Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Do you ever stop with this schtick? Funny thing is 98% of your posts have zero explanation behind them
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Can a sitting President be indicted? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Mister CIA
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Oh, gee, wouldn't want that. This forum deserves nothing but my humble estimation. <_< .
No, I'm not on his "side." But the daily cheerleading of a sitting president and the daily vituperations against him, that he's:
- unworthy of the office
- criminal
- corrupt
- treasonous, etc.
When Bill Kristol is asking the "Deep State" to do the electorate's work, you know this #### has jumped the shark in every way. To cheer for a banana republic coup is a joke.
That's my take, and I'm quite sure I don't like the President. But I like the unhinged and slightly treasonous nature of this forum even less so. I'm also quite sure I'm right, so this is more of by way of an explanation than an introduction to a debate with the likes of the flakes that inhabit this place.
Really, the past two years has caused me to seriously reevaluate who I've been discussing things with over the past six years I've been here and whether or not it's all been completely unhinged and a waste of time. There's a personal element to my disgust at others' disgust. Nobody likes to have wasted so much time.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
To say that @Maurile Tremblay and @randall146 and @SaintsInDome2006 and @Yankee23Fan and @IvanKaramazov and many other excellent contributors are unhinged is well, just plain wrong.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
To act as if this presidency is just like others would be the thing that would be hysteria. Look at that CPAC speech, this isn't a normal situation. its not a coup, these are legal investigations and legal means being sought.
Trump is the one who is unhinged...we see it on twitter daily, in the actions of his administration and staff...the indictments of his people.
The Commish
Footballguy
oh boy
I sent this to my buddy who's on Pence's duty right now. His response "I don't see that in the Secret Service Handbook, and I slept through the first two days of orientation so I might have missed it"
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
And then his follow up, serious answer was "DOJ policy <> Law" 
rockaction
Footballguy
That would be both a fallacy of division and something I didn't say. I can disagree with individual posters and their takes, that does not mean I find them in particular unhinged. I find this board to be unhinged. That's all that can be inferred from the statement.
But enough. I said my piece as I was asked.
NREC34
Footballguy
Yep. I would almost guarantee that say if he pulled out a gun during the SOTU and started firing at the Democrats a way would be found to arrest him. If that wouldn’t happen then there is a serious flaw in our system.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Sure, why not? He's not a king.
Next question?
Next question?
timschochet
Footballguy
He would be arrested for sure. But that’s not the same as being charged.
I suspect that what would happen is that Article 25 would be processed immediately, removing him as President. And THEN he would be charged. So I don’t believe your scenario disproves the idea that a sitting President can not be indicted.
timschochet
Footballguy
My understanding is that if Queen Elizabeth were to commit a crime, Parliament would have to remove her from being Queen first (which I think they have the power to do) and then arrest her. All other members of the royal family are subject to arrest.
However, if I recall correctly, the only time that Parliament forcibly removed a royal sovereign, they did so by chopping off his head. (ETA the Queens uncle, the Nazi loving Edward, chose to voluntarily abdicate.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Hereditary immunity from prosecution is about as bass akwards thing I can think of in this day and age. What is this 1650?
Good to know.
How many times a day are you called out for this crap? Both sides of the aisle, moderators, Joe himself, are you ever going to take a hint?
Last edited by a moderator:
That wouldn't work. The 25th Amendment keeps getting mischaracterized. It is not a mechanism for removing a president. It is a mechanism for responding to a situation where the president is incapacitated. It is only temporary until the president is able to resume his duties. If the president claims he is able but the Cabinet disagrees, then it requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress (which is a higher standard than impeachment) to overrule his wishes.
In the scenario you describe, if we're saying the president can't be indicted, then the only alternative would be impeachment and removal, followed by prosecution.
As to the original question, I agree it is a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, the way our two-party system has developed means it is almost impossible to imagine 2/3 of the Senate ever voting to remove a president from office. On the other, there is a compelling argument that the votes of tens of millions of people should not be overturned by a single prosecutor and a grand jury that, as the saying goes, would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asked for it.
My tentative conclusion is that a) Congress should codify the situation, b) they should take steps to ensure that the prohibition on indictments does not serve as a get-out-of-jail free card (which I think is what Kavanaugh was saying). For example, stop the clock on statutes-of-limitation provisions so there is never an incentive for a president to get re-elected in order to run out the clock (as seems to be a possibility with Trump).
