There is nothing in my reading of Article II or I of the Constitution

[LiberalFighter]

that prohibits criminal prosecution of a sitting President. Impeachment is only about the removal of the President that does not require criminal conviction. And even if a President is removed from office through impeachment there can also be additional punishment via the courts.

If the Founding Fathers had known such a scoundrel would had been elected they would had made sure he would had been ineligible.

[PoliticAverse]

1. The justice department's official view is that a sitting President can't be indicted...

From October, 2000 (.pdf): https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. What if it is not performing those functions?

[PoliticAverse]

3. If a official isn't performing their official duties (say they neglect to tie up their boat...

or something) they can be impeached.

[jberryhill]

4. You know what's kind of funny

I'd love to hear this question asked at a motion hearing:

"So, are you saying that if the president stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone, he could not be indicted?"

[GeorgeGist]

9. Fortunately, SCOTUS out ranks DOJ.

[LiberalFighter]

10. That was only one opinion.

[unblock]

5. the argument (a weak one imho) is that a criminal prosecution would overly interfere with

the constitutional duties of a president.

so the idea is that a president can't put a war on hold to go testify. there is, of course, some merit to this argument.
but it's not as if a criminal trial can't be scheduled around legitimate presidential activities, and many presidential activities are delegated already.

in an extreme case, the 25th amendment actually provides a bit of a way out -- the president could actually cooperate to make the vice-president the "acting president" for 21 days if the president really needed to focus on a trial and felt it was too much in conflict with being an active president.


i agree that the founders did not intend for a president to be able to, say, flagrantly violate federal law and be immune from prosecution for as long as he can stay in office. that's exactly the kind of tyrant they were trying to prevent.

[elocs]

6. Like it or not, it's not our interpretation of the Constitution that will ultimately matter,

but how the majority of the Supreme Court justices interpret it.

[kentuck]

7. Washington warned of political Parties....

...for this very reason - tribalism and division.

[Codeine]

8. I can't think of any democracy

or even pseudo-democracy that doesn’t have political parties. Arguing against them is sort of like arguing against the tide; it’s gonna happen anyway.