General Discussion

Vinca

(54,009 posts)

52. It's a self-imposed DOJ rule and it needs to be tested in court.

Mon Dec 10, 2018, 08:53 AM

Dec 2018

The courts have said it's perfectly fine for civil cases to proceed and they can be as time consuming as criminal cases. In any case, Don spends most of his day watching television or golfing so he's got all the time in the world to devote to his defense.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"A sitting President cannot be indicted" [View all] SHRED Dec 2018 OP

I thought it was DOJ guidelines DavidDvorkin Dec 2018 #1

And what if he's indicted and doesn't show up? Polybius Dec 2018 #2

Then he can be tried in absentia Sanity Claws Dec 2018 #6

He probably won't have to show up for booking. marylandblue Dec 2018 #15

Only the President can order the SS, they take orders from him and him only Polybius Dec 2018 #24

All federal employees take a loyalty oath to the Constitution, not the President marylandblue Dec 2018 #25

The only thing they can do is ignore any of his orders that they feel is illegal Polybius Dec 2018 #32

It is illegal to disobey a court order. Disobeying a court order violates the oath. marylandblue Dec 2018 #36

The court has no authority to order them to bring in a President Polybius Dec 2018 #41

The law speaks for itself marylandblue Dec 2018 #44

Nowhere does it say a judge can order the SS to take a President somewhere he doesn't want to go Polybius Dec 2018 #54

It says judges issue arrest warrants and the FBI executes them marylandblue Dec 2018 #55

True, but... Polybius Dec 2018 #61

"Nobody is above the law" marylandblue Dec 2018 #62

If the SC says that a President can't be indicted, then "Nobody is above the law" is a myth Polybius Dec 2018 #63

Yes, that's correct, if they say that, it's all over marylandblue Dec 2018 #64

not quite Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2018 #30

Right. It would depend on how loyal the DOJ decides to be to DT. pnwmom Dec 2018 #39

It's nowhere in the Constitution, as far as I know. Garrett78 Dec 2018 #3

It's based on an opinion which, as we know, is like an asshole... everyone's got one. WheelWalker Dec 2018 #4

It's based on a DoJ and OLC policy formulated during the Watergate proceedings, The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #5

This isn't even an actual policy, it's an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel marylandblue Dec 2018 #16

+1, NOT policy and the OLC was trying to help Nixon at the time IINM uponit7771 Dec 2018 #17

It's not law, and is meaningless to anyone but the guilty. Progressive Jones Dec 2018 #23

The question will go to the Supreme Court The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #48

Thank you. I had been wondering about the history of that. Poiuyt Dec 2018 #33

I'm sure the Supreme Court will decide that question. elocs Dec 2018 #7

After today's Planned Parenthood ruling gldstwmn Dec 2018 #60

It would be a landmark legal struggle Codeine Dec 2018 #8

but there is a strategic reason to proceed with indictment ASAP. See below in the thread. nt Grasswire2 Dec 2018 #28

I think that "sitting" Turbineguy Dec 2018 #9

That would be a shitting president. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #10

And here i thought no one was above the law Fullduplexxx Dec 2018 #11

It is NOT constitutionally barred. Purely an optional decision laid down by the DoJ Roland99 Dec 2018 #12

Expect that to be the next fight Charlotte Little Dec 2018 #13

All roads lead to the Supremes superpatriotman Dec 2018 #14

imho, it's extremely unlikely to be upheld even by this court. unblock Dec 2018 #18

In the case of Trump, an argument could avebury Dec 2018 #43

In his case, an argument could be made that unblock Dec 2018 #47

Top Democrat: Constitution allows Trump to be indicted while in office Muskiteer Dec 2018 #19

It is something that could be taken to the Supreme Court JonLP24 Dec 2018 #20

You are correct. roamer65 Dec 2018 #49

That's why we have impeachment Buckeyeblue Dec 2018 #21

No. Grasswire2 Dec 2018 #27

Not fact as in any ruling but there's truth to it... Drunken Irishman Dec 2018 #22

It is just an opinion, and it's time to test it through the courts with an indictment. Grasswire2 Dec 2018 #26

What right does the Presidency hold to overturn any grand jury decision of his/her peers? Deb Dec 2018 #29

DOJ has a conflict of interest since their "boss" is the President. LiberalFighter Dec 2018 #31

Hence independent counsel jberryhill Dec 2018 #35

Not really duforsure Dec 2018 #51

It has never been tested jberryhill Dec 2018 #34

If in fact a sitting president can't be indicted, conversely then, wouldn't there be a valid alwaysinasnit Dec 2018 #45

That's easy jberryhill Dec 2018 #46

This Idea is Nothing More Than Opinion (and Wishful Thinking) dlk Dec 2018 #37

I don't think that there is actually anything that would avebury Dec 2018 #38

re:"To me that would make the DOJ an accessory after the fact if they choose to look the other way." thesquanderer Dec 2018 #56

We can agree to disagree. avebury Dec 2018 #57

Says Who? HipChick Dec 2018 #40

The gist of what I have gathered is that a president can be indicted Jarqui Dec 2018 #42

If a sitting pres can't be indicted, get him when he stands up -nt Freelancer Dec 2018 #50

Or wait until he leaves the men's room FakeNoose Dec 2018 #59

It's a self-imposed DOJ rule and it needs to be tested in court. Vinca Dec 2018 #52

Especially when the lawyers would be doing most of the work. LiberalFighter Dec 2018 #53

no matter how this plays out gldstwmn Dec 2018 #58