Is it really true that yu can't charge a president with a crime? That doesn't make sense to me.

[napi21]

Every talking head is saying that but noone ever cites a law that forbids it.

[frankieallen]

1. Of course that's not true.

[napi21]

3. Thanks, but so many are saying it, how csn I disprove it? All I've got is that it doesn't make

sense to me. I've nevver heasrd of any law that forbids some action "unless it's don't by a POTUS"!

[madaboutharry]

2. A president needs to be impeached first.

They can be charged after impeachment.

[napi21]

5. So you're saying you can't. Where do you find this info to prove it? nt

[frankieallen]

24. False. No where does anything say that, you just made that up

[mitch96]

27. But this isn't going to happen

The house is a republican majority and the senate is a republican majority.
They are not going to impeach and convict their boy no mater what crimes he has perpatrated...
m

[bitterross]

31. Totally wrong. The two are completely independent of one another.

Getting charged and indicted would certainly go along way in articles of impeachment though.

[underthematrix]

4. It seems to me if it can be proven that he's an agent of a foreign government

which would make him an enemy combatant and subject to the conventions of war.

The Special Counsel primary investigation is about espionage

[frankieallen]

23. Well, I don't know about all that. I guess your example is possible, but

I was thinking more like drunk driving, or murder, or tax evasion. But an enemy combatant? No, I doubt it

[BzaDem]

6. In practice, the President would need to be impeached first.

The President controls the Justice department, and this includes the special counsel. The President can order the attorney general to fire the special counsel, and fire the attorney general if he or she does not comply.

This doesn't preclude Bob Meuller from investigating the President, naming the President as an un-indicted co-conspirator, or suggesting to Congress that the President committed a crime.

In theory, Bob Meuller could attempt to indict the president. But the Justice department has long held that a sitting president cannot be charged by his own subordinates with a crime (analogous to how you cannot sue yourself). The result could be a prolonged legal battle, but such a battle would likely be short circuited by the special counsel being fired. This is why the only absolute check on the President's power is impeachment and removal.

[tinrobot]

7. Can a state court try him for a state crime?

Perhaps a New York state court, for example?

[NYC Liberal]

10. Even if it were possible and he were convicted, that wouldnt remove him from office.

He’d still need to be impeached. That’s why impeachment, practically, has to happen first.

[BzaDem]

13. Such a prosecution would run into different problems.

A state prosecution would not run into separation of powers problems (since the president has no control over state attorneys or state law enforcement). But such a prosecution could effectively prevent the president from executing his responsibilities as president, and would likely be thrown out for that reason. This is a structural argument, not a textual argument, but it is a compelling argument. Imagine if the southern states in 1861 attempted to prosecute Lincoln prior to the civil war, to effectively prevent him from enforcing laws the states found distasteful (and to prevent him from effectively waging war to preserve the union). Federal courts would likely throw our such a prosecution, on the grounds that the states (whose law is inferior to federal law under the Supremacy clause) cannot take action that would disable the President from acting as President.

(Of course, once a president leaves office, they can be fully prosecuted in state or federal court, subject to the statutes of limitations.)

[beachbum bob]

16. possible but not likely

impeachment is first

[customerserviceguy]

8. I suppose a president can pardon himself

We've certainly seen where one has arranged that through his successor.

The only remedy for bad behavior is impeachment, and it's more of a political act than a process of the criminal justice system. If a sizable number of Republicons think that Trump dooms their party, they will join Democratic legislators who want to put an end to his presidency. Until that day comes, we're stuck.

[Xolodno]

9. Well...is gray area....

Yes, they can be charged, convicted and sent to jail...and run the country from Leavenworth, if the House doesn't deliver articles of impeachment to the Senate and if they do, the Senate doesn't vote for impeachment.

But that would be embarrassing at the exponential level.... "Yes Angela Merkel, you can visit me to discuss xyz issue, we will meet in Leavenworth". Or, "house arrest"...."Sorry, I can't attend the G20 summit, I'll send Pence instead since I'm under house arrest".

The optics of that...screams impeachment..... but don't put anything past the GOP, they think they are the moral high ground and the ends justify the means.

Then of course, the 500 pound gorilla in the room..... Can a sitting President pardon himself? The answer, Yes. But there is an exception, charges that are involved with an impeachment. So if he doesn't get impeached but gets convicted, he can pardon himself. Despite never having been done. Again the optics would be horrible, but again, don't put anything past the current GOP, they are not the party of yore and Reagan would return to the Democratic Party.

But another interesting aspect of this...he can only pardon Federal crimes. So.... If he manages to get off on federal charges, he still could have a yuge problem at the State level. Say if New York or New Jersey, convict him for state crimes and ask for his extradition, well, that's going to pose a problem. And if he wants to visit, he has to stay on federal lands. If he doesn't, its going to be an uncomfortable stand off between state law enforcement and federal. That actually happened during the Kennedy assassination, state authorities didn't want to release the body of the President as it was now part of a state murder investigation. The Secret Service however was pushing the Federal supremacy issue and the FBI wasn't on hand yet in significance. State officials ultimately yielded...can't blame them, the PR would be a nightmare for creating a challenge on law enforcement after an assassination...that would be forced to the Supreme Court. In the case of Trump....yeah, I've resided myself to expect nothing of the obvious and norm....and keep my passport handy...just in case.

