• 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!

Schiff: DOJ may need to revisit policy of not indiciting a sitting president

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The policy of not indicting a sitting president has traditionally been justified because of the consideration that the job of president is so important and all-consuming that a nation cannot afford to take up his (or her) time and energy with an indictment. That policy probably evolved because we have never had a president who may have committed a felony. Minor crimes may just have to wait until after they have served their term. That has been the traditional argument, at least.

But Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the likely incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has recently called for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "re-examine" whether it can indict a sitting president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-examine-olc-opinion-that-you-cannot-indict-a

The historically unprecedented nature and seriousness of the crimes with which the current president is being suspected may force a reconsideration of this policy. This problem has never had to be dealt with until now because we have never had to deal with a sitting president being suspected of possibly being a felon, and if not indicted now while still in office, may well get away with it because he could run out the statue of limitations on the alleged crimes. Should anyone really be above the law like that, especially if the crimes are potential felonies?

Just theoretically speaking, if there was a president who colluded with a hostile foreign power to get elected and is a foreign plant, is it OK to wait until they serve out their full term before they are indicted? What if they serve two terms and run out the statute of limitations? Is it OK to just let it go? How far can this go? What if things like murder are involved? You just have to ride out having a foreign plant, or even a potential murderer in office because of this policy? Should it matter that a large portion of this country either doesn't care, or is more than happy, to have such a foreign plant and/or felon as their president because he is enacting policies that they like?
 
Last edited:

DarkWizard12

Trans-Fascist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
2,362
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Well, democrats don't control the DoJ, so that's not likely to happen.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, democrats don't control the DoJ, so that's not likely to happen.

Are you OK with that? Partisanship trumping the law like that? From our own Department of justice, on which we rely on to protect us against crimes? Traditionally speaking, and theoretically, the DoJ should be above partisan considerations like that.

And, again, because we are talking purely hypothetically here and extending the scenario, even if the president's party controls both houses of congress as well, is it OK to have a known felon or foreign plant in the whitehouse, simply because his party controls congress and won't impeach for purely political purposes, and the DOJ won't do anything because they are afraid of their boss? Would congressmen who have abandoned their duty to protect America against criminals and uphold constitutional law be held accountable for putting partisan and political considerations over their sworn duties?

These are, of course, all just theoretical questions right now. We just don't know what the investigation is really going to turn up. It may be nothing. I am just curious about the policy of not indicting a sitting president. It just doesn't seems like sound policy.

And for those who may accuse me of being partisan: remember, this could happen with a sitting Democrat president. We are just talking about law and policy, which would apply to all regardless of political affiliation going forward.
 
Last edited:

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,470
Reaction score
23,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
“......take up the POTUS’ time and energy?” FFS he doesn’t show up for work until 1100 hrs!
 

DarkWizard12

Trans-Fascist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
2,362
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I don't understand- they will in just a few weeks.

And, even assuming they didn't, then is it OK to have a known felon or foreign plant in the whitehouse, simply because his party controls congress?

These are, of course, just theoretical questions right now. We just don't know what the investigation is really going to turn up. It may be nothing. I am just curious about the policy.

I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm saying is it's not going to happen. So why rile people up over it?

The DoJ is staffed by the president.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm saying is it's not going to happen. So why rile people up over it?

The DoJ is staffed by the president.

Yeah, but they also have a job description.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm saying is it's not going to happen. So why rile people up over it?

The DoJ is staffed by the president.

Many Americans are getting riled up because people who are supposed to be protecting America are putting partisan and political considerations over their job duties.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,360
Reaction score
29,727
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm saying is it's not going to happen. So why rile people up over it?

The DoJ is staffed by the president.

It's all the Trump haters have...to rile people up.

That's been their modus operandi for years, regarding Trump.

Spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...outright lies...raising hypothetical situations and then acting like those are Trump's positions even though he's never mentioned them.

It's all designed to rile people up.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The policy of not indicting a sitting president has traditionally been justified because of the consideration that the job of president is so important and all-consuming that a nation cannot afford to take up his (or her) time and energy with an indictment. That policy probably evolved because we have never had a president who may have committed a felony. Minor crimes may just have to wait until after they have served their term. That has been the traditional argument, at least.

But Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the likely incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has recently called for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "re-examine" whether it can indict a sitting president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-examine-olc-opinion-that-you-cannot-indict-a

The historically unprecedented nature and seriousness of the crimes with which the current president is being suspected may force a reconsideration of this policy. This problem has never had to be dealt with until now because we have never had to deal with a sitting president being suspected of possibly being a felon, and if not indicted now while still in office, may well get away with it because he could run out the statue of limitations on the alleged crimes. Should anyone really be above the law like that, especially if the crimes are potential felonies?

Just theoretically speaking, if there was a president who colluded with a hostile foreign power to get elected and is a foreign plant, is it OK to wait until they serve out their full term before they are indicted? What if they serve two terms and run out the statute of limitations? Is it OK to just let it go? How far can this go? What if things like murder are involved? You just have to ride out having a foreign plant, or even a potential murderer in office because of this policy? Should it matter that a large portion of this country either doesn't care, or is more than happy, to have such a foreign plant and/or felon as their president because he is enacting policies that they like?

"If we cant get what we want under the rules then we will either change the rules or ignore the rules" is how we roll now.

We used to be better.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's all the Trump haters have...to rile people up.

That's been their modus operandi for years, regarding Trump.

Spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...outright lies...raising hypothetical situations and then acting like those are Trump's positions even though he's never mentioned them.

