• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Majority say sitting presidents should be subject to indictment

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
15,711
Reaction score
11,826
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ent-should-be-able-to-be-charged-with-a-crime

The Hill said:
"Seventy-one percent of respondents, including 49 percent of Republicans, said sitting presidents should be subject to indictment, while 21 percent said they shouldn't. Thirty-eight percent of GOP respondents opposed allowing criminal charges to be brought against a president who's in office."


Which got me thinking: if most Dems believe a sitting president can be indicted when it's a Republican this time, and most Republicans would probably have responded positively if Clinton had been president, then it's fair to say that partisanship aside, they agree in principle.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,739
Reaction score
20,996
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ent-should-be-able-to-be-charged-with-a-crime




Which got me thinking: if most Dems believe a sitting president can be indicted when it's a Republican this time, and most Republicans would probably have responded positively if Clinton had been president, then it's fair to say that partisanship aside, they agree in principle.

So what? The majority of Americans cant name two Supreme Court Justices or both of their states senators. You cant indict a sitting president. You can impeach and remove him from office after which he can be indicted for any crimes he may have committed.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ent-should-be-able-to-be-charged-with-a-crime




Which got me thinking: if most Dems believe a sitting president can be indicted when it's a Republican this time, and most Republicans would probably have responded positively if Clinton had been president, then it's fair to say that partisanship aside, they agree in principle.

That made me chuckle. Makes me think that both Democrats and Republicans agree on absolutely everything as long as it is to their advantage.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,598
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So what? The majority of Americans cant name two Supreme Court Justices or both of their states senators. You cant indict a sitting president. You can impeach and remove him from office after which he can be indicted for any crimes he may have committed.

So what? It's not been determined by the courts whether or not a sitting POTUS can be indicted.

You simply have zero idea what you're talking about.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Majority say sitting presidents should be subject to indictment
Of course a POTUS should be subject to the same "jeopardy" the rest of are.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So what? The majority of Americans cant name two Supreme Court Justices or both of their states senators. You cant indict a sitting president. You can impeach and remove him from office after which he can be indicted for any crimes he may have committed.

What part of the Constitution says a President cannot be indicted if he breaks the law?
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I’m fine with indicting sitting presidents, but any trial should have to wait until they leave office or are impeached. For a couple reasons.

1. A President should be focusing on running our country, not running his defense.
2. It could be used as a political weapon by states that want to thwart a sitting President’s agenda.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So what? The majority of Americans cant name two Supreme Court Justices or both of their states senators. You cant indict a sitting president. You can impeach and remove him from office after which he can be indicted for any crimes he may have committed.

We don’t know if one can or can’t. It has never been tested.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ent-should-be-able-to-be-charged-with-a-crime




Which got me thinking: if most Dems believe a sitting president can be indicted when it's a Republican this time, and most Republicans would probably have responded positively if Clinton had been president, then it's fair to say that partisanship aside, they agree in principle.

Mob rule is never the right way to go. There is a good reason that the Justice Department has taken the position that a president should not be indicted while in office. After a president leaves office, however, is a different story. Indict away.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,739
Reaction score
20,996
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We don’t know if one can or can’t. It has never been tested.

The Justice Department has concluded that you cant and a reading of the Constitution makes it fairly obvious as does common sense. If there is evidence that the president has committed a High crime, the House impeaches him and the Senate tries him. If found guilty he is removed from office and THEN becomes subject to indictment.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
32,709
Reaction score
28,572
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I’m fine with indicting sitting presidents, but any trial should have to wait until they leave office or are impeached. For a couple reasons.

1. A President should be focusing on running our country, not running his defense.
2. It could be used as a political weapon by states that want to thwart a sitting President’s agenda.

In the case at hand, we have a president that spends more time on his golf swing and watching cable news, than running the country. The constitution is silent on whether the states can indict a sitting president. This is what the constitution says about impeachment:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

One interpretation is that impeachment is justified after conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The Justice Department has concluded that you cant and a reading of the Constitution makes it fairly obvious as does common sense. If there is evidence that the president has committed a High crime, the House impeaches him and the Senate tries him. If found guilty he is removed from office and THEN becomes subject to indictment.

No, the Justice Department established its own internal rule that it would not indict a sitting President. That isn’t a law. The current AG can change the rule and it is also not binding on state governments.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. In fact, someone already convicted of a crime AND serving a prison sentence, can run for office while in prison except in states where a law has been passed forbidding it. This has happened before, including for President. So if someone in prison can win office, why can’t someone already in office be indicted?
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, the Justice Department established its own internal rule that it would not indict a sitting President. That isn’t a law. The current AG can change the rule and it is also not binding on state governments.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. In fact, someone already convicted of a crime AND serving a prison sentence, can run for office while in prison except in states where a law has been passed forbidding it. This has happened before, including for President. So if someone in prison can win office, why can’t someone already in office be indicted?

Easy Peasy to change, and this is Trump after all....
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
In the case at hand, we have a president that spends more time on his golf swing and watching cable news, than running the country. The constitution is silent on whether the states can indict a sitting president. This is what the constitution says about impeachment:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

One interpretation is that impeachment is justified after conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

True, but this isn’t something that can be done on a case by case basis based on how good of a job we think a President is doing. Whichever way the courts would decide to interpret the law, that will become precidence. Do you want it to be that easy for a politically motivated indictment to be levied against a President that you actually like and believe is doing a good job?
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,739
Reaction score
20,996
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, the Justice Department established its own internal rule that it would not indict a sitting President. That isn’t a law. The current AG can change the rule and it is also not binding on state governments.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. In fact, someone already convicted of a crime AND serving a prison sentence, can run for office while in prison except in states where a law has been passed forbidding it. This has happened before, including for President. So if someone in prison can win office, why can’t someone already in office be indicted?

People in office can be indicted, just not the president. But you are right, the memo isnt law, but it is based upon interpretation of the Constitution. I suppose if a state AG tried it, it would ultimately have to be decided by the SC.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
People in office can be indicted, just not the president. But you are right, the memo isnt law, but it is based upon interpretation of the Constitution. I suppose if a state AG tried it, it would ultimately have to be decided by the SC.

Which brings us full circle to my original point, that we don’t know if it can be done or not as it has never been tried. :)

It would certainly be an interesting case.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
32,709
Reaction score
28,572
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I’m fine with indicting sitting presidents, but any trial should have to wait until they leave office or are impeached. For a couple reasons.

1. A President should be focusing on running our country, not running his defense.
2. It could be used as a political weapon by states that want to thwart a sitting President’s agenda.
Number 1, above, would also apply to civil suits but we know that sitting presidents are subject to civil suits.
 
Top Bottom