[bresue]

21. So far, only one witness, Comey, is under oath....

Mueller will have a solid concrete case after interviewing each WH staff under oath. This will corroborate Comey's testimony.

After Wed Senate hearing with Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Rowenstein pleading the 5th, when Mueller finally interviews them under oath, they will back up Comey or commit perjury.

Dump just does not understand the legal implications or he would not be so smug. He believes he can control everyone's statements in his circle, while not acknowledging their intense hatred for him.

I speculate that after solid testimonies are completed under oath by Mueller, things will happen very fast. Why? As in Nixon case, once staff realized they have been thrown under the bus by Dump...they will start singing. Like Flynn asking for immunity now before he testifies.

[frankieallen]

25. I really didn't hear anything in Comey's testamony

that was earth shattering, or anything we didn't all ready pretty much know. What crime are we talking about here?

[bresue]

29. Comey laid out a careful scenario with many details....

To my thought, he set the stage setting landmarks such as date, time, and etc. He did not come outright and say "obstruction of justice", but remember, he is a prosecuting attorney. He knows how to give enough rope for someone to hang themselves.

As Mueller starts interviewing specific WH staff members...he is going to be coming back to Comey's notes for either verification or perjury (not saying Comey's memos are gospel) but Comey's testimony set the parameters. To me these parameters are wide and broad...as far as how many people he stated in his memos. This will give Mueller reason to interview under oath many, many people to corroborate Comey's story...while under oath...Mueller can ask them anything, even if not related to Comey.

Dump cannot control the questions of Mueller....nor the answers...and is his personal attorney going to represent them all if they perjure?

Just my own thoughts....

[MedusaX]

11. *45 shades of constitutional grey exist....

Presidential Indictment Possibilities

1. Can be indicted for acts that occurred before inauguration

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-10/lawsuits-against-donald-trump-unprecedented-for-president-elect

2. Can be indicted for acts occurring after inauguration
But trial cannot take place until out of office.....
... the indictment should give House/Senate sufficient concern so as to consider impeachment proceedings

3. There is a vast amount of grey area w/regards to presidential immunity...
most of which has to do with making a distinction between acts
which took place within the scope of official POTUS duties and
acts that are considered NOT within the scope (slander, defamation, assault, etc)

4. Another Grey Area involves violating the emoluments clause

5. The most interesting grey area is related to a perceived need, by SCOTUS,
to restore "Balance" to the powers which are shared but separate, amongst the three branches....
the article linked below is long but VERY VERY relevant......

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-presidents-absolute-immunity-be-trumped

[tritsofme]

12. The longstanding position of the Justice Department is that a sitting president is not amenable

to federal indictment.

link

[DeminPennswoods]

14. Everything I've heard is that

the president can't be charged, but also that it's a question that has never been tested in court. The rememdy the Constitution gives is impeachment. Could the electors of the electoral college have a role to play?

IIRC, Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" during Watergate.

[judesedit]

15. What if he was installed as in a coup...not legally elected?

He is not truly the President then

[beachbum bob]

17. impeachment still would have to happen

technically a sitting president can pardon himself, and why impeachment is the first step

[Voltaire2]

19. Then we would be and perhaps we are in

a failed constitutional system, so there would be or perhaps are no rules.

[Voltaire2]

18. The president could pardon himself for any federal

crime, so from a practical standpoint removing him from office first is required. However the pardon power doesn't appear to cover state laws, so he could be charged with a state crime that he would not have a get out of jail card for. Note that this would be uncharteted constitutional territory.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. It is not settled law

So anyone that declares definitively one way or the other, that's just like, you know, their opinion, man.

[Ilsa]

22. The charges against him need to be numerous and severe with

dire consequences if convicted. That will make it much more difficult for Pence to pardon him without consequences for himself, especially if his own involvement is in question.

[luvMIdog]

26. I know! It doesn't seem fair at all. He above all people should set the best example and be held

accountable. It seems all wrong to me that they can't be charged. I guess they did that to prevent a president spending all his time in court instead of running the country. However maybe they could just make him skip golf

[Lurks Often]

28. Yes & no and we're in uncharted legal waters now.

Any attempt to charge ANY sitting President with a Federal crime WITHOUT going through Congress would end up before the Supreme Court. My opinion is that a sitting President can not be arrested by Federal law enforcement agencies and any removal would have to be through impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

As for state crimes, that is very much unknown territory and would also end up before the Supreme Court.

Realistically I don't see it happening despite what the NY Attorney General is saying. First an arrest warrant would have to be signed by a judge and even if you can find a state judge to sign such a warrant, who is going to serve the warrant and arrest a sitting President? The Secret Service is not going to allow state or city police to take any President into custody and states do not have the authority to order Federal law enforcement to arrest Trump.

In other words, people need to stop thinking that Trump is going to be removed from office by being arrested or impeached & convicted in Congress. It is not going to happen.

[appleannie1943]

30. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/25/weekinreview/the-nation-a-primer-prosecuting-a-president.html

And even better

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub