Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
174
Views

Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

174 Views
Message 11 of 26

WASHINGTON — A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s 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 president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
174
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
183
Views

Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

183 Views
Message 12 of 26

NH knows I'm essentialy a conservative but he doesn't want to admit it. I'm LOL.

 

Let me explain something for FoxBots. If a U.S. President cannot be indicted, that means he/she is above the law. And despite Not Happening's obvious lack of knowledge about our constitution, that would clearly violate the core concept. Therefore, I agree with the majority of consitutional legal scholars who believe a president can be indicted.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
183
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

176 Views
Message 13 of 26

@CriticalThinking wrote:
@CriticalThinking wrote:

One of the basic tenets of the Constitution is NOBODY's ABOVE the LAW. If you follow that tenet, the President can be indicted.

NH said, "I don't really remember that amendment.  Could you please point it out."

 

Of course there is no such amendment, but it's a core concept of our Consititution. Remember, Trump Cult members are lost when it comes to concepts. I would suggest they speak with any constitutional legal scholar, who could straighten them out.


Now CT is inventing "core concepts" of the Constitution.  Fantastic, you liberals.  Who did you get this from,  Colbert?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
181
Views

Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

181 Views
Message 14 of 26
@CriticalThinking wrote:

One of the basic tenets of the Constitution is NOBODY's ABOVE the LAW. If you follow that tenet, the President can be indicted.

NH said, "I don't really remember that amendment.  Could you please point it out."

 

Of course there is no such amendment, but it's a core concept of our Consititution. Remember, Trump Cult members are lost when it comes to concepts. I would suggest they speak with any constitutional legal scholar, who could straighten them out.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
181
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
175
Views

Re: Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

175 Views
Message 15 of 26

@CriticalThinking wrote:

One of the basic tenets of the Constitution is NOBODY's ABOVE the LAW. If you follow that tenet, the President can be indicted.


I don't really remember that amendment.  Could you please point it out.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
175
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
165
Views

Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

165 Views
Message 16 of 26

One of the basic tenets of the Constitution is NOBODY's ABOVE the LAW. If you follow that tenet, the President can be indicted.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
165
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
182
Views

Re: Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

182 Views
Message 17 of 26

@Laurie42010said Isn't it a new time when one person should not have that much power in this new world of extremism?

I spoke this exact subject with my husband, too much power given to ONE gives them too much Control.over many things, the Senate as well having so much.control. We really do as you said need a check and balance to get this Government balanced to be able to talk and work with each other.. One Person and one Party just controls too much, it ties the hands of Congress therefore they seem to have NO say in many things. .

But now the Rep will see how it feels and maybe they will want more of an even deal of Parties to try and work together. BUT, we know it will NEVER happen.

Live For Today, No One is Guaranteed a TOMORROW !
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
182
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
154
Views

Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

154 Views
Message 18 of 26

PanJ, about a week ago they closed an entire floor at a federal court building and wouldn't allow the press access. The guess is the Mueller Team presented "sealed indictments" to the judge. Why sealed indictments? 

 

Because it would freeze the statue of limitations so that Trump could be indicted when he leaves office in 2020 or sooner.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
154
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
154
Views

Re: Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

154 Views
Message 19 of 26

This says it all:

 

Laurence TribeVerified account @tribelaw Dec 12

 
 

NEW RULE: Cheat & lie & commit enough felonies to become president — and you’ll get not just the office with all its powers, but a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card! Retweet if you doubt Madison and Hamilton were dumb enough to put that incentive scheme in place.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
154
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
150
Views

Re: Shouldn't We Be Able To Indict A Sitting President?

150 Views
Message 20 of 26

@gruffstuff wrote:

 the principle that no one is above the law may leave little choice but to proceed to court.

 

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

 

Wealth leads to power,  and power leads to more wealth.

 

Wealth and power leads to impunity from the consequences of breaking laws.

 

No one is above the law is a nice slogan, but that is all it is.

 

The idea that a sitting President can't be indicted is affirmation that some people are above the law.

 

It's like To Big To Fail.

 

 

 


The Republican witch hunt against Clinton proved a sitting President was NOT immune to indictment while President.

 

The 25th provides for an orderly transfer of power to the VP if the President is incapacitated for ANY reason, like being in court to be tried for criminal acts, so the notion putting him on trial would be too "disruptive" does not fly.

 

Given the mountain of evidence Der Trumper was deeply involved with Russia and the help the Russian Government gave to the Trump campaign already made public, and knowing Mueller has even more damning evidence, it seems reasonable that several of the "offended soverigns" (States) could and should haul him into court for his criminal acts that violate THEIR laws before he's tried in Federal Court for his acts of TREASON.

 

JAIL FOR THE CHIEF!

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
150
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors