Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 15:36:04 GMT
There has been a lot of discussion about if a sitting president can be indicted for crimes committed prior to becoming president or while president. Other then the Articles Of Impeachment the Constitution is silent on the subject. So a bunch of guys at the Justice Department sat around in 1973 and again in 2000 and decided no. And their reasoning “The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” In order to remove a president from office by impeachment, there has to be a yes vote by all 100 Senators. I truly believe trump was involved in money laundering activities with Russian Oligarchs. Say I’m right and it comes to light tomorrow. It’s a given trump won’t resign. There would be no question the House would draw up the Articles of Impeachment. But would all 100 Senators vote to kick trump out of office? Can you trust, based on their past behavior when it comes to trump, they would all vote yes? So what would an alternative be? Leave a known money launder with men tied to a leader of foreign country that is no friend to the United States in office? Ot temporary remove him from office so he can have his day in court? If trump has a heart attack and goes on paid sick leave for a period of time, Pence would become acting president until such time as he can resume his duties. Which means there are provisions for replacing a sitting president for a period of time when he can’t perform his duties. The reason given for not indicting a sitting president and the fact a sitting president can be replaced if it’s deemed he can’t perform is duties for a period of time, is why I’m not buying the DOJ view a sitting president can’t be indicted. Here is the DOJ reasons link |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Mar 26, 2019 15:46:10 GMT
There has been a lot of discussion about if a sitting president can be indicted for crimes committed prior to becoming president or while president. Other then the Articles Of Impeachment the Constitution is silent on the subject. So a bunch of guys at the Justice Department sat around in 1973 and again in 2000 and decided no. And their reasoning “The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” In order to remove a president from office by impeachment, there has to be a yes vote by all 100 Senators. I truly believe trump was involved in money laundering activities with Russian Oligarchs. Say I’m right and it comes to light tomorrow. It’s a given trump won’t resign. There would be no question the House would draw up the Articles of Impeachment. But would all 100 Senators vote to kick trump out of office? Can you trust, based on their past behavior when it comes to trump, they would all vote yes? So what would an alternative be? Leave a known money launder with men tied to a leader of foreign country that is no friend to the United States in office? Ot temporary remove him from office so he can have his day in court? If trump has a heart attack and goes on paid sick leave for a period of time, Pence would become acting president until such time as he can resume his duties. Which means there are provisions for replacing a sitting president for a period of time when he can’t perform his duties. The reason given for not indicting a sitting president and the fact a sitting president can be replaced if it’s deemed he can’t perform is duties for a period of time, is why I’m not buying the DOJ view a sitting president can’t be indicted. Not sure where you get you need a yes vote from 100 senators. A majority of the house must approve the articles of impeachment and 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict. |
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,642 
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Mar 26, 2019 15:50:32 GMT
No one, not even the President, should be above the law. Period.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
|
Post by cycworker on Mar 26, 2019 15:52:20 GMT
Of course sitting Presidents should be indicted. You can't have criminals in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Mar 26, 2019 15:53:29 GMT
If trump has a heart attack and goes on paid sick leave for a period of time, Pence would become acting president until such time as he can resume his duties. Which means there are provisions for replacing a sitting president for a period of time when he can’t perform his duties. The reason given for not indicting a sitting president and the fact a sitting president can be replaced if it’s deemed he can’t perform is duties for a period of time, is why I’m not buying the DOJ view a sitting president can’t be indicted. I'm with you on this. It's their 'policy' but that doesn't mean it's a valid one. And in my opinion, it's not valid. Last night on Sirius XM (MSNBC, I think) they were talking about the following scenario: so if using foreign influence to win a Presidential election isn't 'breaking the law' then what's to stop a person from using whatever means they can to win re-election to avoid being charged with crimes until such time as the statute of limitations runs out?!? If this policy of 'a sitting president can't be indicted' is followed then the Presidential election could become a free-for-all of criminal activity solely in order to win the office, and nothing could be done about it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 15:56:22 GMT
