American Politics

[LMAO]

We can have legal scholars duke it out until everyone is blue in the face, but there’s nothing definitive in the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

The closest thing is Article I, Section 3.7 (which was already in your reply):

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.

That only states a person who was impeached and removed from office is still subject to criminal proceedings afterwards, not that indictments can’t occur before or during impeachment.


In 1998, Kavanaugh, current Supreme Court nominee, said:

After the Senate has concluded, I would send a letter to the attorney general explaining that we believe an indictment should not be pursued while the president is in office.

There has never been a judicial ruling (i.e., a Supreme Court decision) on whether a sitting president can be indicted. If there had been, then then-lawyer Kavanaugh wouldn’t have used “believe” and would’ve observed the Supreme Court’s verdict instead.


This won't be resolved until the Supreme Court hears United States v. Trump, if it ever comes to that. And in that instance, i̶f̶when Kavanaugh is confirmed, then we'll (erroneously) get a ruling that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[EliteKiller]

We can have legal scholars duke it out until everyone is blue in the face, but there’s nothing definitive in the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

The closest thing is Article I, Section 3.7 (which was already in your reply):

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.

That only states a person who was impeached and removed from office is still subject to criminal proceedings afterwards, not that indictments can’t occur before or during impeachment.


In 1998, Kavanaugh, current Supreme Court nominee, said:

After the Senate has concluded, I would send a letter to the attorney general explaining that we believe an indictment should not be pursued while the president is in office.

There has never been a judicial ruling (i.e., a Supreme Court decision) on whether a sitting president can be indicted. If there had been, then then-lawyer Kavanaugh wouldn’t have used “believe” and would’ve observed the Supreme Court’s verdict instead.


This won't be resolved until the Supreme Court hears United States v. Trump, if it ever comes to that. And in that instance, i̶f̶when Kavanaugh is confirmed, then we'll (erroneously) get a ruling that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Whilst all your points are very well made you are flying in the face of history, judicial opinion, and just plain common sense ....

As loathsome as Trump may be he is the President, with all the power that role gives, can you imagine the near impossible task of getting a sitting president to appear in court? the lawyers could spin that for far longer than two terms ...

Remember Iran-Contra lasted 7 years with undeniable facts (hostages were ransomed, arms were supplied) and full confessions there was no impeachment .... Clinton Whitewater lasted 9 years and despite convictions against the supporting players being obtained very quickly .... there again was no impeachment, let alone civil charges .... we now know the evidence to be overwhelming in both cases, so why no impeachments?

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, although I think your interpretation of the constitution is questionable at best, but even if you were right and Trump could be charged in a lower court, it just won't happen ... it's Impeachment or nothing ... vested interests on all sides probably mean as usual it will be nothing ..... just stay calm and wait ... it's all we can do ....

[jayramfootball]

If Trump gets impeached, it will be worse here in the states. Cause that will mean Mike Pence takes over, and he literally believes that a man was made from dirt, a woman from a mans rib, and that noahs ark is real. He wants to teach creationism in public schools and make us all even more ignorant and stupid than we already get labeled for. We'll be a theocracy before you know it.

Meh, as much as I f***ing detest the closeted homo, Supply-Side Jesus evangelical, Pence would be a lame duck president, especially with a Democratic House (and maybe Senate, but that's a long shot until 2020). Or if he's caught up in all this too, then impeach and remove his ass too.

I hope the Democratic administration after this clusterfuck sends the wrath of god after the asshats in the Trump administration. I'm still pissed off that Obama didn't pursue the big players in the Bush administration (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld especially), allowing them to get away with their crimes. Fvck all this we need to move forward and focus on the future bs, everyone who's broken the law needs to be held accountable, else the same crap will continue to happen.

Wow, perhaps keep on impeaching, arresting and bankrupting anyone who stands in the way of what you want...sounds like you'd have fit right in as one of Hitler's henchmen.

[jayramfootball]

Trump has gone on fox and friends and admitted that he knew about the stormy Daniel payments made via Cohen.

Taken out of campaign funds to directly pay a porn star to hush an affair he had just after (?) His wife gave birth to Baron.

In trying to distance himself from the collusion issues, he's admitted to a felony as he didn't mention these payments in any of his federal financial disclosures.

Probably worse for him, NYC have found all sorts of fraudulent shit going on with his charity and have filed state level charges (which he can't pardon lol) so he's done for anyway. His kids are tied up in that too.

He's racked up a shit load of enemies there as they've all seen first hand his fuckeries in business. It's part of the reason why he had to look for Russian money because he couldn't get credit anymore in NYC or America in general after having stiffed so many people and companies.

It's all starting to come together and when it gets too hot, the RNC will dump him. They've got their tax cuts for the 1%, so they probably don't care as much anymore.

As much of an egomaniac and all round douche Trump is as a person, you need to make sure your facts are straight because otherwise, you are just confirming Trump's accusations of a witch hunt.

He paid these women out of his own funds, not campaign funds. He's pretty much in the clear on that as it's legal to use your own funds and not report it via the campaign if the expense is something that could reasonably have happened outside an election. For Trump, it is reasonable and he has done this several times before ever running for office. It's a non-starter.

As for the Trump Foundation, he's pretty much untouchable. He can't be indicted as President (1973 and 2000 official DoJ policy) and impeachment is a high bar because it's supposed to only be for high crimes and misdemeanours committed whilst in office.... The precedent for this is the attempted impeachment of Vice President Schyler Colefax in 1873.