It's all designed to rile people up.

I am not talking about Trump per se though. I am talking about the policy.

Are you OK with it? Remember, in a few years the same thing could be happening with a Democrat president. When talking about law and policy, it has to be applicable to all. It's the policy in question here.

Do you think it's a good policy?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,086
Reaction score
44,025
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not saying it's ok, what I'm saying is it's not going to happen. So why rile people up over it?

The DoJ is staffed by the president.
And that didn't stop the appointment of a Special Counsel.

I generally agree with your assessment, but I'd never say never. We don't know how bad the case is against Trump. If it involves Trump using his position to avert justice upon himself, all bets could be off.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,470
Reaction score
23,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's all the Trump haters have...to rile people up.

That's been their modus operandi for years, regarding Trump.

Spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...outright lies...raising hypothetical situations and then acting like those are Trump's positions even though he's never mentioned them.

It's all designed to rile people up.

“Priceless”
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,360
Reaction score
29,727
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am not talking about Trump per se though. I am talking about the policy.

Are you OK with it? Remember, in a few years the same thing could be happening with a Democrat president. When talking about law and policy, it has to be applicable to all. It's the policy in question here.

Do you think it's a good policy?

Of course it's not a good policy.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
40,410
Reaction score
17,976
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And that didn't stop the appointment of a Special Counsel.

I generally agree with your assessment, but I'd never say never. We don't know how bad the case is against Trump. If it involves Trump using his position to avert justice upon himself, all bets could be off.

What the hell are you talking about?? Seriously Chom, you need to turn off CNN
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The policy of not indicting a sitting president has traditionally been justified because of the consideration that the job of president is so important and all-consuming that a nation cannot afford to take up his (or her) time and energy with an indictment. That policy probably evolved because we have never had a president who may have committed a felony. Minor crimes may just have to wait until after they have served their term. That has been the traditional argument, at least.

But Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the likely incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has recently called for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "re-examine" whether it can indict a sitting president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-examine-olc-opinion-that-you-cannot-indict-a

The historically unprecedented nature and seriousness of the crimes with which the current president is being suspected may force a reconsideration of this policy. This problem has never had to be dealt with until now because we have never had to deal with a sitting president being suspected of possibly being a felon, and if not indicted now while still in office, may well get away with it because he could run out the statue of limitations on the alleged crimes. Should anyone really be above the law like that, especially if the crimes are potential felonies?

Just theoretically speaking, if there was a president who colluded with a hostile foreign power to get elected and is a foreign plant, is it OK to wait until they serve out their full term before they are indicted? What if they serve two terms and run out the statute of limitations? Is it OK to just let it go? How far can this go? What if things like murder are involved? You just have to ride out having a foreign plant, or even a potential murderer in office because of this policy? Should it matter that a large portion of this country either doesn't care, or is more than happy, to have such a foreign plant and/or felon as their president because he is enacting policies that they like?

Translation, "We admit we lost".
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Translation, "We admit we lost".

The country is in uncharted territory, possibly about to undergo a constitutional crisis, and maybe going to hell in a handbasket. And this is what you see?

Arrrrighty then...
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The country is in uncharted territory, possibly about to undergo a constitutional crisis, and maybe going to hell in a handbasket. And this is what you see?

Arrrrighty then...

There we go with the constitutional crisis thing again. If you guys weren't so rabidly infected with TDS there would be no constitutional crisis at all. It is of YOUR own making. If you are so worried about a constitutional crisis then why not give up and let Trump do his job without the resistance?
 

Logician Man

Smooth Operator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
26,229
Reaction score
9,622
Location
On the Threshold of a Dream
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There we go with the constitutional crisis thing again. If you guys weren't so rabidly infected with TDS there would be no constitutional crisis at all. It is of YOUR own making. If you are so worried about a constitutional crisis then why not give up and let Trump do his job without the resistance?

//// let Trump do his job without the resistance ////// Do you feel the same about letting Mueller do his job without any resistance ?
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
//// let Trump do his job without the resistance ////// Do you feel the same about letting Mueller do his job without any resistance ?

I have no worries about Mueller. Even if he found something on the president he couldn't do a damn thing about it for a number or reasons, hence the very reason for this thread. A top ranking Democrat doesn't even think that anything will happen to Trump.
 

Logician Man

Smooth Operator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
26,229
Reaction score
9,622
Location
On the Threshold of a Dream
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have no worries about Mueller. Even if he found something on the president he couldn't do a damn thing about it for a number or reasons, hence the very reason for this thread. A top ranking Democrat doesn't even think that anything will happen to Trump.

Good to see a conservative go on record as stating Mueller should be allowed to complete his investigation unimpeded. It appears you and Barnacle ( a conservative) disagree on this issue.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There we go with the constitutional crisis thing again. If you guys weren't so rabidly infected with TDS there would be no constitutional crisis at all. It is of YOUR own making. If you are so worried about a constitutional crisis then why not give up and let Trump do his job without the resistance?

So you would be totally OK looking the other way if the president of the United States was a felon and had been planted there by a hostile foreign power?

I’m sorry if I find that a little odd. I guess it’s something I got to get used to. :shrug:
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
26,729
Reaction score
9,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have no worries about Mueller. Even if he found something on the president he couldn't do a damn thing about it for a number or reasons, hence the very reason for this thread. A top ranking Democrat doesn't even think that anything will happen to Trump.

And you are saying this like it’s a good thing?
 
Top Bottom