Discuss: Can a sitting President be indicted?

[DKW 86 7,441]

Just MHO: 

Quayle, Biden, and Pence were the Three Best Anti-Impeachment and Anti-Assassination Insurance Policies ever taken out.

Objectively,  i personally could not think/name three worse people to be VP.  I dont know of many people I respect as genuine political thinkers that acknowledge Quayle, Biden, and Pence as anything but living proof of the Peter Principle in Politics. Quayle & Biden are gaffe a minute idiots. Pence is an old school religious nut in a suit.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Tex, the Constitution doesn’t even capture, or purport to capture every single event that “could” happen, as you seem to employ. Courts don’t stretch their opinions to unrestrained, never-ending boundaries. Does the legal system prepare and contemplate foreseeable events? Sure it does. But such foreseeability must be conditioned and balanced with reasonableness also. You’re hypothetical does not show the weakness of my position. Again, your assertions are incompatible with contemporary legal though, period. To say that the President going on a killing spree is a “potential case” literally strips all meaning from the term as it used today. Under you standard, courts would have to do away with “the spirit of the law” or, as liberal justices endorse, “purpovism.” There could be no justification of statutes based on purpose and policy because you could either manipulate, by unrestrained hypotheticals, what Congress actually meant or just blatantly disregard what they meant as well.

Per your second hypo, I have to ask follow up questions. How did we know the crimes were committed? And “who” are you referring to when you say “party?” 

Also, I do hope you offer an explanation too for which side of the fence you fall on. This is why I am hesitant to usually go into well-thought, comprehensive analysis of issues on here. It usually ends up only being met with little hypotheticals or one sentence is dissected from the whole.

There’s no strain of the legal system to accommodate this hypothetical. We have a system in place that can handle the crimes committed by anyone and the Constitution doesn’t need to “stretch” to anticipate it because it makes no exceptions for anyone. Folks claiming it does are creating their own construction of it that doesn’t exist within its 4 corners and that’s hardly conservative.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s no strain of the legal system to accommodate this hypothetical. We have a system in place that can handle the crimes committed by anyone and the Constitution doesn’t need to “stretch” to anticipate it because it makes no exceptions for anyone. Folks claiming it does are creating their own construction of it that doesn’t exist within its 4 corners and that’s hardly conservative.

Look at my initial response Tex. You’ve yet to offer anything but questions. And yes, the Constitution does make exceptions for certain individuals - read the Speech and Debate Clause. That’s in the four corners of the document, so don’t come at me with that “creating my own construction” nonsense. 

Also, while America is a common law country, over the past several years we’ve become a country dominated by statutory law - as one legal scholar put it. Thus, to say that we have a system that can handle the crimes of anyone is just flat out false pragmatically. There have been numerous instances where congress has enacted comprehensive liability statutes to handle novel, unanticipated situations - for example, CERCLA.

Again, read my first response and the article also. Try to notice how far off you are re first hypothetical. There are much less tenuous arguments you could make. If you’d like to discuss the second hypo, then by all means. 

Also, are you going to offer an intellectually satisfying response to the OP, or continue defending your killing spree question? At this point, I care more about the former. I’m interested in your answer. It appears your a strict constructionist. I sincerely want to know what you think. I will only combat it in a civil manner. You have my word.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Ah hah!  That makes sense!  A 28 year old lawyer.

Was that the Louisana bar?

More than one bar. Don’t inquire too much grasshopper.

[homersapien 11,453]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wow, what a stretch! Vince Foster is more a conspiracy theory. Besides, those who do “question” his suicide also don’t purport that Clinton blatantly did it - it’s more of an indirect nature. Very far from the “killing spree” hypo. So the Vince Foster thing, if an investigation revealed Clinton culpability, would more properly fall under conspiracy than first degree homicide as your colleague purports - in the case of a killing free.

But anyways, Vince Foster doesn’t discredit my original post. In fact, it enforces it. Immediate impeachment followed by indictment. 

Can you offer an exposition of your reasoning like I did above?

My "reasoning" is suggest the hypothetical of a POTUS committing a murder - if only by commission - is not so outrageous as to be useless for debate.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

My reasoning is the hypothetical of a POTUS committing a murder - if only by commission - is not so outrageous as to be useles for debate.   

Killing spree and murder are functionally different terms. If the president was being investigated for murder, after being elected (and I suppose the merits were strong), then yes I would maintain my position. It’s expressed in my first comment. 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Tex, the Constitution doesn’t even capture, or purport to capture every single event that “could” happen, as you seem to employ. Courts don’t stretch their opinions to unrestrained, never-ending boundaries. Does the legal system prepare and contemplate foreseeable events? Sure it does. But such foreseeability must be conditioned and balanced with reasonableness also. You’re hypothetical does not show the weakness of my position. Again, your assertions are incompatible with contemporary legal though, period. To say that the President going on a killing spree is a “potential case” literally strips all meaning from the term as it used today. Under you standard, courts would have to do away with “the spirit of the law” or, as liberal justices endorse, “purpovism.” There could be no justification of statutes based on purpose and policy because you could either manipulate, by unrestrained hypotheticals, what Congress actually meant or just blatantly disregard what they meant as well.

Per your second hypo, I have to ask follow up questions. How did we know the crimes were committed? And “who” are you referring to when you say “party?” 

Also, I do hope you offer an explanation too for which side of the fence you fall on. This is why I am hesitant to usually go into well-thought, comprehensive analysis of issues on here. It usually ends up only being met with little hypotheticals or one sentence is dissected from the whole.

Good grief.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Good grief.  

