Can the President Be Indicted?

[DonViejo]

May 29, 2017 By Taegan Goddard

“The Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offenses. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime,” the New York Times reports.

“The Supreme Court has never answered that question, either. It heard arguments on the issue in 1974 in a case in which it ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over tape recordings, but it did not resolve it.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2017/05/29/can-president-indicted/

[MineralMan]

1. It's a question without an answer, really.

Until someone tries it and it is taken to court, the answer will remain unknown. What a pity it is that the question ever came up, though. How horrible that we have a President who raises such a question.

[vlyons]

2. Yes a sitting president may be indicted

but may not be prosecuted. A sitting president may also be reported out of a grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator. Typically, either one, indicted or unindicted co-conspirator, SHOULD trigger the House of Representatives to vote a bill of impeachment. But there's no guarantee that a Republican House would put forth such a bill. That's why we Dems need to take the House in 2018. If a bill of impeachment passes, then the Senate would hold a trial.

I have faith that eventually we will see justice done on the Republican-Trump criminal cabal. But we must all be patient and let Mueller's investigation do its work. I want him to dot every "i" and cross every "t" to catch as many of these criminals as possible.

[onenote]

3. You say that with more certainty than you can possibly have.

Constitutional scholars are divided on the question.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9100466

The fact that Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator doesn't mean he could have been indicted while in office.

[vlyons]

4. The question was COULD he be indicted, not WOULD he be indicted

The constitution does not forbid a bill of indictment for a sitting president. A grand jury COULD indict him AND it might very well be challenged as unlawful by a president's lawyers. Meaning it would go to SCOTUS for a ruling. Or a grand jury might decide to not indict, but it COULD if enough jurers voted to do so. We have to wait and see.

[onenote]

5. Whether the Constitution forbids a bill of indictment for a sitting president is a subject of debate

I'm pretty certain the relevant question isn't whether a president could be indicted, it's whether a president could lawfully be indicted.

[vlyons]

6. I think you missed my point

Since SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this question yet, if enough jurers decided that they want to indict, there's really nothing to prevent them from doing so.

[onenote]

7. Guess what. Even if the SCOTUS had ruled, some grand jury "could" indict the president

And then it would have to be challenged.

Again, theoretical indictments are meaningless. The issue is whether the Justice Department thinks a president can be indicted, and there is no reason to think that this Justice Department would conclude it could.