- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
No, he does not.
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
But what does the Justice department know right?
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What do you know about the Constitution?
WRONG AGAIN. Felonius Bill Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones. Then he lied under oath to cover his deviant behavior.Before Clinton lied under oathe, what crime did he commit to get investigated? Oh yeah, nothing.
You really have problems with logic and clear thinking.It was a political witch hunt to embarrass Clinton. Had Clinton not lied under oathe AFTER the investigation started, he would not have been found guilty of anything.
For someone who's just done a full circle jerk in this thread, and has had his ass handed to him in the process, you're really quite an uppity Lib.Clinton DID screw up and IMO DID deserve to get impeached for lying. So save your stupid partisan generalizations. You don't know MY views, let alone what "party" I subscribe to. How's that foot taste in your mouth?
Yeah....obviously much more than you
Really. Then you understand that when a President breaks the law, he can be impeached, then prosecuted...correct? You get that, right?
Not sure how that refutes the idea a President can't be prosecuted in office...well since he needs to be impeached from office first. You get that, right?
An impeachment is a prosecution...while in office.
An impeachment is a political process not a criminal process. Hence...why I said the President has immunity while in office. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. Criminal courts may try and punish the President after he's impeached from office...which is once again a political process...hence he has immunity from criminal prosecution while in office.
Why do you keep on dragging this out? You were wrong...Presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution while in office.
No. A recall election is a political process. An impeachment is the parallel of an indictment.
An impeachment has a parallel to indictment/trial/and sentencing but that doesn't mean it's not a political process with only political outcomes. It's not a criminal trial.
It is legislative trial potentially freeing up the offender to criminal trial. It is a trial, my friend, not a "political process". It's no less a trial than a civil trial.
So let's bridge the different...it's a political trial.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?