I see some holes in that argument -- including the "shooting someone on 5th Ave" scenario where it doesn't seem reasonable to wait around while an obvious felon serves out his term. The Trump situation also raises the issue of what to do if the crime is directly related to how the president assumed office in the first place. Imagine for a second that Mueller uncovers the proverbial smoking gun tape where Trump and Putin are recorded actively conspiring to throw the 2016 election. Even worse, imagine if a tape came out in which a sitting president was heard conspiring to fix a future election. Even if you assume that such a revelation would cause the public to turn against the president and vote him out of office, it seems like you would need to act immediately to prevent him from even attempting his plan.
I don't know if it's possible to thread the needle. Congress has been trying to do that with special prosecutors/Independent Counsel since the '70s, with mixed results. Every correction just causes new problems to pop up. But I feel like we owe it to our constitutional system to try to figure it out.
My tentative conclusion is that a) Congress should codify the situation, b) they should take steps to ensure that the prohibition on indictments does not serve as a get-out-of-jail free card (which I think is what Kavanaugh was saying). For example, stop the clock on statutes-of-limitation provisions so there is never an incentive for a president to get re-elected in order to run out the clock (as seems to be a possibility with Trump).
I see some holes in that argument -- including the "shooting someone on 5th Ave" scenario where it doesn't seem reasonable to wait around while an obvious felon serves out his term. The Trump situation also raises the issue of what to do if the crime is directly related to how the president assumed office in the first place. Imagine for a second that Mueller uncovers the proverbial smoking gun tape where Trump and Putin are recorded actively conspiring to throw the 2016 election. Even worse, imagine if a tape came out in which a sitting president was heard conspiring to fix a future election. Even if you assume that such a revelation would cause the public to turn against the president and vote him out of office, it seems like you would need to act immediately to prevent him from even attempting his plan.
I don't know if it's possible to thread the needle. Congress has been trying to do that with special prosecutors/Independent Counsel since the '70s, with mixed results. Every correction just causes new problems to pop up. But I feel like we owe it to our constitutional system to try to figure it out.
sho nuff
Footballguy
We can put this in with his post, wrecks that was quoted and I can clearly show where you all are making posts directly only about me rather than anything else. Simply put, the thjngsbthe moderators have over and over said they don’t want here. You’ve been doing this for weeks. Stop. Address the topic for once and not make it about me.Good to know.
A few thoughts:
1. Perhaps it is a feature, not a flaw, that it is very difficult to remove a president. We certainly don't want this to become a tït-for-tat where political parties swap impeachments when they get a majority. We want this to be a case where it is clearly obvious that a person is unfit to hold the office.
2. There is no requirement that the president have a clean criminal record. So, simple committing a crime should not lead to a defacto impeachment - that is the purview of the electorate.
3. Your last point is misplaced (and why this was never a good topic as phrased) - a president that is indicted is still in office until 2/3 of the senate vote to impeach. So, nobody's votes are being overturned simply by a president who is indicted.
Why doesn't the current system address this?
Surely an impeachment can take place faster than a case that would work its way through the justice system. Evidence presented as in the example would be one of those cases where 2/3 of the senate would vote to impeach.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
You are using the 25th Amendment in a way that doesn't take into account it's entirety. There is a process in the 25th that results in the President having the ability to at least challenge the actions of the Cabinet if they were to invoke it. You are being a little too Hollywood with how you are using the 25th.
To answer your original questions, yes, the President of the United States can be indicted. Any elected official or appointed one, of any rank, can be indicted for crimes if there is an executive branch officer willing to bring the charges to a grand jury.
I think your real question is - what happens the second after the indictment is handed down? Then what? Who enforces it? Who serves the President of the United States with the indictment sheet and charges? Do they actually arrest him/her?
I'm just going to assume this incomprehensible paragraph is just a lot of words answering the question as "No".
Two nitpicks: Impeachment is the purview of Congress, not the electorate. And an impeachment is analagous to an indictment. The Senate votes to remove after the House has impeached
But yes, those are good points. So what about conviction? Let's say a jury votes to convict a president of a felony. Is that substituting the judgment of 12 people for the millions who voted? (In practice, I suppose if it ever got to that point they would come to an agreement whereby the president would resign as part of a plea deal.)
I've mentioned this in other threads, but Rachel Maddow's excellent "Bagman" podcast on the scandal that drove Spiro Agnew from office explores this topic a bit. Agnew was making the argument that a sitting VP couldn't be indicted, but Attorney General Elliot Richardson backed up the prosecutors in the US Attorney's office who were pursuing the case, and they eventually reached a compromise where Agnew resigned in exchange for not facing prosecution. And that seemed to work out OK. (Of course, that was a situation where they had him dead to rights on corruption, plus the burgeoning Watergate scandal meant that it was suddenly in Nixon's interest to cut him loose. Had the case been murkier, or had he still had the full backing of the White House, it might not have gone so smoothly.)
