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
In reply to the discussion: Decided to look at the Constitution [View all]onenote
(42,581 posts)40. That language is often cited as the basis for impeach first, indict second
"the Party convicted" -- past tense.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Right, it is not in the Constitution 'as such,' and neither is the right to privacy.
elleng
Jun 2019
#1
Of course it doesn't. It relies on a 1973 rushed interpretation of "convenience" Read this
hlthe2b
Jun 2019
#2
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
According to the OLC opinion, prosecuting a sitting president would violate
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jun 2019
#4
Wanted to add that, of course, we know that the right to privacy and perhaps other issues
question everything
Jun 2019
#12
You are correct. The Constitution explicitly says you can indict any lawbreaker in the Government.
lagomorph777
Jun 2019
#16
The entire paragraph refers to the aftermath of impeachment and conviction
StarfishSaver
Jun 2019
#34
Sequence of events is irrelevant; Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 declares the two things independent.
lagomorph777
Jun 2019
#30
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