The office of president of the U. S. should no longer be allowed to be used as a 'shield'

[Jrose]

or excuse by any aspiring candidate to do a variety of crimes without consequences while he/she is in office. It should be a position that is held to the utmost ethical and legal scrutiny.

Anyone using that position to instigate ones allies to violently or non- violently undermine the legitimate election of a political opponent must be treated as a seditious felon.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. The political purity is appreciated. Enforcing it seems to be a recurring problem.

That's why the Constitution fractured power geographically, institutionally, politically, temporally. Because the 'shoulds' are where the disagreements and friction are.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Every criminal should run for office

Apparently it’s free immunity.

[czarjak]

3. Barring it hopefully doesn't last forever.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. It wasn't used as a shield for Clinton.

Quite to the contrary, the Right found every legal loophole and tore down every "traditional" policy to get to him.

So, you got to ask yourself, what's different now?

[pandr32]

6. This!

[leftieNanner]

5. The DOJ needs to trash the memo

That a President cannot be charged while in office.

[Lonestarblue]

8. Yes. It is an open invitation Trump used to commit crimes.

[onecaliberal]

15. It is why he is running again, it is the only way to save himself.

[wnylib]

11. I'd modify that to be done ONLY when there is

1) a really serious felony involved, like insurrection, sedition, murder, perjury - something that MUST be addressed immediately
2) a substantial amount of concrete, verifiable evidence.

Otherwise, charging the president with crimes while in office would become a political football game, with the ball being tossed back and forth between parties for spectators to cheer or boo.

Look at how MAGAs - and Republicans before them - have used Congressional hearings and presidential investigations as political performance theater. It would be dangerous to give them the power to do that with criminal charges for a president

We already have an impeachment process for charging presidents with crimes and dereliction of duty. It is a political process more than a legal one and depends on which party is in power in Congress because we do not have people of integrity in Congress who would use the impeachment process wisely for the good of the country.

How much worse it would be with criminal charges.

The potential for political misuse and and abuse of charges is the reason for the policy of not charging a sitting president. So the ability to do it should be limited to the conditions that I have listed, and used rarely.

I'd like to add the crime of damaging national security, but what constitutes that can be vague and gray, so it has the possibility of being deliberately interpreted for political power. Republicans would have used Clinton's affair with Lewinsky to charge him criminally with jeopardizing national security.

Beware of what you wish for and examine all the ramifications before promoting something.

[leftieNanner]

17. Well said

We know that trump tried to get the DOJ to target his enemies. And he succeeded in getting the IRS to go after Comey and McCabe.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. DOJ acts like the memo -- written re: Agnew -- as if it were a law or regulation

The memo doesn't say when it's valid, leaving TFG to claim he's shielded because he's a candidate.

And no one who can do anything about it (Garland) will set out clear guidelines. It's equivalent to the SCOTUS claiming, "We don't need ethics rules because we don't make mistakes. You just have to trust us."

[Generic Brad]

7. The "Ollie-Ollie-Oxen-Free" defense is not valid

No free passes. Jrose - you nailed it!

[republianmushroom]

9. agree with posting.

[Snackshack]

10. It should have never been...

In the first place. How some obscure office can write a memo that does so much damage is unbelievable.

[jaxexpat]

12. It never was used as a 'shield' until the Republicans started running criminals for the office,.....

another Republican "innovation". Before Nixon's pardon it seemed as if everybody, even Republicans, wanted criminals to pay for their crimes.

But, true to form, Republicans always opt for rat-fuckery. It's their go-to plan for every occasion. Since the scandals of the 1870's right through that Prohibition foolishness and into the Great Depression, Republicans have been there pulling "wool-over-the-eyes" bullshit on the voters in the name of "look the other way" politics. Reactionaries through and through, from their deer-in-the-headlights/caught-red-handed "run and hide until we can sell the blame onto others" routine to their tried and untrue coopting of a mythical "real America" where "real Americans" swallow their lies as they set up the next con game, they're predictable as the sunrise. Roosevelt had their number for over a decade. They finally even had a Democratic president killed out of, I suppose, frustration. Since 1965 it's been Republican reactionary dirty to dirtier to dirtiest politics up to today where we really can't imagine how it could get any worse yet strongly suspect and try to anticipate that it will.

[Escurumbele]

13. Exactly...and that opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted must be removed as

it should have been from the beginning as it is only the opinion of a coward, it is not law.

[kentuck]

14. And to think the Founders discussed whether or not to have a "president"...

But one of the major points in agreement was that there needed to be a "Commander-in-Chief" in times of war or hostilities, so that someone could make the necessary decisions that needed to be made.