thought they could get away with it. So I agree with you LAS, we can't give it to them.

[spanone]

26. what if he shoots someone on fifth avenue? NOT ABOVE THE LAW. PERIOD.

[MoonRiver]

27. Disagree! A criminal in the WH is a very dangerous situation.

[Rhiannon12866]

67. I agree!

[Squinch]

28. If his crimes are what got him in office in the first place, I have no problem with it.

[Rhiannon12866]

68. Same with me, the sooner he's gone, the better

He does more damage every single day, don't think we know the half of it yet.

[SWBTATTReg]

29. I would think that if a president is above the law, the constitution would have clearly stated ...

this important fact. But it didn't so it clearly didn't give him this power.

[lame54]

30. take him down now before he makes more extremely bad decisions we will...

have to live with for generations

so, he could shoot Mike Pence in the oval office yet still have 2 years to screw the world?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

32. So you're okay with the President being above the law.

I'm not.

I was an adult during Watergate, and I always thought that the fundamental takeaway from that was that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

[Bleacher Creature]

33. His crimes are what made him President.

Allowing him to use the position to shield him from the crimes he used to get that position just doesn't make sense.

[WeekiWater]

34. I do not think it should be allowed.

It becomes a more difficult question under our current circumstances. We do not currently have checks and balances as designed. Committee power needs to lose a small amount of party influence. I'm not saying party influence should not be maintained to a certain level by the majority.

[Vinca]

35. No one is above the law. An indictment can be sealed and not responded to until

the POTUS is out of office. In this case in particular, if there isn't an indictment on some of the charges the statute of limitations could run out. Also, the crime should be considered. If Trump threw Barron off the White House roof, I doubt many would not want him charged immediately. The thing that has me the most irked about the current situation is the crime involves stealing the election, but he's using the office he stole as a shield against prosecution. Guess the founding fathers could never have foreseen this shit show.

[renate]

41. The founding fathers would say that the one person who should NOT be above the law is the president

It makes no sense in a day and age when lawyers, not the defendant him- or herself, would be occupied with any civil defense. (And if a president spends all day watching TV anyway, he really shouldn't be immune.) And of course a president shouldn't be immune from criminal indictments. The idea is absurd; it's just that we've become inured to absurdity.

[Downtown Hound]

43. It should be used sparingly and only for serious offenses

But to suggest that a sitting president should never be indicted even when there is overwhelming evidence of serious wrongdoing is to essentially create a dictatorship and place a ruler above the law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very founding of America happened to rid ourselves of monarchy, not recreate another one.

[marylandblue]

49. This is 100% correct. in fact, all of human history backs it up.

Last edited Fri Dec 14, 2018, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Only kings, emperors and dictators were considered above the law. In fact, being above the law.and beyond the reach of.courts defines those positions.

[JHan]

69. this ++++

[beachbum bob]

44. Clinton perjury in a civil suit was not a criminal matter

[Dave Starsky]

45. The problem is, indictments become the Sword of Damocles.

It's hanging up there over the president's head, ready to fall as soon as the person leaves office.

Thus giving the president free reign to execute any number of shenanigans, no matter how outrageous, to stave off that day of inevitable reckoning. This is what we are witnessing now.

Fuck it. If someone committed crimes, indict them. Try them in a court of law. Punish them accordingly. It shouldn't matter if you're a kid on the street or the President of the United States. It's actually more important, if it's the President of the United States. We hold that person to a much higher standard. Give the president immediate due process of law.

This is not an impossible standard to meet. I seem to recall that our last President of the United States, Barack Obama, made it through eight years of office without any indictments or accusations of wrongdoing. His worst offenses were wearing a tan suit once and asking for mustard on his hamburger. That kind of "scandal" was what we expected from people elected to the highest office in the land.

[jberryhill]

48. They would have attempted it for the IRS bullshit

Even though the IRS bullshit wasn't even what they claimed it to be. If they had the power, they'd have attempted to use it through the convenience of some rogue US attorney somewhere.

The best intentions have unintended consequences, and they are not always obvious in the exigency of the moment.

[Dave Starsky]

66. OGMAFB. If they could have indicted, they would have.

Again, our last president seemed to be above reproach.

Probably because he went into office a relatively normal and law-abiding guy, and not some fucking shitheel who has lived his entire life, for decades, making sleazy deals with international mobsters and committing repeated sexual assaults, Trump was destined to be hauled before a court, because he's spent his life avoiding them.

