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

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

question everything

(47,479 posts)
Sun Jun 2, 2019, 04:43 PM Jun 2019

Decided to look at the Constitution [View all]

No place there does it say that a sitting president cannot be indicted and I am not sure that Mueller said so with his double and triple negative. But many in the media, have interpreted it this way.

(Article 1, Section 3)

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

Here is what Mueller wrote: (page 213)

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or
decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution
of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to
perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." (1)
Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the
Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's
legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional
view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the
President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. (2)

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a
criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a
President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President
committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations,
the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system ,
we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.

====

Thus, it is not in the Constitution that a sitting president cannot be indicted; it is an opinion of the DOJ. Certainly both Nixon and Clinton continued with their duties. As a matter of fact, it was said about Junior that he decided to run for president after realizing that Clinton perform his duties while being under attack throughout his presidency. Concluded that it would be an easy task for him..


45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Decided to look at the Constitution [View all] question everything Jun 2019 OP
Right, it is not in the Constitution 'as such,' and neither is the right to privacy. elleng Jun 2019 #1
Yeah. And if i were the subject of a DOJ investigation, Volaris Jun 2019 #14
Right, IF that life is mostly composed of criminal activitity. elleng Jun 2019 #15
Of course it doesn't. It relies on a 1973 rushed interpretation of "convenience" Read this hlthe2b Jun 2019 #2
Thanks, I will. question everything Jun 2019 #5
But the 1973 opinion was re-affirmed in 2000, at great length. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #7
Really, read the Lawfare Blog's thorough review hlthe2b Jun 2019 #9
I don't either, just saying that it's a good thing it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #10
I added a link to lawfare blogs review. Worth a look. hlthe2b Jun 2019 #11
And more importantly, Igel Jun 2019 #13
That decision was made by the OLC I think MiniMe Jun 2019 #3
According to the OLC opinion, prosecuting a sitting president would violate The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #4
It is interesting that we, here, can dive into the issue question everything Jun 2019 #6
underpants Jun 2019 #8
Wanted to add that, of course, we know that the right to privacy and perhaps other issues question everything Jun 2019 #12
Like you, I was startled to hear Mueller say something so brazenly false. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #17
You're good! StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #22
Thank you, and likewise! The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #23
Thanks! StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #24
Agreed. TwilightZone Jun 2019 #44
You are correct. The Constitution explicitly says you can indict any lawbreaker in the Government. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #16
Maybe you can quote where it says: former9thward Jun 2019 #21
Neither does mine. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #25
Here you go: lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #28
That language is often cited as the basis for impeach first, indict second onenote Jun 2019 #40
Where does it say that? StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #26
Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #29
No - it doesn't say what you're claiming StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #32
No, the language is inclusive, not exclusive. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #33
The entire paragraph refers to the aftermath of impeachment and conviction StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #34
The key words are "the party convicted...." TwilightZone Jun 2019 #45
President Clinton was forced to testify to a Grand Jury MasonDreams Jun 2019 #18
"...but the Party convicted...." ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #19
Sequence of events is irrelevant; Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 declares the two things independent. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #30
The language is the very definition of "exclusive" StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #35
I meant exclusive/inclusive of liabilities. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #39
Precisely. n/t ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #42
It says no such thing. ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #41
Exactly StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #43
I believe the view of the DOJ is that it would be unconstitutional for the department to indict Nitram Jun 2019 #20
The OLC opinions aren't stupid, despite the claims of some, but even so it seems to me The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #27
The view of the DOJ is that it would be unconstitutional - because their boss Nixon said so in 1974. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #31
The OLC letter was revised and updated by OLC at the very end of the Clinton Administration StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #36
Same situation, repeated. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #37
He wasn't "in need" of protection two months before he left office StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Decided to look at the Co...