- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 48,139
- Reaction score
- 25,388
- 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?
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: