Proof that Trump can be indicted, courtesy of the State of Missouri

[marylandblue]

Governor Eric Greitens of Missouri was recently indicted and arrested by local police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/eric-greitens-indicted.html

The Missouri Constitution says that the governor can be impeached and would be tried by a Senate-selected panel of judges. Like the US. Constitution, it does not say anywhere that the governor can be indicted, nonetheless, this doesn't seemed to have been a problem.

Of course, we are talking about federal law, which is different, but if there is no applicable federal precedent, federal courts often look to state courts for guidance if there are state-level precedents. The state precedents don't bind the federal courts, but if governors can be arrested based on similarly-worded state constitutions, then it's a good argument that the president can be indicted.

I am sure Mueller noticed this.



Missouri Constitution Article VII:

Section 1. Impeachment—officers liable—grounds.—All elective executive officials
of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts
shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful
neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral
turpitude or oppression in office.

Section 2. Power of impeachment—trial of impeachments.—The house of representatives
shall have the sole power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried
before the supreme court, except that the governor or a member of the supreme court
shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the
senate. The supreme court or special commission shall take an oath to try impartially
the person impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
five-sevenths of the court or special commission.

[PoliticAverse]

1. From 1998...

Indictability of the President
Ronald D. Rotunda
University of Illinois College of Law
(.pdf) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3899216/Savage-NYT-FOIA-Starr-memo-presidential.pdf

[marylandblue]

2. That was Ken Starr's attorney's opinion

But at the time, the Office of Legal Counsel had a different opinion. The attorney who wrote Starr's opinion thinks it doesn't apply to Mueller.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-can-be-indicted--just-not-by-mueller/2017/07/27/a597b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.0fa2b6026467

But I still think Mueller has or can get authority to indict on his own.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Yes the OLC in 2000 (and in 1973) opined that a sitting President could not be indicted...

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

It's important to note also that indicted while President and being placed on trial while President are different issues.

I don't see why Mueller would make indictment the issue when if he could just repeat the "undicted co-conspirator"
used in the case of Richard Nixon.

[marylandblue]

8. Mueller is in a different position than Jaworski

Jaworski's staff and the grand jury itself wanted to indict Nixon but he chose not to. He thought it would interfere with the pending cases already filed. He had that luxury because he was reasonably sure Nixon would be impeached and removed from office.

Because of today's political climate, Mueller doesn't know what will happen if he recommends impeachment but doesn't indict. Also, given the gravity of Trump's crimes and his willingness to openly obstruct justice beyond what Nixon did, he may conclude it's better not to leave the question of indictment open anymore.

While indictment and trial are technically different issues, I don't accept the idea that he can be indicted without going to trial until after he is out of office for two reasons.

First, the constitution gives everyone the right to a speedy trial. Sure there are the burdens of trial on a President, but there is also a big burden of having an indictment over your head for 4 or 8 years.

Second, suppose he indicts Trump for obstruction of justice. Delaying trial just gives him more time to obstruct and more incentive to do so. Likewise, any other crime related to his office - bribery, fraud etc.,. He can collect more bribes, commit more fraud, all while still being a suspect and the nation powerless to stop it. Meanwhile, we won't even let Manafort take a trip to Florida for fear of what he might do.

[Kirk Lover]

3. A sitting President can be indicted. If he/she could not then they would be above the law and

we have all agreed no matter your political stripe that NOBODY is above the law.

[marylandblue]

4. Yes, I totally agree with that reasoning

But we still have a lot of naysayers here on DU, so I just thought I point out some additional info.

[PoliticAverse]

6. You would think so but the DOJ twice gave the opinion that indictment would violate a

separation of powers...

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

[marylandblue]

10. The mission of the OLC is to give legal advice to the president

And is run by a political appointee. They are not prosecutors and they are not independent of presidential authority. So it's no surprise that OLC have one opinion and special counsels have another. But when the question goes to court, it will be the special counsel taking it there, not the OLC.

[UpInArms]

7. Am so glad that Missouri can be used as an example

[bluestarone]

9. TY very much

your thread made my night!! Again TY