it's never come up, so the supreme court has yet to weigh in.

there's nothing in the constitution or the law that explicitly prevents it.

donnie's lawyers would have to rely on some argument that the constitutional duty to carry out the executive responsibilities would be unduly hampered by having to prepare a defense and stand trial.


in any event, i don't see why a president couldn't be *indicted*. at most, any trial would be delayed until after he's out of office.

personally, i have a tough time seeing why a civil suit can proceed against a sitting president (as the supreme court decided in clinton v. jones) but not a criminal case.

He's removed via the impeachment process, rendering the question of indictment moot.

Laurence Tribe says it should be possible to indict first, before impeachment/conviction -- and then go on to hold a trial.

And it might be important to indict ASAP, because of statute of limitation laws.

indictment

that says a sitting President can't be indicted, and that other legal advisors said the same thing during Watergate, and later. But the issue hasn't been tested in the courts.

ON UPDATE:

I see the mistake you are making. The article talks about the full PROSECUTION not happening till after impeachment/conviction. But the indictment and trial are two separate things, and Tribe says the indictment itself could occur BEFORE impeachment/conviction, with the prosecution of the case (trial) to occur afterwards.

Also, I don't know who the writer of the article is, but he writes to dispute the conclusion of a law professor at Chapman that indictment IS possible. So your Bloomberg writer disagrees with Professor Rotunda at Chapman and Professor Tribe at Harvard. The issue is NOT settled

got that far.

A state court like New York could indict DT on money laundering, for example -- a crime that could have occurred a couple years ago, and, for all we know, has been under investigation ever since.

If DT manages to stop Mueller, the states might be our last resort.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/states_could_bring_these_charges_if_trump_tries_to_pardon_his_way_out_of.html

He said the issue has yet to be decided.

There’s an argument it would detract from their work time. However in Trump’s case he already spends 4+ hours a day watching television and goes on golfing trips every weekend. Not to mention the time he spends on Twitter everyday. Aparently he’s got lots of time to spare.

he wouldn't even understand the impeachment process.

that a sitting president can't be prosecuted for a crime while he is still in office. More here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-impeachment-prosecution-jail-20170801-story.html

of course

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Con you can’t

So....you can, right?

Tribe is a well respected liberal legal scholar and a Harvard professor. The arguments have been on Twitter, though, which I can't access at work.

(supposedly, if Dukakis had won in 1988, Tribe would likely have been his first nominee to the SCOTUS)

But I doubt Mueller wants to have an indictment issued against Trump and then have to litigate the matter - especially since it would almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court.

here can correct me.

Would the Senate who convicted an impeached President have the power to order jail time?

But once out of office, he could then be indicted.

that there should be a trial. But the result of a conviction following a trial based on a criminal indictment is that you go to jail, while conviction after impeachment only means that you lose your job.

The theory on how it’s supposed to work per the Constitution is: Impeachment, conviction, removal from office, indictment, trial, judgement and them punishment.

I’m ok with the current thoughts of impeachment being the vehicle for removal, then possible indictment. Mainly because the things you mention aren’t the only things an indictment can be handed down for.

Indictments do not mean a crime was committed by said individual. I don’t want a president arrested over an indictment handed down by a GJ. I would be ok with an indictment being issued and all pertinent facts handed over to Congress so long as the indictment isn’t processed further.

...I don't think any president should be left open to indictment by every court in the land. Can you imagine how that power would be abused, how every minute of the last president's time would have been occupied?

No, when we inaugurate a president, we should be making his conviction a Congressional function--though of course we are supposed to be electing a Congress with the ethics and guts for that sort of oversight.

that would not place burdens on the president. We can note that Clinton was sued civilly and Trump is currently being sued civilly, but there was not a huge flood of vexatious personal civil suits against Bush Jr. or Obama, and it would be easier for that to happen than a flood of criminal suits. Trump does have a flood of civil suits against him, but he has always had that. Still has no affect on his ability to work (or lack thereof).

If a president was indicted but not impeached and remover by congress, there would be no way for the judicial branch to enforce it. They could send US Marshalls to the WH to make an arrest. But when the SS refused to let then near the POTUS you would have the ultimate constitucional crisis.

Edited to say I think a sitting POTUS could be indicted but not arrested or brought to trial until out of Office one way or anothet.

How would Congress enforce removal for a President that refused to leave? Secret Service would have to evict him, I think.

Link to tweet

Not that it will happen unless Repukes lose power, and then, of course, impeachment is, or should be, on the table.

Is any one above the law, or not?

no one is above the law? just curious