Be careful about buying into the stories and interpretations you see in the media.

[Jedi]

No, he's not talking about anyone. He's talking about impeaching and arresting criminals and war criminals

[jayramfootball]

No, he's not talking about anyone. He's talking about impeaching and arresting criminals and war criminals

Yeah, and apparently they all exist on one side of the political aisle.

[jayramfootball]

We can have legal scholars duke it out until everyone is blue in the face, but there’s nothing definitive in the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling regarding whether a sitting president can be indicted.

The closest thing is Article I, Section 3.7 (which was already in your reply):

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.

That only states a person who was impeached and removed from office is still subject to criminal proceedings afterwards, not that indictments can’t occur before or during impeachment.


In 1998, Kavanaugh, current Supreme Court nominee, said:

After the Senate has concluded, I would send a letter to the attorney general explaining that we believe an indictment should not be pursued while the president is in office.

There has never been a judicial ruling (i.e., a Supreme Court decision) on whether a sitting president can be indicted. If there had been, then then-lawyer Kavanaugh wouldn’t have used “believe” and would’ve observed the Supreme Court’s verdict instead.


This won't be resolved until the Supreme Court hears United States v. Trump, if it ever comes to that. And in that instance, i̶f̶when Kavanaugh is confirmed, then we'll (erroneously) get a ruling that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Whilst all your points are very well made you are flying in the face of history, judicial opinion, and just plain common sense ....

As loathsome as Trump may be he is the President, with all the power that role gives, can you imagine the near impossible task of getting a sitting president to appear in court? the lawyers could spin that for far longer than two terms ...

Remember Iran-Contra lasted 7 years with undeniable facts (hostages were ransomed, arms were supplied) and full confessions there was no impeachment .... Clinton Whitewater lasted 9 years and despite convictions against the supporting players being obtained very quickly .... there again was no impeachment, let alone civil charges .... we now know the evidence to be overwhelming in both cases, so why no impeachments?

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, although I think your interpretation of the constitution is questionable at best, but even if you were right and Trump could be charged in a lower court, it just won't happen ... it's Impeachment or nothing ... vested interests on all sides probably mean as usual it will be nothing ..... just stay calm and wait ... it's all we can do ....

In 1973, the DoJ set policy to exclude any indictment of a sitting President and confirmed that position in 2000.
The President is uniquely above the law in that respect.
As for Impeachment, it is supposed to be for high crimes and misdemeanours committed whilst in office. Be careful too on the broad nature of the term 'misdemeanours'... it's not meant to be broad. The wording was debated at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The word 'maladministration' was removed precisely because it was too vague and could lead to politically motivated impeachments.

[Royal Gooner]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45774174

So the Republicans now control all branches of government and the judiciary for the first time ever. What do our resident Yanks think of this?

[Pudpop]

I'm not American, but the idea that a political party can control the Supreme Court just shows how f***ked America's democracy is

[UFGN]

Presidents appointing judges for life is ridiculous

If you must have politically affiliated judges then democratic judges for example should have the common sense to resign while a democrat is in the White House

[EliteKiller]

Presidents appointing judges for life is ridiculous

If you must have politically affiliated judges then democratic judges for example should have the common sense to resign while a democrat is in the White House

Where to start ....

President's don't appoint judges ... the constitution clearly lays out that all Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President, and confirmed by the United States Senate. It's how the 'three-branch' system works .....

Judges are not actively Democrat or Republican ... indeed under the constitution whilst they can vote, they are not allowed to promote any political party ... instead they are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. It has long been commonly assumed that a justice's votes reflect his or her judicial decision-making philosophy as well as their ideological leanings, personal attitudes, values, political philosophies, or policy preferences.

The justices base their decisions on their interpretation of both legal doctrine and the precedential application of laws in the past. In most cases, interpreting the law is relatively clear-cut and the justices decide unanimously, politics are not relevant to applying the letter of the law.

Politics only comes into play when the have to overrule an administration who believe in an unlimited scope of executive power and demanded their lawyers try to win cases in unrealistic ways.

Clinton's administration won 63% of cases at the Supreme Court, Bush's 60%, Obama's just 40% .....

Trump's administration has had few cases reach the Supreme Court (it takes a while) he may do better than Obama but I doubt he'll reach 60% ... this has very little to do with the SCJ's political leanings if it did Trump would win 100% of the time. SCJ's judgments reflect a combined 200+ years of their ability to apply the correct application of the law ....

[DiamondGooner]

I'm not American, but the idea that a political party can control the Supreme Court just shows how f***ked America's democracy is

Bought and paid for is the mantra for the USA.

Its disgusting when a government doesn't even value the health of its citizens let alone hand picking judges.

[Phil71]

Whatever... I’m glad there’s been somewhat of a victory here against mob rule.

[Pudpop]

Whatever... I’m glad there’s been somewhat of a victory here against mob rule.

Is this not literally the opposite of a victory against mob rule

[Phil71]

Whatever... I’m glad there’s been somewhat of a victory here against mob rule.

Is this not literally the opposite of a victory against mob rule

No.

It’s a victory against the unruly, screaming mob who come out protesting, shouting and hollering at just about anything Trump tries to do.

They became tedious after the first week of his inauguration.