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
Editorials & Other Articles
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)So, perhaps a sitting president CAN be indicted! NYT [View all]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html?smid=tw-shareWASHINGTON A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starrs independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted?
The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the presidents official duties, the Starr office memo concludes. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.
Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows...
The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the presidents official duties, the Starr office memo concludes. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.
Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows...
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
My most vivid memory is of another son of SC, Strom Thurmond, framming the microphone
japple
Jul 2017
#17
Anyone that seriously believes that a single Republican would apply that to Trump
DefenseLawyer
Jul 2017
#8
"And why /how can a POTUS pardon someone for treason?" - Because the Constitution...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2017
#40
And by giving that pardon Jerry Ford made sure he'd never be elected on his own.
PoindexterOglethorpe
Jul 2017
#42
How ironic if the Republicans' OWN witch hunt came back to bite them in the ass.
Chemisse
Jul 2017
#16
Kenneth Star isn't the sole authority, either. His authority lies with the Constitution.
ancianita
Jul 2017
#27
History is circular. Sometimes you make it, and sometimes it bites you in the butt.
crosinski
Jul 2017
#29