General Discussion

FakeNoose

(40,950 posts)

59. Or wait until he leaves the men's room

Reply to Freelancer (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 10, 2018, 02:29 PM

Dec 2018

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