That’s the truth. For example, the death penalty thread. Before I knew it, instead of a well-reasoned Constitutional discussion of the 8th Amendment, people were discussing emotion and not law.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s the truth. For example, the death penalty thread. Before I knew it, instead of a well-reasoned Constitutional discussion of the 8th Amendment, people were discussing emotion and not law.

People can be just totally uncooperative at times,  huh?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Yeah,  that's exactly the sort of nuanced difference you would run with.

What???? I’m not running with it. So which one do you want to discuss? They are functionally different terms. My god homer, when someone is arrested for killing a person, it’s not deemed a “killing spree.” 

How about you quit ignoring my ultimate answer and provide a sufficient counter to it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

People can be just totally uncooperative at times,  huh?

Why don’t you provide a damn answer of your own? Quit tip toeing around the issue. A sitting president cannot be indicted. I’ve provided my reasoning. Rebut it. I answered your murder hypothetical, what more do you need? My goodness. I’m guessing you cannot articulate a well-thought out answer with a sufficient basis.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/28/2018 at 8:11 PM, TexasTiger said:

So if he went on a killing crime spree while the Congress was recessed, what could be done?

Also, Congress being in recess is irrelevant to immediate impeachment.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

People can be just totally uncooperative at times,  huh?

ALSO: Yes. When the OP sets out the issue, and people run the absolute other direction. In this thread, I answered the OP, even posted a link with the hopes of it helping others, but sadly all I’ve been met with are hypos. An answer to OP from you or even Tex would be nice. 

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why don’t you provide a damn answer of your own? Quit tip toeing around the issue. A sitting president cannot be indicted. I’ve provided my reasoning. Rebut it. I answered your murder hypothetical, what more do you need? My goodness. I’m guessing you cannot articulate a well-thought out answer with a sufficient basis.

The issue I am referring to involves your arrogant dismissal of TT's hypothetical:

  On 3/28/2018 at 9:11 PM, TexasTiger said:

So if he went on a killing crime spree while the Congress was recessed, what could be done?

That hypothetical exceeds the bounds of reason for purposes of the discussion. You’re smarter than that.

 

Pretty much everything I have posted since then has been to push your buttons and watch you dig yourself deeper into your own hubris.   You are easier to provoke than Trump. 

Thanks for playing.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The issue I am referring to involves your arrogant dismissal of TT's hypothetical:

  On 3/28/2018 at 9:11 PM, TexasTiger said:

So if he went on a killing crime spree while the Congress was recessed, what could be done?

That hypothetical exceeds the bounds of reason for purposes of the discussion. You’re smarter than that.

 

Pretty much everything I have posted since then has been to push your buttons and watch you dig yourself deeper into your own hubris.   You are easier to provoke than Trump. 

Thanks for playing.  

I’m not digging myself into anything. The hypo is ******* stupid. Consider all of its factual assumptions. The president could be met with lethal force. There, no indictment necessary. Now for the love of Auburn can you move on from it? 

Honestly, I think you’re hesitant to engage in debate with me about anything legal becuase you know I’ll embarrass you. JMO

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's difficult to herd such an unruly bunch. You'd think most of them would be smarter, but nooooo.  If only they would listen.  

But I am sure your overpowering logic and intellect are up to it. 

Keep ignoring the issue. 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not digging myself into anything. The hypo is ******* stupid. Consider all of its factual assumptions. The president could be met with lethal force. There, no indictment necessary. Now for the love of Auburn can you move on from it? 

Honestly, I think you’re hesitant to engage in debate with me about anything legal becuase you know I’ll embarrass you. JMO

So you’re saying lethal force is fine, but arrest and charge is a step too far?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Trump admires tyrants who order numerous killings. Having a leader abuse his office is unbelievable? It happens all over the world.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So you’re saying lethal force is fine, but arrest and charge is a step too far?

Well, I am answering the extreme that your hypothetical presents. I mean this is different than money laundering or perjury (or for that matter, the crimes envisioned among legal thought for which debate exists over whether a sitting presidential "could" be indicted of while in office). It's much more abstract and highly unique in that it's reasonably understood as a situation that, more probably than not, would never happen in the first place. It's an extreme, one that perhaps realistically is unfathomable. If he is on a killing spree, lethal force is absolutely fine. Any maniac with a gun who is killing people in public is subject to lethal force. No, arrest and charge is not too far either if the President is on a killing spree. I'm just answering your hypothetical. I mean hell, my initial answer might not even be thwarted. I would suppose that Congressional leadership would call a special session for immediate impeachment in the event that the president did something as egregious as you purport.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump admires tyrants who order numerous killings. Having a leader abuse his office is unbelievable? It happens all over the world.

No, having a leader go on a "killing spree" is unbelievable. I can't see a US president shooting up a nightclub in Orlando. I'm sorry. It DOESN'T happen. 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, having a leader go on a "killing spree" is unbelievable. I can't see a US president shooting up a nightclub in Orlando. I'm sorry. It DOESN'T happen. 

Ordering others to kill?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Ordering others to kill?

In what context? Like Vince Foster type stuff?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@TexasTiger are you familiar with exactly what impeachment is? Congress decides which acts are impeachable. When congress impeached, they bringing forth allegations of a crime. Whenever an impeachment is brought forth to a civil officer, a trial and conviction must accompany it.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In what context? Like Vince Foster type stuff?

Duarte, Putin type stuff.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

@TexasTiger are you familiar with exactly what impeachment is? Congress decides which acts are impeachable. Whenever an impeachment is brought forth to a civil officer, a trial and conviction must accompany it.

Understand it well.