• 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!

Whether a president can be prosecuted remains in dispute

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first time, prosecutors have tied President Donald Trump to a federal crime, accusing him of directing illegal hush-money payments to women during his presidential campaign in 2016.

According to the law, prosecutors would have to prove willful intent here.

However, there was no ambiguity in the court documents that prosecutors believe Cohen’s actions were criminal and Trump was directly involved. Prosecutors charged that Cohen arranged the secret payments at the height of the 2016 campaign “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump. They also alleged Cohen made the payment in order to fend off potential damage to Trump’s presidential bid.
Federal law requires that any payments that are made “for the purpose of influencing” an election must be reported in campaign finance disclosures.
“There is a plausible case against the president,” said Rick Hasen, a professor who specializes in election and campaign finance law at the University of California at Irvine.

Yes, after Friday's information release by Muller, we now know that there is a case, but can Trump be convicted? That part is up in the air. Can Trump be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't be indicted, but The DOJ has always taken a position that a sitting president can't be indicted, as that would make him unable to do his job. He could be impeached by the House, but that would go nowhere, as the Senate does not have close to the votes needed to remove him from office. But here is what I believe is going to happen: At the present time, there are 36 sealed indictments on the DC Court docket. My bet is that one or more of them are going to be unsealed the day after Trump leaves office. All the rest, whether not to indict him while in office is moot. At the same time, I believe that some of the sealed indictments are against Kushner, Don Jr, and other members of the Trump crime family, and they will also stay sealed until the day after Trump leaves office, thus killing the possibility that they will be pardoned for their crimes.

As for collusion, that is just a BS word. Neither the Constitution nor the law have a penalty for collusion, and that word is not even defined. However, Criminal conspiracy and obstruction are serious crimes which carry serious penalties. As for the term "process crimes" that is being thrown about by FOX News, that is also BS. If you are committing perjury in order to cover up a crime, you are guilty of obstruction. Put it this way. A guy goes to rob a bank, and kills a teller in the process. His friend, who knew about the crime in advance, lies that he knew that the crime was going to happen. He has committed perjury and obstructed justice.

Friday's reveal by Mueller pretty much says it all. Trump and Company are in deep doo-doo, and tweeting about "collusion" and "process crimes" isn't going to make it go away. Members of Trump's team, as well as possibly even Trump himself, will be defending themselves against criminal charges just as soon as Trump leaves office. Nothing is going to change that fact.

https://apnews.com/6f4085a78485420cb6b410d9cf9c9c96
 
Last edited:

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,555
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
According to the law, prosecutors would have to prove willful intent here.



Yes, after Friday's information release by Muller, we now know that there is a case, but can Trump be convicted? That part is up in the air. Can Trump be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't be indicted, but The DOJ has always taken a position that a sitting president can't be indicted, as that would make him unable to do his job. He could be impeached by the House, but that would go nowhere, as the Senate does not have close to the votes needed to remove him from office. But here is what I believe is going to happen: At the present time, there are 36 sealed indictments on the DC Court docket. My bet is that one or more of them are going to be unsealed the day after Trump leaves office. All the rest, whether not to indict him while in office is moot. At the same time, I believe that some of the sealed indictments are against Kushner, Don Jr, and other members of the Trump crime family, and they will also stay sealed until the day after Trump leaves office, thus killing the possibility that they will be pardoned for their crimes.

As for collusion, that is just a BS word. Neither the Constitution nor the law have a penalty for collusion, and that word is not even defined. However, Criminal conspiracy and obstruction are serious crimes which carry serious penalties. As for the term "process crimes" that is being thrown about by FOX News, that is also BS. If you are committing perjury in order to cover up a crime, you are guilty of obstruction. Put it this way. A guy goes to rob a bank, and kills a teller in the process. His friend, who knew about the crime in advance, lies that he knew that the crime was going to happen. He has committed perjury and obstructed justice.

Friday's reveal by Mueller pretty much says it all. Trump and Company are in deep doo-doo, and tweeting about "collusion" and "process crimes" isn't going to make it go away. Members of Trump's team, as well as possibly even Trump himself, will be defending themselves against criminal charges just as soon as Trump leaves office. Nothing is going to change that fact.

https://apnews.com/6f4085a78485420cb6b410d9cf9c9c96

But impeachment talks are becoming likely once the new Congress is in power, and Trump likely will have few if any friends remaining.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
48,073
Reaction score
29,426
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can Trump be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't be indicted, but The DOJ has always taken a position that a sitting president can't be indicted, as that would make him unable to do his job.

But that's just the point...if he is unable to do his job because of indictments arising from charges of high crimes or misdemeanors, he is unable to do his job.
He could just as well be unable to do his job because of illness, or even mental illness, but this is just another case of him being unable to do his job due to being no longer qualified to do it on account of criminal indictments due to alleged criminal behavior.

