If you would like a sitting president to be indictable by a state...

[jberryhill]

...then consider the fact that the chief law enforcement officer of the most populous county of the state where this creature was governor....



...was of the firm belief in his official capacity that the president was an impostor who had forged his birth certificate.

Consider the fact that Judge Roy Moore was called “judge” not as an honorary title but as one of the leading jurists of a state.

Do consider that if you want “a state” to be able to indict “a president”, then it would be open for “any state” to indict “any president”.

Including a state that had elected this creature:



Think of the regular cavalcade of scumbaggery and shenanigans in which the attorneys general of the states engage. We are talking about law enforcement officials who have gone after Planned Parenthood over deceptively edited videos, and who are chomping at the bit to lock women up for having miscarriages they deem suspicious.

Be careful what you wish for.

[EffieBlack]

1. An important consideration

[tymorial]

13. Definitely and there are many lessons from history where decisions come back to bite

As I stated in my main response, the whole point of placing the office of special counsel under the Attorney General was designed to prevent political opportunism and corruption. We didn't want another Ken Starr and I don't believe that the Democrats ever envisioned an attorney general acting as personal legal counsel for the president and actively engaging in obstruction.

Hell, Sessions recused himself.... Jeff Sessions. And look what we have now, someone worse. I realize there is always someone worse but never in my life would I have thought we would encounter corruption at this level without any remorse.

[Kurt V.]

2. I'm ok with that. send it to courts then.

[jberryhill]

3. So instead of a finger...

You would have been okay with Jan Brewer holding a gun in that picture?

[Kurt V.]

5. Don't be ridiculous. your propaganda is enough.

[jberryhill]

10. That is how laws are enforced

If Obama has been indicted in Arizona for forgery, in a sealed indictment awaiting his arrival, then how would you propose to arm the persons responsible for placing him in custody?

[Kurt V.]

12. That's an IF that never happened. Your whole premise is beyond reason. good day.

[Iggo]

17. I said good day, sir!

[jberryhill]

20. It's all in how you say it

[Tiggeroshii]

4. Usually the president would have to commit a crime inside the state

And if a president is not indictable by a state for any crime, he can literally commit murder and nothing will happen to him.

[jberryhill]

7. Why did the Constitution place the federal government...

...physically outside of the jurisdiction of any state.

Why might that have been considered s good idea?

[Tiggeroshii]

11. It didn't

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

[jberryhill]

16. That article doesn't even discuss the state indictment scenario

First off, that is simply an argument. It’s not the law.

Secondly, that article is about federal indictment, not state indictment.

But, more to the point, it’s clear that you didn’t understand the question. The seat of the federal government is, by design, not within the borders of any state. So, if you beleive otherwise, then you might tell me in what state Washington DC is located.

Why was it important not to place the federal government within the borders of any state?

[Tiggeroshii]

18. I'm confused. I'll try to respond when I have a more clear head.

Sorry about that.

[jberryhill]

19. No worries

These are confusing times

[Hoyt]

6. Agree 100%. It's Congress' job. There was plenty of reason to Impeach long before

Mueller’s report.

[tymorial]

8. Excellent.

Hindsight is always 20/20 though. I was recently considering how the current OSC came to be. It was in large part a reaction to Ken Starr and the public release of the report. The law under which the independent counsel operated expired in 1999 and was not renewed. This left it up to the DOJ to determine the regulations under which the special counsel would operate. It granted the attorney general more power over the process and placed the position directly under thr DOJ and not Congress.

The reasoning for this decision was designed to grant the DOJ the ability to decide what information what of public interest while balancing legal restriction. No provision was included that requires any information be made available to Congress of the public. This is why I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the OSC regulations. No where in the regulation is Barr required to submit any of the report to Congress or the public. This isnt a Mueller problem, it's a law problem.

So why is hindsight 20/20? The Whitewater report was embarrassing to the president and others included who were not indicted. The full release was a political action it was embarrassing to the administration and the Democrat Party. It made perfect sense to rectify this when the law came up for renewal. And yet ultimately it did little to address political opportunism because we have a corrupt attorney general who was Mueller's boss.

[shanny]

9. Doesn't have anything to do with what "I'd like"

POTUS is indictable by states, and, truth be told, by the feds as well.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. What's the legal authority for that?

And if Trump had been indicted by Mueller, what do you think Barr would have done with that indictment - or with Mueller?

[marylandblue]

15. I believe the Constitutution does permit that.

Just like it permitted Roy Moore and Joe Arpaio to do a lot of things under color of law until they were removed from office or voted out. However if they choose to harass the most powerful person in the country instead of women and immigrants, let them bring it on.