There has been a lot of discussion about if a sitting president can be indicted for crimes committed prior to becoming president or while president. Other then the Articles Of Impeachment the Constitution is silent on the subject. So a bunch of guys at the Justice Department sat around in 1973 and again in 2000 and decided no. And their reasoning “The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” In order to remove a president from office by impeachment, there has to be a yes vote by all 100 Senators. I truly believe trump was involved in money laundering activities with Russian Oligarchs. Say I’m right and it comes to light tomorrow. It’s a given trump won’t resign. There would be no question the House would draw up the Articles of Impeachment. But would all 100 Senators vote to kick trump out of office? Can you trust, based on their past behavior when it comes to trump, they would all vote yes? So what would an alternative be? Leave a known money launder with men tied to a leader of foreign country that is no friend to the United States in office? Ot temporary remove him from office so he can have his day in court? If trump has a heart attack and goes on paid sick leave for a period of time, Pence would become acting president until such time as he can resume his duties. Which means there are provisions for replacing a sitting president for a period of time when he can’t perform his duties. The reason given for not indicting a sitting president and the fact a sitting president can be replaced if it’s deemed he can’t perform is duties for a period of time, is why I’m not buying the DOJ view a sitting president can’t be indicted. Not sure where you get you need a yes vote from 100 senators. A majority of the house must approve the articles of impeachment and 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict. I stand corrected. I looked real quick, saw 100 and that made sense because they would be removing a president from office, and didn’t look any further. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 16:37:40 GMT
No one, not even the President, should be above the law. Period. This is where I sit. |
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on Mar 26, 2019 16:42:23 GMT
What is the thought that they shouldnt be, based on?
|
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Mar 26, 2019 16:42:48 GMT
I say yes they should be able to indict a sitting president. Nobody wants a criminal sitting in the White House creating policy.
However. I can see the agreement of not doing it because I think it could make us open to a foreign government trying to take hostile control over this country. I don’t know how plausible such a scenario is in today’s world, but I could see it happening if our government was thrown into utter chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by peano on Mar 26, 2019 17:03:17 GMT
We have a president, not a king. No citizen is above the law despite what Bill Barr asserted in his unsolicited treatise used to beg for the AG job.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 17:28:36 GMT
What is the thought that they shouldnt be, based on? I found and added the link for DOJ paper that lays out their reasoning from 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by beebee on Mar 26, 2019 17:34:01 GMT
No one should be above the law including the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Mar 26, 2019 17:35:19 GMT
absolutely. no one should be allowed to use the office of the presidency as shield from indictment or prosecution if the person did wrong. the president is still a citizen of the US and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by busy on Mar 26, 2019 17:44:31 GMT
I'm of two minds on this, honestly.
On the one hand, I think "Of course! No one is above the law!"
But on the other, we have a presumption of innocence in this country and I think it would be absolutely impossible for a sitting president to get a fair trial while continuing to fulfill the duties of the office. The country would pay the price either way. It would be an absolute circus.
As much as I loathe the current president, I think a criminal indictment while in office is probably not the right way to go for him or anyone else. It was the will of the people, under the current laws, that this asshole be president. All bets are off once out of office, though.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 17:58:23 GMT
No citizen should be immune to the laws of our country. No one is above the law. No one.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 18:08:59 GMT
I'm of two minds on this, honestly. On the one hand, I think "Of course! No one is above the law!" But on the other, we have a presumption of innocence in this country and I think it would be absolutely impossible for a sitting president to get a fair trial while continuing to fulfill the duties of the office. The country would pay the price either way. It would be an absolute circus. As much as I loathe the current president, I think a criminal indictment while in office is probably not the right way to go for him or anyone else. It was the will of the people, under the current laws, that this asshole be president. All bets are off once out of office, though. He would temporary be removed from his duties while he has his day in court. |
|
|
|
Post by busy on Mar 26, 2019 19:03:51 GMT
