Can he be indicted?

[BigmanPigman]

Blumenthal says, "Yes he can".

"Blumenthal told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that if the President were to be indicted, it could go to the United States Supreme Court.
"It's an issue that has never been resolved, and that way there is a Department of Justice opinion to the contrary," Blumenthal said. "I happen to think that he could be indicted even if the trial is postponed. "

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/richard-blumenthal-trump-indictment/index.html

*Earlier Lawrence Tribe told MSNBC that he thinks Mueller should indict him and seal it until 2020 or 2024 so that way he can get a trial and possible go to jail for his crimes.

[joshcryer]

1. Trump would pardon himself.

Total constitutional crisis.

Hope it happens, mind you.

But impeachment is the better out.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Supreme court would rule 9-0 a President can't pardon themself. n/t

[former9thward]

6. They would rule 9-0 he could.

There are no limits on the power to pardon in the Constitution

[PoliticAverse]

8. Actually there is a limit (and it is mentioned specifically) but regardless in the issue...

of self-pardon the court is not going to find that someone can pardon themself. That would be stupid.

[former9thward]

10. The court would have to find a limit in the Constitution.

They could not just say "it would be stupid". The limit on impeachment pardon has no relevance to this. There is no other.

[PoliticAverse]

12. No, Courts don't need to find explicit stated limits they often find limits due to logic or...

the logical result of not applying such limits. The principal of "no person can sit in judgement of themsellf" would likely prevail.

The reason that they didn't specifically state that the President could not pardon themself in the Constitution itself is most
likely that no one seriously considered that a self-pardon would be something possibly considered valid.

We'll never know for sure about the self-pardon issue unless a case comes up to the Supreme Court though.

[joshcryer]

13. They might argue "nemo iudex in causa sua."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

But you're right that the constitution doesn't really address self-pardoning and Nixon seriously considered pardoning himself.

[unblock]

20. constitutional analysis is rarely as simplistic as that.

does that view comport with the intent of the founders?
did they really mean to give a president license to commit all manner of federal crimes with no consequence beyond possibly losing his temp job?

does that view comport with equal protection under the law?

does that view even comport with the meaning of the term "pardon"?
doesn't the term "pardon" inherently involve a separate person?


you're welcome to your views and your conclusion, but this is hardly a simple 9-0 decision that the constitution establishes a rotating tyrant.

[former9thward]

21. I was replying to a poster who said it would be 9-0 the other way.

You seemed to have no problem with that simplistic thinking...

[unblock]

22. that post didn't suggest that the analysis would be simple.

it only guessed that the conclusion would be unanimous.
your post not only suggested unanimity but also gave a simplistic, blanket justification that even justices who think self-pardons are permitted wouldn't agree with.

personally, i don't think it would be unanimous, though i do think they would decide against a power of self-pardon.

at the moment, i'm guessing 7-2, though i haven't given too much thought to how actual justices might decide.

[bluestarone]

19. Gotta agree with YOU here! Otherwise

Rump could NEVER leave office. If he has unlimited power (pardoning power) every 4 years he could just refuse to leave office and pardon himself!! No matter what the constitution says about 4 year presidency. Then what??

[mshasta]

2. the law stipulates

"No body is above the law" he is no god.

[unblock]

17. that phrase does not appear in the constitution.

it's an important judicial principle, but it doesn't appear in the constitution.

[Downtown Hound]

4. There is absolutely no law ANYWHERE that says he can't.

Just legal opinions. So, yes.

[Clarity2]

5. Former DOJ official

who wrote special counsel rules, said yes, a sitting pres can be indicted, and that if mueller has the goods, he will ask rosenstein to indict.

[BigmanPigman]

7. I wonder if Rosenstein would or not. this is what

he said..."This isn't the first time the issue has been questioned. Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Mueller investigation, was asked about whether a sitting president could be indicted while speaking at an event. "I'm not going to answer this in the context of any current matters, so you shouldn't draw any inference about it," Rosenstein previously said. "But the Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There's been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don't have anything more to say about it."

[PoliticAverse]

9. The official position of the DOJ is that a sitting President can't be indicted...

You can read the argument on their website:

From 10-16-2000:

The indictment or cniminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned function.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[Cattledog]

14. That is not a law. It was crafted 18 yrs ago. Positions can change due to circumstances.

What if a sitting President had his enemies murdered? Likewise what if he worked with an enemy Govt. to swing an election. In 2000 no one envisioned a sociopath/criminal gaining the office.

If a group of citizens (Grand Jury) think he committed a crime...Yes he can be indicted.

[Clarity2]

23. I saw that interview

I guess everyone has their own interpretation. The ex DOJ who wrote special counsel rules made the case that Trump spends so much time playing golf, the argument that an indictment would deprive the u.s. of a president kinda falls on its face. (yes he was serious)

Between his fox watching, golfing, tweeting (which gives the illusion hes working hard at making policy) and naps, he’s kind of got a lot of free time.

Ok, so they may not use that in court, but hes got a good point.

[Cattledog]

11. Mueller & Rosenstein can't indict anyone. Only a Grand Jury can.

All they can do is present their case to the Grand Jury who will decide if a crime was committed.

[patty_bateman]

16. Not sure if this is the way to do this but

I love your avatar. My cattle dog, Indigo, is sitting next to me as I write this. We're giving you 2 thumbs/dew claws up!

[Cattledog]

18. Cattledog owners need no excuses!

[rock]

15. If I were indicted it would not go to the Supreme Court

All people are equal under the Law. I believe everyone can draw the proper conclusion. And there's no lwas against indicting the president.

[Generic Brad]

24. No person is above the law

The executive branch is there to execute the laws of the land - not to violate and make a mockery of those laws. The argument that Trump cannot be indicted despite committing illegal actions is based on bullshit fast talk that originates from a criminal cabal.