and that he could continue shooting.
Even the arrest would have to wait until he was out of office.

I can't help wondering if the Secret Service has some protocol for scurrying him away until things get sorted out.

We've had more than enough Presidents being shot, but no experience with them being the shooter. At any rate, I seriously hope we never get any.

(And it seems we are getting more experience than we need of idiotic lawyers.)

If found guilty, he serves jail for murder, I think that is what the chief of police meant, I don't think he meant, we arrest him and then, because it is the president, we let him go.

figuring impeachment is assured, and they could always get him later. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

If his secret service DID NOT stop him THEY would be accessories to MURDER right?

They were accessories. (in my thinking)

It would come down to a moral issue. Let's say Trump walked into Congress with a rifle and started picking off Democrat politicians one at a time, should they just stand there and watch? Being the only ones who could stop him and doing nothing would seem to make them culpable, no?

quite the public relations disaster!

I don't think I have ever seen that one depicted in film. NYPD vs. Secret Service. Hmmm...numbers?

Some movie may do it someday.

Good luck getting past Secret Service to put handcuffs on the president.

Pretty sure the NYPD isn't up to the task of going up against 5,000 rd/minute of that.

Would it be OK for the cops to shoot him, or would there be a gunfight with the Secret Service, who are supposed to be protecting the president? Are they supposed to keep protecting him while he's shooting people, and are they also supposed to shoot the cops who are shooting at Trump in order to keep him from committing mass murder on 5th Ave.?

SO fucking stupid to say he CANNOT be indicted. Look if he had an AR-15, he could kill 30 people per minute times 60 mins. times 24 hours, times 30 days times 12 months, times 4 years! The judge needs to see this!

... which would be a closer equivalent.

about this happening.

They're working on the assumption that it's bad guys who want to hurt the Prez, but what then happens when it's the Prez who's the bad guy?

All bets are off then.

If it turns out the president committed those crimes he must be arrested, and it is ridiculous to argue that he can't be.

When he shot someone. Blocked the sheriff from even getting Cheney's statement.

Or congresspeople? I actually had a nightmare about that last night and woke up depressed.

Fortunately for all of us, I think he's 100% bluff and bluster. He's a huge coward, more likely than not to be the type who, if he did own a gun, would be more likely than not to have it taken away and used against him.

He's laying the groundwork that nothing he does can result in arrest or even detainment while in office, and once out of office, he'd be pardoned. But the only way to do that for sure would be to resign and have Mike Pants pardon him. And the only way THAT would happen would be if a) it looked like he was going to be impeached AND removed; or b) it looked like he'd lose 2020 election in a landslide.

Gawd I miss the days when no one thought about him.

If you want to shoot someone in New York and NOT get arrested, you have to go over to 7th Avenue.

I heard it from Thom Hartmann this morning. Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding. Here's a link to a Washington Post article about it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/12/16/police-officer-who-arrested-president/%3foutputType=amp

Does anyone have a full legal analysis of the basis for this assumption? Apparently it was Mueller's bosses at DOJ who made the judgement. On what is it based?

Finally, they settle on what I find to be the very unpersuasive argument that prosecution would hinder the executive in the performance of his duties "that no one else can perform." If this got to the present Supreme Court, which now has a few hard core believers in the supremacy of the Executive, I don't know which way the'd decide. But I'll wager John Roberts would never agree with a decision that would give the president that much power over the Supreme Court.

by the constitution -- the presidential immunity is just inferred. Seeing how congress' immunity has been witted away to almost nothing, I see no reason the president's shouldn't also be.

The Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution says only that members of Congress can't be prosecuted for things they do in their capacity as members of Congress while they are physically in or going to or from Congress. Members of Congress can't shoot people on Fifth Ave. and get away with it.

He’s a coward type of bully who knows how to manipulate others to do the dirty work. Combine that incitement with a fan base that wantsto commit acts of violence; they’re slavering for it. In the name of their god-emperor.

It’s not a pretty picture.

The Danish queen would be stopped by police, if she did crimes - but prosecution would then be done inside her own court. The princes has been stopped for speeding.

In 1849 Denmark got laws to get rid of our crazy kings - they are still there but powerless. The law states that the king is "free from liability", which made the king of that time very happy.

Until our King was explained the juridical joke behind it:
If you have power, you have thereby liability.
If you have no liability, you have thereby no power.
Can't have it both ways!

Republicans should be stripped down like that!