One might compromise one's health, or one might compromise one's legal standing as set forth in the oath of office.
It doesn't really matter. If the indictments render the President unable to do his job, the chips fell where they fell, then.

Jim Jones was unable to do his job as a pastor of a church, because he lost his mind.
Charles Manson was unable to do his job as an itinerant rock star, because he went on a homicidal killing spree through the agency of his worshippers.
John Wayne Gacy was unable to do his job as a kiddie clown due to the fact that he was killing little boys.

You don't just let them continue, they have to be stopped.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
35,701
Reaction score
7,958
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But that's just the point...if he is unable to do his job because of indictments arising from charges of high crimes or misdemeanors, he is unable to do his job.
He could just as well be unable to do his job because of illness, or even mental illness, but this is just another case of him being unable to do his job due to being no longer qualified to do it on account of criminal indictments due to alleged criminal behavior.

One might compromise one's health, or one might compromise one's legal standing as set forth in the oath of office.
It doesn't really matter. If the indictments render the President unable to do his job, the chips fell where they fell, then.

Jim Jones was unable to do his job as a pastor of a church, because he lost his mind.
Charles Manson was unable to do his job as an itinerant rock star, because he went on a homicidal killing spree through the agency of his worshippers.
John Wayne Gacy was unable to do his job as a kiddie clown due to the fact that he was killing little boys.


You don't just let them continue, they have to be stopped.

You think its cute, its not. Stay classy.
 

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
11,465
Reaction score
7,472
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Scholars can argue all they want about indictments (and he'll be eligible after leaving office anyway), but what about good ol' fashioned impeachment? He's done enough already for impeachment but on purely partisan grounds, the GOP members in senate will not allow it. That makes them complicit in screwing up the country for Trump's personal gain.
 

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,642
Reaction score
10,048
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, a president (or vice president) should not be indicted while in office.

That would cause political chaos and would open the door for any prosecutor to drag the president into court, and leave possible power vacuums at the head of our government.

Instead, prosecutors can plead their case to Congress that a president should be removed from office, making them available for an indictment, or else they should wait until the presidents term is over.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
48,073
Reaction score
29,426
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, a president (or vice president) should not be indicted while in office.

That would cause political chaos and would open the door for any prosecutor to drag the president into court, and leave possible power vacuums at the head of our government.

Instead, prosecutors can plead their case to Congress that a president should be removed from office, making them available for an indictment, or else they should wait until the presidents term is over.

So you ARE saying that impeachment really is, in your opinion, the only option other than 25A, which might be even more difficult than impeachment. We are then faced with a crisis of fidelity, wherein the Constitution recommends an action or actions, but a legislative body refuses to take those action, by refusing to even consider a vote.

A prosecutorial case that presents compelling evidence and/or considerable probable cause, but which is ignored presents a constitutional crisis.
 

Stealers Wheel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
5,259
Reaction score
3,474
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I like the idea that "as soon as he's out of office" he can be indicted. It will take a lot of patience, particularly if he happens to be re-elected. Of course, this is all just so much speculation. If you believe some, Mueller and his team have been flailing around for the better part of two years with nothing to show for their efforts. Others believe the evidence will be overwhelming that Trump has committed unspeakable felonies worthy of a life-term in prison.

I suspect he will likely be impeached by the House. However, regardless of the alleged crimes, the Senate will acquit him. They have been completely neutered by Trump's base, who have shown they will primary anyone who dares not carry water for Trump.

Knowing the history of Spiro Agnew's fall from power, it is entirely possible that impeachment by the House might be a mistake. If Trump is acquitted by the Senate of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, does double jeopardy then apply? Does it mean he cannot be tried for the same crimes by a jury of his peers?

Trump's base do not care that he paid women to buy their silence. They do not care that he was lying about having financial entanglements with foreign governments. They do not care if he was compromised by hostile foreign interests. They do not care that he may have directed others to commit crimes on his behalf. Even if all of this is proven beyond the slightest doubt, they just don't care. Trump will get a pass for any and all crimes he may have committed by those true blue believers.

The people in Trump's inner circle, now that's an interesting consideration. People like Kushner, Don Jr., they do not have the luxury of having to be impeached. If they are indicted, will the president immediately move to pardon them? Will he pardon them preemptively? Will Trump supporters applaud this as well?

We live in interesting times.
 

Parrish

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,658
Reaction score
5,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, a president (or vice president) should not be indicted while in office.

That would cause political chaos and would open the door for any prosecutor to drag the president into court, and leave possible power vacuums at the head of our government.

Instead, prosecutors can plead their case to Congress that a president should be removed from office, making them available for an indictment, or else they should wait until the presidents term is over.

I disagree with the statement "power vacuums" in that we have a line of succession. It worked when Nixon resigned.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the POTUS cannot be indicted. There are just 2 DOJ memos that say that.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, a president (or vice president) should not be indicted while in office.

