What is the likely of the US Supreme Court ruling within the next 3 to 4 years by 5-4,6-3,7-2,or 8-1

[nkpolitics1212]

that a sitting US President can be a defendant in a federal/local criminal trial?
Can NYDA Cyrus Vance jr be allowed to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump while Trump is President?

[WePurrsevere]

1. If the charges stem from before or are unrelated to his being president...

SCOTUS already made a decision on that in Clinton vs Jones...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/

Other than that.. maybe.. or maybe not... (I'm not holding my breath)...
The general consensus is he'd need to be impeached removed first..
http://time.com/4783442/donald-trump-impeachment-crime-obstruction-justice/

[nkpolitics1212]

2. Clinton vs Jones was a civil sexual harassment trial

A female worker in Trump University or Trump Taj Mahal can sue Donald Trump for grabbing them by the p-word.
The question I am asking is can Donald Trump be charged with fraud?

[WePurrsevere]

5. If it happened before he was president....

The answer is yes. For instance Trump can be tried for fraud pertaining to Trump University.
Here's an article you might find interesting. Although it centers on sexual harassment it mentions pre-election fraud too.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/president-trump-can-thank-paula-jones-his-legal-troubles/

If you have time the 2nd link I posted above it's quite informative and shows that SCOTUS isn't limiting cases that Trump can be tried for only to alleged sexual harassment he did before he was president.

[marylandblue]

3. I think it's likely the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 that he can be a defendant

The first and most obvious answer is that there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't. You'd think that if there was going to be a single person in the US who was totally immune from prosecution, the founders would have mentioned it, especially seeing that England used to have such a person, they called him the King.

2nd and more subtly, let's take an extreme but well known case - the President shoots someone on Fifth Avenue. Suppose it was also someone that the Republican Congress did not like - Nancy Pelosi. The founder were very concerned about Tyranny. Did the founders really think that the president could shoot an opposition leader and get away with it with the approval of Congress? Would that not be the essence of Tyranny?

3rd, the three branches of government are coequal and serve as brakes on the other two. The judiciary interprets the law and decides who is guilty of a crime. If the president is beyond the reach of the Judiciary, then it means the President is beyond the reach of the Judiciary, no matter how egregious the crime. And I don't think you will find many judges sympathetic to that view. They are, after all, interested in their own power, and the foinders assumed they would be.

[BzaDem]

11. They are far more likely to rule 9-0 in the opposite direction.

Your separation of powers argument misses a critical point. Before a case even gets to the judiciary, a prosecutor must bring a case. But at the federal level, all prosecutors report to the President. There is no fourth branch of government, let alone a fourth branch with the power to charge the President.

This would likely mean such a case would be dismissed because there is no case or controversy (given that there can't be a controversy in the legal sense between the executive branch and itself). Even if such a case were not dismissed out of hand, the President could just order the prosecutor to drop the case, and fire the prosecutor if they do not.

At the state level, there would be no similar separation of powers issue. But allowing such a charge would allow any state to effectively disable the President from performing his duties. Another way to look at it is this: could a state in the confederacy have criminally charged Abraham Lincoln? Permitting such an action would effectively render the Supremacy clause a nullity. It would mean our country would be without a president at all, leaving no one to wield the commander in chief power, and leaving no one to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Put simply, the Constitution requires impeachment and removal prior to any criminal trial of a sitting president.

[tritsofme]

4. Anyone capable of attempting to indict Trump federally would be fired

before the case made any interesting legal precedent.

I think a president would have a much tougher time trying to avoid a state level indictment, especially if it is a crime where the state has clear jurisdiction.

[marylandblue]

6. I also don't think Mueller can be fired

The regulation on the Special Counsel states that he can only be fire for "good cause," which is a term of art from employment law that means you have to do something horrible before you can be fired. Trying to obstruct justice would not be good cause. So Trump would have to change the regulation. That would be an indirect method of firing. There is also a principle of law that if you can't do something directly, you also can't do it indirectly. So that won't work.

And naturally, as this worked through the courts, all the questions on evidence, on reasons for firing, on possible obstruction and other matters would be aired in public, while Trump tweeted his ever contradictory lies. He is likely to hang himself with his own rope.

[tritsofme]

8. Mueller could clearly be fired by the assistant attorney general

Saturday night massacre style, if that is the road they wanted to go down. A special counsel does not have the same statutory protections as the now expired Independent Counsel.

[marylandblue]

10. He has regulatory protections, which are not as good as statutory

But do provide him with legal protections that Archibald Cox did not have. They put the words can only be fired for "good cause" for a reason. Basically that mean they have to come with a valid reason to fire him. If the excuse they use is not valid, he can sue to get his job back.

[BzaDem]

13. The regulations could be repealed in five seconds by the acting attorney general.

Even the author of the regulations has said as much.

There is an open question as to whether the President himself can repeal the regulation. But it is uncontested that the acting attorney general can do so, and can then fire Mueller. So Trump can just keep firing people until he finds someone to follow his order.

[marylandblue]

7. One more argument, simplest of all

Last edited Sun Jul 2, 2017, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

If the President does it, it isn't illegal."
-Richard Nixon

Aside from all the convoluted legal arguments, does anybody besides Richard Nixon or Donald Trump actually believe it or would admit to agreeing with Nixon? Assuming the answer is no, what would then suggest the courts do? Nothing, thus making Nixon right?

[BzaDem]

12. The courts would wait until after the President leaves office.

Remember, Nixon had to be pardoned to avoid criminal liability. But that doesn't mean courts would have permitted a criminal charge against him while he was still in office.

[Initech]

9. If a sitting president is liberal, most definitely!

If a sitting president is conservative, who cares? They got the Magic R next to their name!