I Do Not Agree That Charging An In Office President Is Unconstitutional

[Me.]

It is an opinion/guideline written by the Dept. Of Justice. Some have interpreted a vague line or 2 into that opinion. However, the framers were pretty clear in their language with what or not they wanted in that document. It hinges on the matter of a defendant not being able to defend themselves without a trial but if there is clear and compelling evidence I think she/he must be prosecuted because otherwise he/she is, unlike what people insist, is above the law.

[lagomorph777]

1. The Constitution explicitly says the opposite of Mueller's claim.

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Any claims that the Constitution prohibits indictment of a sitting president are anti-Constitutional balderdash.

[melm00se]

3. I am not sure your interpretation

is correct. "[T]he Party convicted" would seem to indicate post removal from office. So a convicted party would no longer be president and thus subject to "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment".

This question was raised in Georgetown law symposium(text here) which is interesting reading.

[OnlinePoker]

4. I think they're using "the Party CONVICTED shall nevertheless be liable..."

If he's not convicted in an impeachment, they're saying he's not subject to indictment. That would probably end up as a Supreme Court decision, but by the time it got there, he'd be turfed out anyway.

[lagomorph777]

5. That's a pretty creative interpretation. The language is INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE

It says that impeachment doesn't preclude legal jeopardy. It does not say that impeachment is a prerequisite to legal jeopardy.

[Igel]

6. Yeah, it actually does.

"the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

Impeachment is the Congressional version of being indicted. The Senate convicts, which is removal from office.

If the "Party convicted" is liable, then s/he's removed from office.

Now, it's silent as to whether the person who is merely impeached or not impeached is liable to criminal prosecution. It remains the case, however, in the case of the president that the sole authority for prosecuting him rests with the executive branch, and all authority in the executive rests with the president.

The idea of an "independent department of justice" is an oxymoron.

Imagine this: There's a set of staffers in the House whose leadership is appointed by Pelosi, whose budget is controlled by Pelosi, but who in no way are subject to any elected official's authority. So they can run around and say things that contradict Pelosi, they can investigate Pelosi, they can decide to bring ethics charges against Pelosi and nobody in the Congress has a bit of control over that staff. In fact, the very idea of firing that staff is laughable. Even though, actually, they're set up to be entirely under Congress' control. Sounds insane. But that's what people sometimes seem to think the DOJ is. It's independent by an attitude of administrative laissez faire. Because all executive authority derives from the president.

There is a House ethics committee. There are "independent" Congressional agencies, but they're still independent just because Congress has said they are--and at the drop of a hat Congress can declare them to be non-independent. And, at times, Congressfolk have been caught talking to members of those "independent agencies" with veiled threats that make those agencies not quite so independent.

[TwilightZone]

11. Correct. The key words are "the Party convicted"

The rest of the statement that follows is referring to a removed president, as you noted.

[lagomorph777]

13. "it's silent as to whether the person who is merely impeached or not impeached is liable..."

Impeachment with or without conviction is fully separate from criminal prosecution. There is no causal connection whatsoever, according to the text of the Constitution.

[lagomorph777]

12. "it's silent as to whether the person who is merely impeached or not impeached is liable ..."

Thank you. My point exactly.

[Me.]

9. Very Interesting

[TwilightZone]

10. The key words are "the Party convicted...."

If the POTUS is convicted by the Senate, he's removed from office, which is when the remainder of your highlighted part becomes relevant.

It's saying that a removed POTUS is subject to indictment, etc. It's not saying that a sitting president can be indicted.

[corbettkroehler]

2. If Only The Late Janet Reno Were With Us

She could tell us her exact thinking on allowing 42 to be indicted while in office. It didn't seem to be a problem for her.

I concur with your view and really want to know the justification for the current policy versus how it was Ken Starr.

[former9thward]

7. Clinton was not indicted.

The Clinton DOJ headed by Janet Reno said:

"Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution."

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

[Me.]

8. INteresting Conversation All