Jill Wine Banks:We should be able to indict a sitting president as we did VP Spiro Agnew

[iluvtennis]

We should be able to indict a sitting president as we did VP Spiro Agnew. Nothing in the Constitution bars it and fairness and justice demand it.

Link to tweet

[YessirAtsaFact]

1. Especially a *President who used fraud to attain power

nm

[csziggy]

2. In the sidebar to this opinion piece: Why not indict the Trump Organization?

Why not indict the Trump Organization?

By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
December 19 at 1:45 PM

Legal scholars debate whether a sitting president can be indicted or only impeached. If the latter, it’s not clear given the statutes of limitation on most crimes whether he could ever be prosecuted for certain crimes. That surely seems wrong; the framers certainly did not intend to give the president a get-out-of-jail free card for crimes he might commit in office. (One solution might be to indict under seal.)

What is clear, however, is that to the extent the president has a safe harbor for prosecution during his time in office, that protection is personal to him. His relatives and his business empire don’t get that benefit.

<SNIP>

If a hypothetical corporation, over a long period of time has engaged in tax fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, money laundering, violations of laws protecting charitable giving, and/or mail or bank fraud (say, by paying a lawyer via phony invoices), could that meet Justice Department standards for indicting a company? A company that has done all that and acts entirely without concern for compliance with legal or accounting norms, makes no effort to disclose wrongdoing and refuses to own up to wrongdoing clearly would meet many of those criteria. If, say, the Constitution prevents prosecution of the company’s principal (or others can be pardoned to escape justice), then “the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance” would be practically nonexistent.

<SNIP>

Essentially, the update in Yates’s memo also made it harder for corporations to get credit for cooperating. (“Under the new policies, a company must also provide all relevant facts, including any available evidence, and fully cooperate in federal criminal and civil actions against the individual wrongdoers to receive cooperation credit. A company must investigate the facts early in the process and accurately, reasonably, and promptly disclose those facts to the DOJ. According to the new policy, a company can no longer settle a case with favorable terms unless it assists in the prosecution of the individual wrongdoers from the beginning of the investigation. In light of the new policies, corporations should give thought to how they will deal with the DOJ if they become the subject of an investigation.”)

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/19/why-not-indict-trump-organization/?utm_term=.9441f6da15d9

[LiberalFighter]

3. Good points.

Section 4: Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This section does not pertain solely to the President.

Agnew’s corruption began when he served as Baltimore County executive and continued throughout his term as governor of Maryland. For years, Agnew used his government offices for bribery and extortion, steering government contracts in exchange for money. After he was elected vice president, the payments continued. Most shockingly, packets of cash were delivered to Agnew at the White House itself. The evidence of Agnew’s guilt was overwhelming.

But what was to be done? Impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate did not seem to be a viable course of action. In fact, Agnew sought to initiate an impeachment process in the belief that the charges would become enmeshed in a cumbersome political process that could offer him more protection than risk. House Speaker Carl Albert declined Agnew’s request, saying the criminal process should proceed. (In a related matter, Solicitor General Robert H. Bork rejected Agnew’s argument that a sitting vice president could not be indicted.)

I like the part where the Speaker did not pursue impeachment but let it go through the criminal process.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. indictment would at least disrupt Twitler's crazy acts

Let the House and state AGs and DoJ fight over who gets first whack, while dirty Donnie sits in a cell awaiting the outcome.

[elocs]

4. Reality check: The Supreme Court will decide the question. 'This' Supreme Court will decide it.

How do you think they would decide?
Trump could be indicted as soon as he leaves office which makes it less likely he would resign and leave office early if he was sure he would then be indicted.
Would the Republican senate then vote to convict after articles of impeachment are brought against Trump with the knowledge he would be indicted? Would they want to run with Trump as their party's nominee if indictment was looming for him, or would they want to cut their losses.
But the odds are very high that Trump will never be indicted as a sitting president.