• 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
20,061
Reaction score
17,153
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

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

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.
 
Majority say sitting presidents should be subject to indictment
Click to expand...
Of course a POTUS should be subject to the same "jeopardy" the rest of are.
 

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

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

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.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
We don’t know if one can or can’t. It has never been tested.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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....
 

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?
 

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.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Number 1, above, would also apply to civil suits but we know that sitting presidents are subject to civil suits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…