[marylandblue]

71. Wait a second.

The President appoints the Attorney General and all the US Attorneys. If a special counsel is needed, a Presidential appointee selects the special counsel. It's FAR more likely that a President will use a rogue DOJ official to go after his enemies, than one of his own appointees will go after him.

You are so worried about unintended crisis in a future Presidency that you seem unable to understand the current crisis. You are essentially arguing that a criminal president gets special legal protection no matter he has done, because a future President MIGHT have one of his own appointees falsely accuse him. Is that even a problem?

What protects Nancy Pelosi from being falsely indicted RIGHT NOW by the Trump DOJ? There are safeguards to prevent that. If those safeguards were not there, the President isn't the one who has to worry. It's everybody else.

[jberryhill]

92. You know how we got term limits?

We got term limits, because the republicans could never find a candidate to beat FDR - their “problem of the moment”.

Now, puzzle this one out - who was the first president who was actually affected by the adoption of the presidential term limit?

None other than the Republicans’ go-to favorite president - Ronald Reagan. If not for Watergate, it would have been Nixon.

In fact, Republican presidents have been termed out three times, to Democrats two.

Stuff like this has a habit of having unintended consequences by those who advocate for it.

[marylandblue]

98. I am certain they realized term limits might work against a republican President

[OhioBlue]

103. But do you think Reagan would have run again?

He was facing mental decline and Iran Contra. His VP won the third term and then lost to Clinton who probably could have served a 3rd. I seriously doubt George W Bush could have beat Obama in '08. His poll numbers were very low and the wars, Katrina and the economic crash made him a worse candidate than McCain. Obama OTOH, I believe would have beat Trump. Who is the other? Eisenhower? Again, not sure if he would have run for a third. It would be an interesting exercise to imagine a third term. He wasn't horrible, but what would have happened regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? What if Kennedy's election came 4 years later?

IMO, term limits have benefited Republicans far more. They seem to screw things up and then Dems bail the Country out only to have their work seriously compromised by term limits and ignorant fools who succeed them for the last 4 cycles at least.

[jberryhill]

94. By the way

Part of the “current crisis” is that we now have a majority of the Supreme Court who is going to rule... what... that Donald Trump can be indicted? No way.

If you want the answer to be “no” for a good long time, then this is the court to get that answer from.

[marylandblue]

100. Well neither of us know how the court will rule

But at least if we push the issue, we will know what kind of country we are in, instead of wondering whether the rule of law actual does still apply.

[cynatnite]

51. No one is above the law, but the repubs have politicized it so much...

that's why no one is willing to take the step and do it when it's needed the most.

[Me.]

52. No

especially as a statute of limitations issue could be involved

[appleannie1943]

53. There is a huge difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. If you say you cannot idict

a sitting president, that means it would be okay for them to kill anyone that disagrees with them or stands up to them. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[MarvinGardens]

55. Indictment, but maybe not arrest.

I think it would be fair to apply the same protection to the President that is applied to Congress members. They are protected from arrest except for major crimes. This is done to prevent the abuses that others on this thread are concerned about. From Article 1 of the Constitution:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

An indictment alone is not an arrest and does not prevent the President from executing his duties. If he shoots someone on 5th Avenue, he should be arrested. It's both a felony and breach of the peace.

[Johnny2X2X]

56. It is allowed!

It is allowed. Indictment is surely allowed, prosecution while they are still in office is the question.

[pnwmom]

57. Yes -- because an indictment is the only way to keep the statute of limitations

from running out.

[LiberalFighter]

58. Disagree. Read the Constitution.

Nowhere in Article II is there an exemption from prosecution of crime. Not as President or any other federal officer in the executive branch. Impeachment and conviction of impeachment is only the method to remove someone from office. Without it, a person convicted of a crime could still hold office if they refused to resign.

The impeachment process is limited. It only allows for removal from office and if decided Article I allows them to disqualify such persons from holding any office in the federal govt.

A trial is not an impediment to the duties of the office of President. 25th Amendment provides for the President to relinquish their duties temporarily when needed. And have the VP fill in.

[H2O Man]

60. A question:

If a president -- and let's say Trump -- commits a violent assault or murder, do you think being arrested and indicted would have to wait until after a potential impeachment in the House, and Senate trial?

