General Discussion

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)

28. Here you go:

Tue Jun 4, 2019, 10:17 AM

Jun 2019

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 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.

Any claims that the Constitution prohibits indictment of a sitting president are anti-Constitutional un-American balderdash.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

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