Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

regnaD kciN

(26,045 posts)
3. Actually, its unclear...
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 09:48 PM
Jun 2017

During Watergate, Leon Jaworski reached the conclusion that you can't indict a sitting president, hence Nixon was merely named an "unindicted co-conspirator." However, that decision is not binding on Mueller. One could assume, though, that should Mueller get a grand jury to indict Trump, there would next follow a lengthy court battle over whether such a course of action was Constitutional, before there'd be any chance of seeing Donnie Little-Hands in the dock.

still_one

(92,411 posts)
5. If it occurred before he was President, he can be indicted. That was what the Paula Jones/Clinton
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 09:53 PM
Jun 2017

was all about


bench scientist

(1,107 posts)
7. Jones v. Clinton was a civil case, not a criminal one.
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:26 PM
Jun 2017

There is no precedent for a sitting President to be charged with a crime.
One is indicted for crimes. Trump could be sued or be held liable in a civil case per Jones v. Clinton.

still_one

(92,411 posts)
8. If it gets that far, and these actions were before he was President, the courts will decide
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:29 PM
Jun 2017

Just like they did in the Jones V. Clinton

and the implications of this, are far more damaging to our national security




bench scientist

(1,107 posts)
9. Correct the actions occurred before he was President.
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:34 PM
Jun 2017

Still there is no precedent to indict a sitting President for crimes committed before or during his presidential term.
Jones v. Clinton held a sitting President could be sued in civil court.
The standards are different for a civil case versus a criminal one.
Likely Trump would have to be impeached, not pardoned by the incoming President and the indicted.

davekriss

(4,628 posts)
11. Yup. Was just going to say that.
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:39 PM
Jun 2017

He can be indicted and convicted for any crime committed any time up to midnight January 19.

AJT

(5,240 posts)
6. He has barely started. He is still hiring staff.
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:16 PM
Jun 2017

The GOP knows he has no proof yet and want to stop him before he really digs into this mess.

peggysue2

(10,842 posts)
12. I have a hunch
Thu Jun 29, 2017, 10:44 PM
Jun 2017

And it's only a hunch that Mueller has plenty on Trump and his cabal. But there's a difference in gathering evidence and proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly for a sitting President and his various sycophants. The team Mueller has assembled is something of a tell, those with expertise in money-laundering, bank fraud, criminal investigators, people with terrorism and cyber-security experience, etc. It's an interesting group that suggests a multilayered approach. It all seems to be moving in agonizing, slow motion but when you consider how much time the Nixon investigation required, and how Mueller and his team have the advantage of Comey's investigative materials and effort? I suspect they're ahead of the game. We know that Page, Manafort, Flynn and his son, and Kushner have spoken with the FBI. Stone has lawyered up. Even Pence.

Methinks the story will get very, very interesting. In fact, all this nonsense chatter about collusion coming from Trump and his allies--how it's somehow not illegal to collude with a foreign adversary and why isn't Hillary Clinton being charged with collusion, yada, yada--makes me think something or someone is rattling a number of people's cages.

We shall see. As I said, just a hunch.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»GOP going nuts a out the ...