The only body that can remove him from office is Congress, so 2019 is the very earliest impeachment and removal could take place. The SCOTUS won't be involved. However, indictments of other Trump officials are certainly possible, and none of those people are immune from prosecution, unless immunity is granted.

However, an indictment would not necessarily lead to Trump's removal, assuming that one was issued. Indictments lead to trials. There isn't any chance of a criminal trial against a President. Only Congress can charge, try, and remove a President.

It would be more likely for him to be named an unindicted co-conspirator, and the evidence forwarded to the House, which is the body that impeaches. All of that would take at least a year, I'm sure, and a Republican House would be very unlikely to impeach a Republican President.

There is literally no point in indicting a President, frankly.

If a hundred eyewitnesses saw Trump hack a guy to death with a machete, that's information worth getting out there in the form of an indictment, even if a partisan congress refuses to act.

Only Congress can IMPEACH and REMOVE FROM OFFICE. The Constitution is completely silent on whether the President can be criminally indicted and tried in front of a judge and jury. There is no direct precedent, but there is a good argument to be made that he can be tried while in office.

We ould argue, but there are only 10 opinions that matter on this. The first is Robert Mueller's. Although he has said nothing about, both the Nixon and Clinton special counsels believed they could indict and try a president. Of course they would. They are prosecutors and that's what prosecutors do. Why would Mueller be different, especially with an extremely aggressive team and an extremely dangerous and corrupt President.

The other nine opinions are on the Supreme Court. We can already guess how eight of them will rule. Kennedy will be the swing vote, although Roberts might surprise us. He has surprised us before.

If convicted, the president would still have to be removed from office by impeachment or 25th Amendment. Or he could run the country from a jail cell. We'd be safer that way.

You assume that because four of the justices were appointed by Democrats they would find that a president (not Trump in particular, but any president) can be indicted and tried while in office. That's a leap.

But if I stated my real assumptions, I'd be laughed off the forum. But I might as well state it, since you noticed. My real assumption that would be very little question that the President can be criminally tried and that the Court would rule 7 to 2.

The reason for this is what I recently posted elsewhere from Nixon's defense attorney who stated in court, "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment."

Nixon's own attorney couldn't even defend the proposition that the President is beyond the reach of the court. There is good reason for it that has little to do with the text of then Constitution and everything to do with being a Republic rather than a monarchy or dictatorship. In all of world history, only monarchs and dictators were above the law. No republic has ever allowed anyone to be above the law.

So the real question to the Supreme Court (dressed up in legal niceties of course) is, are you ready to crown King Donald I? I count 7 nays and 2 idiots.

I don't see Mueller trying to indict Trump.

You can certainly depose one (as shown in the Clinton case) and use evidence against them to impeach followed by charging once out of office.

it's hard to see how 2019 differs from 2018. Maybe easier to impeach in 2018 if Democrats control the House, but still a big hurdle in terms of removal unless Mueller has a smoking gun, in which case it depends on when that comes out, not the elections.

For some Republican Senators to vote to remove. Politically, I mean.

And less on when.

that a sitting president can't be indicted.

no, but apparently Ken Starr also made a legal argument that charges COULD be brought.

I would expect Thomas and Gorsuch to side with the President no matter what, but Kennedy, Robert's, and probably even Scalia could be persuaded by the right arguments.

LOL Perhaps you meant Alito?

Some Republican committee members would have already started a campaign of propaganda against Trump if it was going to happen. It appears they are not just holding the line but taking actions to help Trump.

I do think the Mueller investigation will play a major role in the destruction of Trump once he is no longer in office.

indicted or actually impeached.

It can only rule on actual court decisions in that regard. It does not hear cases about charges against individuals.

More likely, an injunction against the process would probably be brought on an emergency basis in the District Court for the DC area, and swiftly brought to the Appeals court for an hearing by the Court of Appeals. I don't see any way that the Supreme Court would have primary jurisdiction, frankly. What they have jurisdiction for as the primary court is laid out in the Constitution.

And all of this is why no indictment of a President would ever be sought by the Department of Justice. The case would not be presented to a Grand Jury in the first place, which is the only body that can issue an indictment. The unprecedented nature of such an situation would be recognized and the information provided to the House of Representatives, which is the body that deals with impeachments.

Could a President be indicted? Perhaps. But such a situation will not arise, because it won't go before a Grand Jury. And, without a Grand Jury, there would be no indictment. The DOJ is too smart to back itself into such a corner in such an unprecedented way.

Unindicted Co-Conspirator. That's the most likely thing to happen, if anything happens. Then, the results of the investigation would be sent to the Speaker of the House for possible action.

even if it takes a "pitstop" at the Court of Appeals..

won't be sought by the DOJ. They simply won't open that can of worms. There would be no benefit from doing so, since only Congress can remove a President from office. A criminal trial of a sitting President would never occur. It really can't, in all practical terms.

The Congress has jurisdiction over the President. No other body does.

I also think that because the statute is quite different for Mueller than for Ken Starr, it is not sure that Mueller COULD (by himself) indict, even if a Grand Jury brings a true bill. That being an additional open question, I do find Lawrence Tribe's argument compelling:

The legal issue is separation of powers.

while in office AND 2. the tweet that came up below as to whether he could BOTH refer impeachment charges to the House AND indict at the same time. The lay person asking about it in the tweet used the term double jeopardy which has not a thing to do with actual "double jeopardy". Tribe was trying to answer several things there and I did not include a very long twitter thread.

I think he'll indict administration officials and others, but not Trump. He's sort of a traditionalist in many ways, and seems unlikely to take chances with process.

We'll see, of course, but I don't see him pushing a process that is going to add complexity to an already complex situation. Simple is more effective.

I was merely answering an earlier theoretical question re: whether a President COULD be indicted while in office. That is not clear in terms of legal precedence or case law, but an argument certainly can be made that they can. If he tried, it would undoubtedly have to be settled in the USSC.

He hired some very aggressive prosecutors, including in particular Andrew Weissmann, who in the Enron scandal took some unusual moves like indicting the wife of the CFO and indicting the accounting firm. It was effective, but a lot of his convictions were overturned. You don't hire a guy like that to keep things simple. You hire a guy like that to get the man at the top.

Criminally trying a sitting president might be difficult, but it's not impossible. As a practical matter, other public officials who have been indicted have been forced to resign or impeached.

The three branches of government are coequal. They all have jurisdiction over each other.

If someone were to indict a sitting President, I guarantee that that issue would make it to the Supreme Court
(if the issue wasn't settled beforehand).

"The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment."

-James D. St. Clair

that sank his presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

for God's sake...we should try to be realistic. I remember Watergate, at 15 years old, I was helping silk-screen campaign signs for my dad in 1973, who was the campaign manager for the AG of MA, Robert Quinn. He ran in the primary against Mike Dukakis that year for Gov. Those WG hearings took a long time as I remember...we aren't even close to that point yet. Unfortunately Drump will most likely be in office his full term. grrrrr....

In the Republican line of succession any better? Elections have consequences and the only real relief will only come if we are successful in 2018.

to consider for impeachment. It won't require a Supreme Court ruling since the law on this is clear- Mueller won't even try.