Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Looking for an explanation (Original Post) madamesilverspurs May 2019 OP
I agree, watoos May 2019 #1
Correct. If Trump were a Dem, he'd be indicted Funtatlaguy May 2019 #8
It doesn't supplant law. euphorb May 2019 #2
but how does that happen under that policy? unblock May 2019 #4
I have to wash socks now. n/t rzemanfl May 2019 #6
What specific law (and OLC policy) are you referring to? n/t PoliticAverse May 2019 #3
It's a Watergate era (1973) opinion . . . euphorb May 2019 #7
I think they have this policy because it's really one branch of government checking another. iscooterliberally May 2019 #5
 

watoos

(7,142 posts)
1. I agree,
Mon May 6, 2019, 03:32 PM
May 2019

Democrats just give in too easily. There is no reason that a sitting president cannot be indicted, how do I know? Freaking common sense.

euphorb

(279 posts)
2. It doesn't supplant law.
Mon May 6, 2019, 03:35 PM
May 2019

It's not even a policy, as such. It's a legal opinion. There is no law regarding whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted. The opinion provides an interpretation of the Constitution. This issue has never been decided by a court, let alone the Supreme Court. In the absence of a governing law or court opinion, a legal opinion sets forth arguments for or against a particular outcome and balances them to come up with a probable conclusion (lawyers draft legal opinions on many topics for clients all the time). The opinion is used as the basis for a policy within the DOJ not to indict a sitting president. Agree with it or not (and I don't), it nevertheless is a valid step to take in the absence of a law or court ruling. Hopefully, the courts will step in soon and provide definitive guidance, which would supplant the OLC opinion.

unblock

(51,974 posts)
4. but how does that happen under that policy?
Mon May 6, 2019, 03:52 PM
May 2019

if the doj policy is not to indict a sitting president, then what case comes to the courts for them to clarify?
who has standing to challenge the doj and say they must indict?

it's really only if the doj tries to indict, then the president challenges it, that a case goes into the court system for them to (possibly) clarify.

euphorb

(279 posts)
7. It's a Watergate era (1973) opinion . . .
Mon May 6, 2019, 04:06 PM
May 2019

. . . created by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that reached the conclusion that, under the Constitution, a sitting president could not be indicted. It was based on the idea that the president's duties are so onerous and important (and no one else to carry them out), that to require him to spend time defending himself in court would be an unconstitutional incursion on his ability to carry out his duties. There is no law about this. That's why the opinion was created. I disagree with the conclusion of the opinion (as do many others), but that's what it is, and, for better or worse, it does govern DOJ decision-making.

iscooterliberally

(2,849 posts)
5. I think they have this policy because it's really one branch of government checking another.
Mon May 6, 2019, 04:05 PM
May 2019

Indicting a President is much different than indicting a civilian. They want congress to weigh in and either impeach the president or not. It's really hard to look at things impartially these days. If everyone elects a president and he happens to be a really bad guy, the justice department can't really over throw an election without the input of congress. I think it would be too few people wielding too much power. We need congress to impeach Trump much more than we need Robert Mueller to indict him. I think Mueller would love to indict him though. Personally, I would rather bypass everything and go straight for the tar & feathers, or maybe strap Trump to a rocket and launch him right into the sun.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Looking for an explanatio...