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
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
167
Views

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

167 Views
Message 21 of 26

 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.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
167
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
169
Views

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

169 Views
Message 22 of 26

It appears as if Trump is possibly under "sealed" indictments that put the statute of limitations on hold.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
169
Views
Super Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
168
Views

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

168 Views
Message 23 of 26

Excellent topic, @mickstuder.  We have to make our check and balance system called United States Congress realize that any interventions that they spread fear about, (constitiutional crisis) are indeed the very reasons this should be taken up and brought forth. Isn't it a new time when one person should not have that much power in this new world of extremism? The base, as they refer to, can indeed serv a lot of time for crimes much less offensive than some of these that are being committed, no?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
168
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
198
Views

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

198 Views
Message 24 of 26
@mickstuder said But where the crimes are extremely serious and the proof compelling, the principle that no one is above the law may leave little choice but to proceed to court.

**********IMO ********** Yes, no one is above the LAW. Can you imagine any man or woman running for President knowing he or she is NOT able to be indicted and are able to get away with any and all crimes. It's not like we don't have a VP to take his place.

This President has done so many things against the law, if felonies and they can prove it, then yes he should be indicted.

I wish he had been indicted long ago, we have wasted too much money and time on him/this, and not enough time on real Government Issues. We now have such a large amount of repairing to be done, with so many other Countries as well, it may take years all because of this one President.

******************IMO *******************
He has not served, protected or defended the Constitution of the United States.
Live For Today, No One is Guaranteed a TOMORROW !
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
198
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
200
Views

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

200 Views
Message 25 of 26

The issuance and sealing of the indictment would "toll" the statute from expiring. The issuance of the indictment stops the clock, and the sealing may prevent evidence destruction or witness tampering until the case can be tried. A viable prosecution would be possible even if circumstances such as the president's reelection in 2020 prevent a prosecution until 2025.

 

Finally, filing an indictment in New York would lock in a prosecutor's dream jurisdiction for trial. What better venue could a prosecutor have to try Trump than the Southern District in New York City, where the public is heavily Democratic and likely to view him as Public Enemy No. 1?
 
Source - https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/opinions/prosecutors-best-move-a-sealed-indictment-vs-trump-callan/in...

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
200
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
200
Views
25
Replies

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

200 Views
Message 26 of 26

What does the nation do if it turns out that a president of the United States has committed serious crimes that a prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt? One possible resolution would be to offer a plea bargain in which the commander in chief agreed to resign the presidency in exchange for utmost leniency.

 

Perversely, the more financially corrupt or psychologically unstable the White House occupant, the greater his or her bargaining power: Only if you let my client go scot-free, a president’s lawyers could argue, will you be allowed to pry the nuclear codes from his hands.

 

That is a powerful bargaining chip but one with an expiration date. At the strike of noon on his successor’s Inauguration Day, when the (former) president’s Air Force One turns into a pumpkin, he loses that leverage and becomes like any other citizen before the bar of justice. That gives a provably corrupt president a great incentive to end his term early — and on his terms.

 

On Oct. 10, 1973, Agnew resigned as vice president of the United States and pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion. He was sentenced to a fine of $10,000 and a period of unsupervised probation. He basically walked out of the courtroom and into a life of playing golf and making money peddling influence.

 

As the tale is told in the excellent 1974 book by Richard M. Cohen and Jules Witcover, “A Heartbeat Away: The Investigation and Resignation of Spiro T. Agnew” (and in the terrific podcast “Bag Man”), this bargain was highly controversial. The sentence was extraordinarily light for crimes so serious committed by an official so high in the nation’s trust.

 

Agnew’s corruption began when he served as Baltimore County executive and continued throughout his term as governor of Maryland. For years, Agnew used his government offices for bribery and extortion, steering government contracts in exchange for money. After he was elected vice president, the payments continued. Most shockingly, packets of cash were delivered to Agnew at the White House itself. The evidence of Agnew’s guilt was overwhelming.

 

But what was to be done? Impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate did not seem to be a viable course of action. In fact, Agnew sought to initiate an impeachment process in the belief that the charges would become enmeshed in a cumbersome political process that could offer him more protection than risk. House Speaker Carl Albert declined Agnew’s request, saying the criminal process should proceed. (In a related matter, Solicitor General Robert H. Bork rejected

Agnew’s argument that a sitting vice president could not be indicted.)

 

Attorney General Elliot Richardson authorized a plea bargain so favorable to Agnew that the young lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office who had been investigating the case were understandably dismayed. Richardson, however, was looking at a larger context.

 

But the most significant impediment to holding a president accountable to justice is the statute of limitations. Generally, most federal crimes must be charged within five years or forever be barred. For crimes committed while the president is in office, there will be time enough at the end of the president’s term. But if a president engaged in financial crimes before taking office, or committed crimes to gain that office, the time for charging those crimes could well expire before his or her term concluded.

That is one of the reasons a grand jury should be permitted to indict a sitting president, as long as all further proceedings are postponed while he or she is in office. Unless an indictment could issue against a sitting president, there would be a perverse incentive for an alleged White House felon to seek reelection simply to avoid indictment while waiting for the statute of limitations to expire on crimes he had committed. The history of the Justice Department’s conflicting positions on this question does not categorically foreclose issuing an indictment against a sitting president.

 

Even where lawful, the use of the criminal process against sitting or former presidents should be undertaken with caution. In an ideal world, what our presidents and presidential candidates should most fear are voters, not prosecutors. But where the crimes are extremely serious and the proof compelling, the principle that no one is above the law may leave little choice but to proceed to court.

 

Source - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-we-be-able-to-indict-a-sitting-president-consider-spi...

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
200
Views
25
Replies
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