I think constitution of usa is fucked up is the president isn't allowed to be indicted

[Le Gaucher]

I think the prosecution should wait until he is out of office... But subpoena and indictment should be allowed.. there will be crimes he/she will be theoretically allowed to get away with based on statute of limitations ( assuming they serve 8 years) thus putting them above the law.

The president also gets first dibs at pardon by his successor especially if it its the vice president.

There needs to be a constitutional amendment that restricts the power of pardon ( not allow it for the pardon when the crime involves the president/president's family/ members of administration and/ or campaign or large campaign contributors.

Trump is openly abusing the pardon power and dangling it like a carrot to subvert justice. Congress is doing nothing to check him and there ought to be an alternate mechanism.

[uponit7771]

1. Not intendent to be flame bait but; watch for what you ask for. KGOP would indict a non white for ..

... being non white.

They're that demented and don't have to give a damn

I'd put money on it that they'd indict Obama or Clinton for some stupid crap like not have a hair pin in the right place or not having a birth certificate stamped clearly or something of the sort if it was allowed.

To displace a sitting president there should be some hard evidence, less they take advantage of this rule and make being a president of non effect.

[Le Gaucher]

2. Wouldnt the justice dept be in charge of that and not politicians?

But I see your point. The fuckers will try to do that by presssure no doubt.

[Sherman A1]

3. I don't believe that it does speak to the issue.

I believe that is the current agreed upon interoperation of the issue, which can certainly change based upon those doing the interpreting of the document.

[beachbum bob]

4. constitution dosen't exempt a president from being indicted, thats a DOJ policy

and with any policy, can be changed or ignored

[unblock]

5. IMHO, the constitution does not prevent indictment of a sitting president

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter, so some right-wingers have jumped in to assert it can't be done.

I believe the constitutional arguments for that position are flimsy and run completely counter to the obvious intent of the framers.

Hard to say what this particular Supreme Court would decide, especially if kavenaugh is added, but I would not accept the right-wing view as settled law.


Think about it, the framers were very concerned about tyrants. They could not have meant to give a president the power to commit all manner of crimes, including things like stealing an election, blackmailing and kidnapping and killing members of congress and their families, and to protect such a tyrant from prosecution until after their out of an office they're using crimes to stay in.

As you said, at the bare minimum it seems it's the trial that might have to wait, there's no reason to hold off on an indictment.

[jberryhill]

9. "the framers were very concerned about tyrants"

...but historically, tyranny has been a consequence of unrestrained prosecution power.

Essentially, all one does in the model where the president can be indicted is to pass the baton of tyranny to whomever has THAT power.


They could not have meant to give a president the power to commit all manner of crimes, including things like stealing an election, blackmailing and kidnapping and killing members of congress and their families, and to protect such a tyrant from prosecution until after their out of an office they're using crimes to stay in.

Congress can impeach the president whenever they feel like it. If they don't feel like it, then that's not a problem with the system.

[unblock]

11. well this is a rather special case....

the framers were certainly concerned about prosecutorial abuse, but not against presidents/monarchs/etc.; at least they had no precedent for that. usually it was the monarch abusing prosecutorial powers to go after lesser officials or private individuals.

it's true that this is a problem, though, and it was raised as an issue back when we had an actual independent counsel statute.

in the current construct, though, the president can effectively shut down a prosecution, so it's hard to see a prosecutor getting truly abusive in going after a president. obviously, a saturday night massacre scenario doesn't go over well politically, but that's when the investigation appears genuine. it would presumably work better if the prosecutor really was making stuff up. and of course, there's always the impeachment process, fwiw, if the president gets out of line quashing an investigation.

without a truly independent prosecutor, i don't think the arguments about prosecutorial abuse specifically in the question of indicting a sitting president are very strong.

it is a conundrum in terms of ideal design of a government, but in any event, given the actual constitution, i don't see anything in it that prevents indictment of a sitting president. certainly the framers could have used some temporal language in the impeachment clause (to make clear that impeachment comes first, then indictment), but they didn't.

[jberryhill]

14. There were plenty of prior examples of that

They were as familiar with inquisitions or Cromwell's England as anyone else.

[janterry]

6. I wish we could recall a President

n/t

[gibraltar72]

7. Those hard line constitutionalists like Federalist society

Are making that up. It is just a construct of men who don't think it seemly. It also appears fungible as many said Clinton could and should be indicted.

[Claritie Pixie]

8. There is nothing in Article II that states the president cannot be indicted or arrested.

Those saying otherwise are wrong. It hasn’t been done before but hey, there’s a first time for everything. We’ve never had a mob boss take the presidency before.

[Downtown Hound]

10. There is nothing in the constitution

that says a sitting president can't be indicted. And anybody that says otherwise is ignorant or lying, or both.

[kentuck]

12. Right!

This is an old wives tale created by Republicans to keep Republican Presidents from being indicted.

[2naSalit]

13. They didn't think that was an issue

when they decided to impeach Clinton.

[sarcasmo]

15. Comrade Rand, is this your screen name?