So maybe I'm coming around to the view that a president isn't immune from criminal prosecution. But I'm also trying to look at the question in a vacuum and not let the current Trump situation influence my thinking.
exactly - which is why I said its the purview of the electorate to decide if they want a convicted criminal as president. A president who is convicted of a crime is not an automatic basis for impeachment. That is something that should be decided in an election.
In a technical sense - "impeachment" is the entire process. The house votes on articles of impeachment, while the senate sits in judgement on those articles.
squistion
Footballguy
Of course it would be legal. To use Trump's own example, if a President were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue, or, let's say, had someone killed is there any doubt that he would not be indicted while in office? It strains credulity to say that prosecutors would look the other way when a sitting President committed an obvious criminal act or would wait until his term of office was over to bring charges.
The above is an extreme example, but it is pretty obvious that Spiro Agnew, had he not worked out a plea deal, would have been indicted for taking a bribe in the White House, despite his contention that against a sitting VP such charges could not be brought.
That said, I don't see Trump being indicted despite all his apparent wrong doing. However I do expect state criminal charges being filed against him regarding his business practices over the years and being a sitting President won't prevent that from happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Play your word games, counselor.rockaction said:
supermike80
Footballguy
Sitting? No
Standing---Whole new ballgame
Standing---Whole new ballgame
Interesting how my points get distorted to the point of being lies. My argument was the secret service would not allow the president to get arrested by local police. I never argued that they would kill anyone who tried. The basis of my argument is that the state lacks the authority to arrest the President. My opinion is supported by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson who may know a thing or two about the constitution. Although it is not settled in law, the Supreme Court have suggested there are limits to local power ability to enforce their rules when it impact the workings of the federal government, and you would think arresting a president would probably fit into that.
------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1833): “There are incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office.”
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)…. States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied powers.
Vice President John Adams: "you could only impeach him and no other process whatever lay against him……but when he is no longer President, you can indict him." - THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY
Thomas Jefferson (1807): "would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, and to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could ... withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?" - THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): “It is settled law that the separation of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon; United States v. Burr; cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. But our cases also have established that a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.”
Alexander Hamilton: “The President ... would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction ... would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." - FEDERALIST No. 69
-----------------------------
But of course, I am the troll. Leftist never lie or belittle other posters. They only care about having good discussions.
Except of course when they do lie and belittle other posters with their little mocking nicknames and huge ignorant egos.
squistion
Footballguy
Ted Lieu @tedlieu Mar 8
Ken Starr is correct on this issue. Repeat after me:
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1104099410991038465
Ken Starr is correct on this issue. Repeat after me:
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1104099410991038465
Hmmmm…..Random Twitter poster and Ken Starr vs. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. I will have to carefully weigh those opinions.Ted Lieu @tedlieu Mar 8
Ken Starr is correct on this issue. Repeat after me:
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
There's no sentence in the Constitution that says @POTUS can't be indicted
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1104099410991038465
squistion
Footballguy
FYI Ted Lieu is not a random Twitter poster, he is a legislator serving as the U.S. Representative for California's 33rd congressional district since 2015. He is on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lieu
While I am sure he is a smart man, but all he is doing is spewing left-wing rhetoric. His rhetoric adds zero substance to the matter.
squistion
Footballguy
The substance that he adds is that he is speaking of the truth:
Show me in the Constitution where it says the President can not be indicted?
And as a member of the Judiciary Committee his opinion is probably more valid on the contemporary modern legitimacy of this issue rather than interpreting writings of politicians 200-300 years ago. For instance if the President were commit a murder it is absurd to suggest he would have to be impeached first before criminal charges could be brought (and I think even old Alex H. would agree with that).
squistion
Footballguy
For those interested here is what former Special Prosecutor Ken Starr had to say:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/433195-ken-starr-sitting-presidents-should-be-indictable
Ken Starr: Sitting presidents should be indictable
Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, said sitting presidents should be indictable during an interview on CNN Friday with former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart.
“Do you think a sitting president can be indicted?” CNN "New Day" co-anchor John Berman asked Starr.
“Yes, and I disagree with the Justice Department’s guidelines but it is the historic position of the department," responded Starr.
"I think that, plus first principles, no person is above the law, means that a president can be indicted," Starr said.
[...]
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/433195-ken-starr-sitting-presidents-should-be-indictable
Ken Starr: Sitting presidents should be indictable
Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, said sitting presidents should be indictable during an interview on CNN Friday with former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart.