I'm of two minds on this, honestly. On the one hand, I think "Of course! No one is above the law!" But on the other, we have a presumption of innocence in this country and I think it would be absolutely impossible for a sitting president to get a fair trial while continuing to fulfill the duties of the office. The country would pay the price either way. It would be an absolute circus. As much as I loathe the current president, I think a criminal indictment while in office is probably not the right way to go for him or anyone else. It was the will of the people, under the current laws, that this asshole be president. All bets are off once out of office, though. He would temporary be removed from his duties while he has his day in court. Which would be extremely disruptive to our country and inviting false charges to be brought against a president by political enemies. Can you imagine if anyone with the will, connections, and resources could effectively remove a sitting president from office by falsifying crimes? It sounds outrageous, but I don't think anything's out of bounds anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 26, 2019 19:20:25 GMT
He would temporary be removed from his duties while he has his day in court. Which would be extremely disruptive to our country and inviting false charges to be brought against a president by political enemies. Can you imagine if anyone with the will, connections, and resources could effectively remove a sitting president from office by falsifying crimes? It sounds outrageous, but I don't think anything's out of bounds anymore. It shouldn't be. We have a Congress and other safeguards (but maybe not for long) to cover for the POTUS if he is incapable/unable to do the job. No one should be above the law. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 19:31:09 GMT
He would temporary be removed from his duties while he has his day in court. Which would be extremely disruptive to our country and inviting false charges to be brought against a president by political enemies. Can you imagine if anyone with the will, connections, and resources could effectively remove a sitting president from office by falsifying crimes? It sounds outrageous, but I don't think anything's out of bounds anymore. So what is the alternative? Take my example of money laundering. Leaving a president who has laundered money for Putin allies in office? How disruptive would that be? Decisions trump has been making that benefit Russia are already being questioned. Are they being made because he is as dumb as dirt? Or is he making them because Russia has the “goods” on him? It might be disruptive to remove trump or any president from office while they have their day in court, but I’m willing to bet the country can weather it as opposed to leaving someone in office who has been compromised by a foreign country. If Congress refuses to do their oversight duties on a sitting president, what are the other alternatives except for him to be indicted by a Special Council for example? Before any indictment is issued, it should have to go through procedures like is done to get a FISA warrant which should cut down on frivolous charges from within the country. Any charges from outside the country would have to be filed in US Courts and again go through a series of steps before it got even close to the indictment stage. But let me be clear, we wouldn’t even have to discuss this if the Republicans in Congress had done their oversight duties in 2017 and 2018 instead of running interference for trump. IMO. |
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,905
|
Post by pilcas on Mar 26, 2019 20:43:27 GMT
Of course sitting Presidents should be indicted. You can't have criminals in office. Unfortunately, it seems you can these days. |
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,519
|
Post by jayfab on Mar 26, 2019 21:26:35 GMT
Hell yes - we elect a president not a king.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 0:27:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 21:27:05 GMT
From the day he was sworn in & even during the transition he and his people have been nothing but an obstruction and a present danger to us!! He should have been yanked out on day 1, along with his kids and cronies!!
Our country would celebrate and move on quickly if this administration is hauled away!
I have no doubt of the crimes that he's been committing without fear. He's been a criminal since the 1970's, so it's no shock. The pleasant surprise will be when it ends, just like with any other crime family.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 26, 2019 22:49:36 GMT
As much as I loathe the current president, I think a criminal indictment while in office is probably not the right way to go for him or anyone else. It was the will of the people, under the current laws, that this asshole be president. All bets are off once out of office, though. IF this were to be handled through a sealed indictment...... then the statue of limitations should be extended to cover until he leaves office, not limited to 6 years. Which means right now if he were charged in a sealed indictment, the 6 years would expire if he were still in office. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryann on Mar 27, 2019 2:04:04 GMT
He would temporary be removed from his duties while he has his day in court. Which would be extremely disruptive to our country and inviting false charges to be brought against a president by political enemies. Can you imagine if anyone with the will, connections, and resources could effectively remove a sitting president from office by falsifying crimes? It sounds outrageous, but I don't think anything's out of bounds anymore. This sounds like a story arc straight out of House of Cards. It's incredible how far the current administration's crazy train has taken us that scenarios like this could be plausible. |
|
msladibug
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,533
|
Post by msladibug on Mar 27, 2019 5:39:57 GMT
No one is above the law.
|
|
