General Discussion

onenote

(46,205 posts)

16. It's a conclusion for which neither side can cite binding precedent, which is why one cannot say

Mon May 22, 2017, 12:25 PM

May 2017

Tribe is right and those that disagree with him are "wrong" as the OP suggests.

While Leon Jaworski argued that there was no express bar to a president being immune from indictment during his or her term, he also acknowledged that “ [w]hether [the factors cited by those arguing that a sitting president cannot be indicted] ompel a conclusion that as a matter of constitutional interpretation a sitting President cannot be indicted for violations of federal criminal laws is an
issue about which, at best, there is presently considerable doubt.”

In short, whichever side one comes out on is a "conclusion those people want to have."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Laurence Tribe, Harvard Con law prof: Yes, a sitting President CAN be indicted. [View all] pnwmom May 2017 OP

But would the Pubs be reckless and shameless enough rogerashton May 2017 #1

If I'm not mistaken BumRushDaShow May 2017 #2

More, the courts H2O Man May 2017 #5

And we of course saw that with Clinton. nt BumRushDaShow May 2017 #6

The weight of scholarship distinguishes the President from the VP with respect to immunity onenote May 2017 #10

I actually read through that entire thing BumRushDaShow May 2017 #14

the only thing the founders would have found surprising about benedict donald unblock May 2017 #28

I have always said (and posted) BumRushDaShow May 2017 #37

Obstruction of Justice ..... Trump fired Comey to stop an investigation between him and Russia Botany May 2017 #3

Do they need to wait a year or two before any indictments? Ligyron May 2017 #4

Can he be convicted in the Senate & THEN the indictment move to prosecution in the courts? Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #7

Yes...can be prosecuted after removal from office. tableturner May 2017 #31

While I agree with Prof. Tribe... jberryhill May 2017 #8

Anyone can make a mistake, as you yourself just proved pnwmom May 2017 #11

Tribe's view is one view. It does not make other views "wrong". onenote May 2017 #9

That's a memo that admits treestar May 2017 #13

It's a conclusion for which neither side can cite binding precedent, which is why one cannot say onenote May 2017 #16

This could be the time treestar May 2017 #17

Under what provision of the Consitution would the VP 'take the job for awhile"? onenote May 2017 #19

The president treestar May 2017 #20

and when the president disagrees onenote May 2017 #21

We need to figure out something treestar May 2017 #22

Sure, but figuring out something will requiring amending the Constitution. onenote May 2017 #23

I'm for trying. treestar May 2017 #38

Where do they get the idea he can't be indicted? treestar May 2017 #12

Do you think the president can be criminally prosecuted while in office? onenote May 2017 #15

I would argue yes if there is evidence to indict. He treestar May 2017 #18

Tribe isn't saying he can. He's saying he can be indicted by a Grand jury pnwmom May 2017 #25

Which would suggest that the "no one is above the law" argument doesn't apply onenote May 2017 #26

The President is already in a special position with regard to the law pnwmom May 2017 #30

Actually, a president can be sued in federal court on a civil claim onenote May 2017 #32

He can't be tried in a criminal court until after he's removed from office. pnwmom May 2017 #33

I said "Civil". onenote May 2017 #34

WHY DO WE HAVE TO WAIT SO LONG TO FIND OUT? bresue May 2017 #24

Maybe because there really isn't an indictment? onenote May 2017 #27

I AGREE... bresue May 2017 #29

Oh, for Heaven's sake! An impeachment IS an indictment! Aristus May 2017 #35

AND, it sounds like that has already happened. L. Coyote May 2017 #36