“Do you think a sitting president can be indicted?” CNN "New Day" co-anchor John Berman asked Starr.
“Yes, and I disagree with the Justice Department’s guidelines but it is the historic position of the department," responded Starr.
"I think that, plus first principles, no person is above the law, means that a president can be indicted," Starr said.
[...]
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
RHE had a good impeachment thread earlier. And I’ll mention that because some of these points were covered.
- I’ll just say that impeachment implies a president committing crimes and that the means for prosecution has to be Congress. It says he’s to be tried by the Senate.
- As scary as the US is acting imagine a situation with a president tried and convicted in the courts, but ruling over a DOJ which he orders not to arrest him. And Congress doesn’t have an enforcement arm, that’s the president. It’s easy to see why the Founders placed the impeachment nugget in there. Remove him from office, then arrest him.
- I’ll just say that impeachment implies a president committing crimes and that the means for prosecution has to be Congress. It says he’s to be tried by the Senate.
- As scary as the US is acting imagine a situation with a president tried and convicted in the courts, but ruling over a DOJ which he orders not to arrest him. And Congress doesn’t have an enforcement arm, that’s the president. It’s easy to see why the Founders placed the impeachment nugget in there. Remove him from office, then arrest him.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Watergate Road Map.
- This is the actual thing, it was a practical, living indictment of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon.
- This is the actual thing, it was a practical, living indictment of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I have exactly zero idea why you included me on your rant here.Interesting how my points get distorted to the point of being lies. My argument was the secret service would not allow the president to get arrested by local police. I never argued that they would kill anyone who tried. The basis of my argument is that the state lacks the authority to arrest the President. My opinion is supported by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson who may know a thing or two about the constitution. Although it is not settled in law, the Supreme Court have suggested there are limits to local power ability to enforce their rules when it impact the workings of the federal government, and you would think arresting a president would probably fit into that.
------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1833): “There are incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it. Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office.”
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)…. States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied powers.
Vice President John Adams: "you could only impeach him and no other process whatever lay against him……but when he is no longer President, you can indict him." - THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY
Thomas Jefferson (1807): "would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, and to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could ... withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?" - THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): “It is settled law that the separation of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon; United States v. Burr; cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. But our cases also have established that a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.”
Alexander Hamilton: “The President ... would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction ... would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." - FEDERALIST No. 69
-----------------------------
But of course, I am the troll. Leftist never lie or belittle other posters. They only care about having good discussions.
Except of course when they do lie and belittle other posters with their little mocking nicknames and huge ignorant egos.
It was FYI since they were responding to you. Most of it was good info.I have exactly zero idea why you included me on your rant here.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is a good point, considering we have an independent judiciary which is considered immune from the influence of the presidency, so it makes sense that we should have a presidency which is immune from bodily harm (at least) from the judiciary.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is roughly correct, per Federalist No. 69.
- Basically a president is not a king as he is held more accountable, as Congress can remove a president but a king can only be removed by revolution.
If you're going to look at this one I think you should look at US vs Nixon, which is a very different conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
You made it about you in your very first post in this thread
when you decided to speak for the collective of "leftys" in here about some slight that you yourself perceived.
The Commish
Footballguy
The question of the thread, if I am understanding, is can a President be indicted. An indictment doesn't require taking him into custody. Had a little text session with my buddy and he sees nothing in their procedures around indictments. He's of the opinion, still, as I conveyed above that DOJ policy <> law. If a state agency wanted to actually take him into custody, it would have to go through the courts and have the Supreme Court and have an official precedent set once and for all via the Judicial Branch of the government. DOJ policy is based on the sorts of things jon posted above, but they really aren't all that specific. I'm pretty confident our founding fathers and early Supreme Court Justices never though in a million years that the state of this country, today, was possible.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Let's keep in mind that the Vice President - Aaron Burr - was wanted for murder in the Jefferson administration in two different states, including New York and New Jersey.
- Now I realize that the VP is not the president but it is a constitutionally appointed Article II office.
- A Grand Jury had the same sort of finding of fact, with a referral to Congress, in Watergate. The only difference is that the State of NJ just indicted Burr and did not refer it to Congress - and Burr basically got away with it, and eventually fled to the frontier (Louisiana) (whereupon he again landed in big trouble, but out of office).
- Spiro Agnew also claimed he could not be indicted as VP, and he even sought to block indictment. He must not have felt too, too confident in that position because he ultimately resigned. I don't know when Agnew was indicted, however in that situation it was the House which claimed that it could not interfere with the courts. Agnew resigned before all this could be resolved.
Similar threads
