General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats To Pursue Law Change So Trump Can Be Indicted In Office
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/09/22/trump-indicted-office.htmlPosted on Sun, Sep 22nd, 2019 by Jason Easley
Democrats To Pursue Law Change So Trump Can Be Indicted In Office
Rep. Kathrine Clark (D-MA) said that House Democrats are going to pursue changing the law so that a sitting president can be indicted while in office.
Rev. Al Sharpton asked Rep. Clark on MSNBC, Speaker Pelosi has said there needs to be laws also that deals with this whole policy of the justice department that you cant indict a sitting president. Is there something that you think the congress will pursue since your caucus is the majority now in the House?
Link to tweet
An indictment would be more effective than impeachment because we all know that in practical terms impeachment carries no punishment for Donald Trump. A criminal indictment would put the fear of God into Donald Trump and any other future president who might want to emulate Trumps behavior in the future. If the goal is to both punish Trump while making sure that this sort of presidency never happens again, changing the law so that a sitting president can be indicted is the best option.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)FakeNoose
(32,823 posts)We all know the next POTUS will be a Dem.
By the way, any new law that gets passed now won't be retroactive anyway.
Zoonart
(11,887 posts)This is not law. It is a judicial opinion that has been adhered to up to now.
3catwoman3
(24,071 posts)...that such a judicial opinion, or whatever the hell it is, is complete bullshit! Should not a president of the United States be held to the highest standards in the land, rather than be exempt from any and all standards?
Zoonart
(11,887 posts)not_the_one
(2,227 posts)and we are stuck with the turd because that "musing" is now the equivalent of the secrets of the universe written in stone, by DOG himself.
rampartc
(5,439 posts)it is a memo from some doj official that has never been tested in court.
drray23
(7,638 posts)we already have the constitution and powers of impeachment. use that. I can see it coming a mile away. They pass that law, Trump does not sign it. Next president is a democrat and he/she signs it. Next thing you know, the republicans turn around and abuse that law to indict the dem president.
:eye:
shraby
(21,946 posts)be signed by the president.
How would they manage that? With a magic wand?
Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)but we instead should propose legislation that cant pass the senate.
Got it. They think we are idiots.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,064 posts)lostnfound
(16,193 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Vinca
(50,318 posts)it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. It's a rule crafted by a man who never expected it to become some kind of standard for all presidents.
RainCaster
(10,929 posts)No need for a new law, just a need for correct interpretation of the laws we have.
Too bad we can get that from our partisan SCOTUS.
Response to Vinca (Reply #13)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rainbow Droid
(722 posts)Not only are they God unto themselves (at least within their own minds), they cannot even fear that God (by extension of fearing self) because, wait for it... they are incapable of error.
It's like turtles all the way down except instead of turtles its just madness. Madness all the way down.
Maven
(10,533 posts)This legislation is already DOA. Like every other bill passed by Congressional Dems. And it's unnecessary. Nothing in the Constitution shields the President from indictment.
In fact, this bill is not just pointless, it's damaging, in that it reinforces the false notion that a change in the law is needed to indict.
WTF are they doing?
bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)One idea surrounding the rule is that the President mustn't be interrupted while carrying out his duties. Republicans would have sued Obama for every little thing they could imagine.
But impeachment is certainly allowable, and monopolizes the President's time and fills his calendar. So much for that angle.
So they must be thinking they can overcome the DOJ opinion that made the rule by arguing the rule is invalid because it enables monarchy or dictatorship, putting the president above the law. If successful, it's just a hop skip and jump to home plate if his tax returns are ever released and shown to be made of swiss cheese.
How do they do this? Aren't some appeals made directly to the Supreme Court where one specific Justice rules for specific regions and states? I don't think it's just for death row stays of execution. Seems to me a Justice will sometimes give an opinion on this or that, and it has the rule of law.
"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
Amazing they don't mention extortion, but Trump sure lights the lamps in this list.
dalton99a
(81,637 posts)Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Wonder how long itll take for some ultra-conservative prosecutor to use this law to get a grand jury in someplace like Tennessee to indict a Dem president?
What we have now is imperfect but are you sure the solution is to hand that kind of power to the other side?
bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)or there will never be another Democratic president. You do what you have to do, and clean up the detritus with more opinons, cases, and rules.
EndGOPPropaganda
(1,117 posts)Link to tweet
But they CANNOT indict someone, because Trump and Barr control all federal prosecutors.
So there is no point.
There is one remedy for a lawless President. It is impeachment. Do your job.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,686 posts)EveHammond13
(2,855 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)After the fact.
Would that apply?
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)That way they don't have to get into a constitutional question of whether it's constitutional to indict a sitting president. If the statute is tolled - suspended - during his term, he couldn't use his presidency to run out the clock and could be indicted upon leaving office.
Ilsa
(61,707 posts)Stop the clock on the statute of limitations for any crimes in a sealed indictment.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)As long as he's indicted before the statute runs out, we're fine, even if the indictment is sealed it is not tried until after he leaves office. The problem is when the statute of limitations sets a deadline for when an indictment can be filed but he's protected from indictment by virtue of his position until after that deadline passes. Stopping the clock during the pendency of a presidency would take care of that.
Ilsa
(61,707 posts)LudwigPastorius
(9,195 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)This is an insult to our intelligence
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)dweller
(23,682 posts)put it to a vote and on the front pages daily
Dems want a vote,
repugs vote it down... let that simmer...
next Dem president, and NO INDICTMENTS, full repug vote... fuggitaboutit ...
remember?
✌🏼