That would cause political chaos and would open the door for any prosecutor to drag the president into court, and leave possible power vacuums at the head of our government.

Instead, prosecutors can plead their case to Congress that a president should be removed from office, making them available for an indictment, or else they should wait until the presidents term is over.

I agree, and I also believe that is why 3 dozen sealed indictments are now on the docket in DC.
 

Stealers Wheel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
5,259
Reaction score
3,474
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I disagree with the statement "power vacuums" in that we have a line of succession. It worked when Nixon resigned.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the POTUS cannot be indicted. There are just 2 DOJ memos that say that.

It has never been tested in the USSC.

The problem is, 'indictment' is a near-synonym for 'accusation.' So, if the president would have to stop everything in order to deal with any 'accusation' what would stop politically motivated prosecutors from essentially crippling the president? Any president? No, the FF realized this and provided for a political process to remove a president if the offenses warranted.
 

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,642
Reaction score
10,048
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So you ARE saying that impeachment really is, in your opinion, the only option other than 25A, which might be even more difficult than impeachment. We are then faced with a crisis of fidelity, wherein the Constitution recommends an action or actions, but a legislative body refuses to take those action, by refusing to even consider a vote.

A prosecutorial case that presents compelling evidence and/or considerable probable cause, but which is ignored presents a constitutional crisis.
Who said the Senate wouldn't consider a vote? They can hold a vote and still deem the offenses not serious enough for a president to be removed from office, much like the Democrats and a few Republicans decided in Clinton's trail.

That having been said, I think just what's been revealed in the SDNY is far past what got Clinton impeached. If and when Mueller releases his blockbuster report detailing the WH's cover-up of all things Russia, Republicans are going to really have a tough time apologizing to the broader 56% of the public for not holding Trump accountable.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But impeachment talks are becoming likely once the new Congress is in power, and Trump likely will have few if any friends remaining.

It doesn't matter. The GOP will never vote to convict. They can't.
 

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,642
Reaction score
10,048
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree, and I also believe that is why 3 dozen sealed indictments are now on the docket in DC.
Man, we have no idea what those indictments are for.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,205
Reaction score
61,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It doesn't matter. The GOP will never vote to convict. They can't.

The absoluteness of that statement is precisely why Republicans shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding whether to begin articles of impeachment. Democrats should start the process and let Republicans show that they're okay with a criminal remaining in office.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The absoluteness of that statement is precisely why Republicans shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding whether to begin articles of impeachment. Democrats should start the process and let Republicans show that they're okay with a criminal remaining in office.

100% of the people who can be convinced of this are already convinced of this.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,205
Reaction score
61,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
100% of the people who can be convinced of this are already convinced of this.

I know, but congressional Republicans have managed to ignore the discussion by ducking into elevators and saying nothing. Impeachment hearings would force them to discuss it and get them on the record.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know, but congressional Republicans have managed to ignore the discussion by ducking into elevators and saying nothing. Impeachment hearings would force them to discuss it and get them on the record.

What would they say on the record that makes any difference to the chuds?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,205
Reaction score
61,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What would they say on the record that makes any difference to the chuds?

By "Chuds" I assume you mean Trump's base. Their opinions don't concern me. However, how independents will feel about a criminal being in the White House and the Republican party being just fine with it in 2020 does interest me.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
45,838
Reaction score
32,009
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The absoluteness of that statement is precisely why Republicans shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding whether to begin articles of impeachment. Democrats should start the process and let Republicans show that they're okay with a criminal remaining in office.


'Okay with a criminal remaining in office' according to you and other Trump haters.... The rest of us will wait to see if Trump is indicted for campaign finance violations and convicted of them after leaving office. As we saw in the John Edwards case, crimes like these are hard to prosecute as intent needs to be proved. Very difficult task.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,205
Reaction score
61,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
'Okay with a criminal remaining in office' according to you and other Trump haters.... The rest of us will wait to see if Trump is indicted for campaign finance violations and convicted of them after leaving office.

And then you'll claim a liberal conspiracy against him for imaginary crimes. There's a reason why I said the thoughts of Republicans shouldn't be taken into consideration.
 

trixare4kids

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
45,838
Reaction score
32,009
Location
S. California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
And then you'll claim a liberal conspiracy against him for imaginary crimes. There's a reason why I said the thoughts of Republicans shouldn't be taken into consideration.

The above hyperbole says more about you than it does "Republicans."
 

Obscurity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
11,484
Reaction score
5,148
Location
PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So, a sitting president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants - and there is no legal remedy?

Righties love themselves authoritarian autocrats, now don't they?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,205
Reaction score
61,450
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The above hyperbole says more about you than it does "Republicans."

Aside from the fact that Republicans are doing what I described anyway, is what I believe you meant to include.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,550
Reaction score
36,604
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Bottom