Can a president be indicted by State law but not by Federal law?

[kentuck]

Could the state of New York indict him??

I think the Supreme Court should have to rule on it.

[mainstreetonce]

1. I think they should try it

So we know the answer.

[Glamrock]

2. No reason they couldn't.

It's a Justice Dept. rule that prohibits indicating a sitting president. But that only applies to the feds. And shit, that's just a rule, not a law.

[NotASurfer]

3. I'll even take DC city prosecutors

At least they might have experience dealing with politicians gone bad. I've read one account of Pres. Grant being arrested and booked, in which case there's precedent

[jmowreader]

8. That was only because the reckless driving ticket hadn't been invented yet

[uppityperson]

4. Did they break state law?

[2naSalit]

7. State tax laws for starters....

New York is one of the states with the most taxes I'v ever seen. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[guillaumeb]

5. The Presidential pardon power is limited to Federal actions.

So state actions should not be affected.

[Wounded Bear]

6. There's no law that says a pres can't be indicted, by anybody...

that's a Justice Dep't policy, set by internal memos. That question has not been adjudicated yet.

[BigmanPigman]

9. Are people saying he can't be indicted by Mueller

because Mueller already said he would stick to this policy even though it is not an actual law? Also, don't we already know he broke state laws in NY and that is what the NY AG is going after? Can he be indicted for both state and federal crimes? I know nothing about this subject...not a legal eagle. I am trying to learn so I can follow this.

[kentuck]

10. Do we know when the Justice Department policy began?

That said a President could not be indicted?

Has anyone seen the policy in writing??

[onenote]

19. It dates back at least to 1973. Reaffirmed in 2000.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

[roamer65]

11. Yes, he can.

There is no specific provision in the Constitution to stop it, therefore it is a power left for the states.

There are 3 steps: indictment, trial/conviction and imprisonment.

Its very possible that we may end up with a sitting president under indictment until he resigns, is removed or leaves office naturally.

[beachbum bob]

12. Again, no federal law exist that prevents indictment of a president

[hlthe2b]

13. Any jurisdiction can indict for laws broken in their jurisdiction...whether or not US Supreme Court

would rule that such indictments (or at least trial) would have to wait until he's out of office is the unknown.

I have read a lot on the indictment issue from some prominent constitutional attorneys and am pretty convinced that nothing prevents a sitting President from being indicted--even on Federal charges, though political pressure might well convince charging jurisdictions to keep any such indictment under seal while in office. Even DOJ, despite their "rule" dating to the Clinton era, could 1. ask for a reinterpretation by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel; or 2. Mueller could appeal to Rosenstein for an "exception".

Of course any such indictment would be challenged, but I simply don't see the USSC denying that Presidents are susceptible as anyone to such charges, even if they determine trial must be postponed.

All the more reason to be fighting against Kavanagh on the USSC.

[kentuck]

15. Good info!

Thanks!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. It's not clear. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This is the basis of the doctrine of federal preemption, which means that a federal law will always prevail over a contrary state law, and applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies or constitutions.

The DoJ has taken the position twice that the president is not subject to indictment while in office and that no criminal charges can proceed against him unless he's either removed from office by impeachment or has served out his term. This is just a policy position based on Office of Legal Counsel memoranda written during the Watergate scandal and again in 2000, so it's not really a law. It's still unresolved whether a sitting president can be indicted.

However, if the Supreme Court were to rule that the indictment of a president is unconstitutional under separation of powers or other theories, that decision would prevail over all indictments, including those arising in state courts.

[kentuck]

17. That would help explain why marijuana laws do not exempt Federal laws...

...even when the state "legalizes" it, the Feds can still bust you.

Then we are back into Tenth Amendment and States Rights questions?

However, if the Court were to rule in the Feds favor over the States, would that necessarily mean that Federal law would prevail?

Interesting question... A lot of ambiguity.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. No ambiguity at all. Federal law prevails over contrary state law, always.

[Wounded Bear]

20. Yeah, the Executive has fairly broad ability to selectively enforce some laws...

thus, the Obama era policy to not pursue MJ cases in states where its legalized.

Sessions has made noise about reversing that, but I think he's mostly held off so far.

[kentuck]

21. Soon as Trump hears the story on FOX...

That could change overnight.

[George II]

16. In a word, yes.