"longstanding policy that a sitting president can't be indicted": itself an obstruction of justice

[unblock]

this complete b.s. "policy" started during the nixon administration's watergate problems.

it's complete nonsense.

the founders of this country escaped tyranny and did not set about to create a government structure that would *literally* allow the leader of the nation get away with murder, for as longer as he was in office, for as long as congress decided to keep him in office.

not only is there no reasonable read of the constitution to justify this, but it also runs smack into common sense and the intent of the framers.

the "policy" was created as a deliberate effort to help a criminal president get away with committing crimes.

it had an ugly stench when it was created in 1973 and it has an ugly stench now.

mueller characterized the policy as "longstanding" as if time takes anything away from how much it stinks, or somehow should make us think well it must be right then.

no, it was never right.


the framers did not intend to allow a sitting president to get away with committing crimes before becoming president, and/or committing crimes in order to become president, and/or committing crimes during his presidency, and/or committing crimes to remain president, and/or committing crimes to profit from the presidency, anything from electoral crimes to embezzlement to kidnapping senators' children to keep them from removing him from office to murder.

the entire notion is complete and utter horsesh*t.

[fescuerescue]

1. I doubt that the justice department will indict itself for obs of justice.

I don't agree with that policy, but ultimately they do have create their own policies in which they operate, and Congress has delegated that power to the Justice department. (Congress delegates LOTS of powers to federal agencies)

Can this be fixed? Certainly. Congress has the power to pass a law directs the justice department to prosecute Presidential Obs of Justice. THEN the courts can and would rule on the constitutionality of it once (inevitably) challenged.

[unblock]

2. well of course.

so far they're getting away with obstructing justice. however you look at it, it's a corrupt system we have if the report shows a mountain of evidence but there's really nothing that can be done about it in practice because the senate won't remove him.


in the long run, as i've said elsewhere before, it might be good for him not to be indicted until he's out of office, because he can if he were indicted while in office, he could corrupt the prosecution of the indictment itself, possibly leading to a trivial deal or otherwise favorable outcome for him. in the worst case it might even prevent a second indictment due to double jeopardy.

in truth it's the senate refusing to remove a corrupt president that's the real problem, but still, this "policy" has zero basis in the constitution or in good governance and it is effectively helping donald fraud.