[MyNameGoesHere]

64. Being king is good I guess.

Our founders should have thought more and got drunk less.

[shanny]

65. Hypothetical heard on TV:

Preznit tRump shoots somebody on Fifth Avenue. Indict, or not? Seems the answer is clear. Personally I think it is equally clear in this case: if the evidence warrants it he should be indicted.

What isn't clear is whether he should be put on trial while in office. I don't believe that should happen. He would need to be impeached and removed first...and if the Congress won't do it under those circumstances then we have already lost our republic.

[XRubicon]

73. He's golfing or on executive time mostly anyway, yes indict him

Isn't he suing Stormy Daniels for the NDA too- he seems to have alot of spare time.

[mulsh]

74. Yeah and merely charging white collar guys with a crime is punishment enough. I hope that conveys

some of my distain for the for the notion that at sitting president cant' be indicted.

It is certainly not spelled out in the constitution but you know what is? Equal protection under the law.

Also all indictment rests on the decisions of a few people, which although true seems a bogus reason to protect any elected official from indictments. Might as well devise a separate section of the law exclusively for elected federal officials.

As for Clinton having been charged and put on trial in any court aside from the Senate i bet he would have been found Not Guilty if his attorneys hadn't convinced the judge to dismiss the charges.

At the time the most rabidly conservatives I knew were about as appalled as we Dems at what happened with Clinton, & not just because their guys made them have to explain "blow job" to their little kids.

[MrsCoffee]

75. For lying about a blow job? No. For conspiracy and treason. Fuck yeah they should.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

76. If there is enough evidence to indict a president, then IMO he/she should be indicted on

the same timetable anyone else would be, not potentially years later.

[lancelyons]

77. I agree however he should not be allowed to pursue a second term also

However there should be a provision that says a person who gets the office of president by illegal means should not be immune.

[nycbos]

78. Would a sealing an indictment now take care of statute of limitations?

[roamer65]

79. The SCOTUS will decide.

A case will eventually land there and they will interpret the Constitution.

Personally, my opinion is that a sitting president can be indicted...but must be impeached and removed before the indictment can go forward.

[pbmus]

82. He is illegitimate in so many ways, it boggles the mind...

He not only is indictable, he begs us every day to indict him....

Allowed is not the question...it is WHEN...???

[LakeSuperiorView]

83. "a high crime or misdemeanor?"

He is guilty of so much that choosing just one would be a difficult proposition....

[struggle4progress]

84. I'm in favor of leaving the question unanswered unless an answer becomes essential

[leanforward]

85. He puts his pants on the same way the rest of us.

He is not above the law. If indicted, then he should step down.

Our constitution was developed to abrogate regal behavior. Giving him a way to avoid his behavior, no way.

[In It to Win It]

87. Kinda... depends...

If we were to have such a law, there can’t be any ambiguity. It has to be crystal clear what the president cannot be indicted for. In such a law, there can be no stone unturned. It has to be written in such a way that there is no wiggle room for courts to interpret different meaning.

[Kurt V.]

90. what are rec's for?

k&r

[UniteFightBack]

95. So we are locking up migrants who commit misdemeanors but this orange felon roams free.

Na uh....indict and lock that ample ass up!

[Generic Brad]

96. Where is it written that a sitting president can't be indicted?

Nowhere outside of opinion pieces and partisan think tanks is this written.

Spurs Agnew was indicted when he was the Veep. The validity of it was never in doubt. But when Nixon was finally in the legal crosshairs this opinion was manufactured and presented as fact to gullible supporters. It never played out because Nixon was smart enough to know he was licked.

Trump is too dense to leave gracefully and the GOP is complicit in his crimes. That sets the table for indictment. We are going to see the Judiciary flex it’s muscles as a neglected but co-equal branch of government.

The Constitution does not give the office of the president unlimited powers and a free pass to perform unlimited and brazenly illegal acts. Trump can be indicted and the possibility inches closer to reality every day.

[Quixote1818]

97. What if the President pulled out a gun and shot someone in the face?

Clearly in this situation he would HAVE to be indicted so it depends and in this situation the "President" broke the law to get into office. Also, if the statue of limitations are running out they would have to.

[YOHABLO]

102. He's a national security risk. Are you kidding? He's got to go and sooner the better. Indict away.