Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAWYERS: Can a sitting President be tried for crimes?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 12:41 PM
Original message
LAWYERS: Can a sitting President be tried for crimes?
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 12:44 PM by benburch
Yes, I know about impeachment, but the precedent set in the Bill Clinton/Jennifer Flowers case would seem to leave the door open for a criminal prosecution, or at least compelling the President to testify in the trial of others connected with his misdeeds.

Any lawyers here care to comment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Voltaire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm no lawyer
But it stands to reason that due to the SC rulings on Clinton, a sitting President could be tried.

wait a minute....WHAT AM I SAYING!!!!

GOP!!! Stands to Reason!!!!??? BWAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!

Sorry, no fucking way he can be tried. Why do you hate Amurka anyway??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here is an interesting Memorandum from October, 2000
addressing that very question:

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. OK, so the Justice Department does not think so...
So, operationally, the answer is NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. So, the President must resign, be impeached or lose the next election?
Assuming he runs in the next election, that is. And that is the opinion, from what I understood, that provides a little loophole, as it were, for the Prez. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. I have been thinking about this in relationship to the legal decision
regarding President Clinton being immune from civil suits litigation as per the unanimous Supreme Court decision, Clinton v. Jones U.S. 95-1853 (1997).

If bush was identified by Fitzgerald as an un-indicted co-conspirator, one would think this could open him up to a civil suit by the Wilsons to which bush would not be immune, as per the above Supreme Court decision. That would be positively delicious, lol.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Perhaps
Cheney is more likely to be the unidicted co-conspirator. The same general rules would appear to apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wrathofkahn Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not a lawyer, but..
It's my understanding that a sitting President must first be impeached and removed from office (two separate events) before being tried for any case of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Therefore, impeachment and subsequent removal from office is not legal proof of guilt, but instead it opens the door to prosecution. As it was explained to me once before (I think in my poli-sci class 10 years ago), the impeachment and removal process can loosely be thought of as a kind of special "grand jury."

Again, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV); I'm just going off of my own understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. But what about the VP
This document: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm seems to indicate that same does NOT apply to the veep:

The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President's Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) ("SG Brief"). In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.

So seems to me that Cheney could be indicted outright. N'est-ce pas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC