Discuss: Can a sitting President be indicted?

[TexasTiger 13,027]

Ken Starr says yes. And so did DiGenova— when it was Clinton.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Duarte, Putin type stuff.

Could you expound?  Also, what is your position?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Ken Starr says yes. And so did DiGenova— when it was Clinton.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html

If he says yes, then I say he’s wrong. It’s a legal debate.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If he says yes, then I say he’s wrong. It’s a legal debate.

Jaworski thought so, too. 

[TexasTiger 13,027]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Could you expound?  Also, what is your position?

They have people killed extra-judicially. Google it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Jaworski thought so, too. 

It’s not a repub v dem issue either. The guys that congress go to for advise on legal issues (law professors) dispute among themselves.

[TexasTiger 13,027]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s not a repub v dem issue either. The guys that congress go to for advise on legal issues (law professors) dispute among themselves.

These were Republicans who believed you could.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

These were Republicans who believed you could.

I know. But party alliance is irrelevant on the matter.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They have people killed extra-judicially. Google it.

Not sure I follow you. Anyways what is your position?

[TexasTiger 13,027]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I know. But party alliance is irrelevant on the matter.

It should be. I think they can be indicted. Congress decides whether to impeach based on the facts.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It should be. I think they can be indicted. Congress decides whether to impeach based on the facts.

Would an indictment, by default, abrogtate the need to impeach?

[TexasTiger 13,027]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Would an indictment, by default, abrogtate the need to impeach?

No

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

No

How would you reconcile an indictment with the public policy concerns mentioned in my first response? Also, who would have the proper authority to indict pres?

[TexasTiger 13,027]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How would you reconcile an indictment with the public policy concerns mentioned in my first response? Also, who would have the proper authority to indict pres?

There are significant public policy concerns either way. Having Americans think their President is above the law is a huge concern.

2nd question— I’ll leave that to the experts I cited.

[AuCivilEng1 11,026]

If a president can only be Impeached and not indicted and there isn't enough support to impeach him, due to the government being either too afraid or not interested, the president can essentially do anything he wants, without fear of repercussions. That sure sounds awful.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There are significant public policy concerns either way. Having Americans think their President is above the law is a huge concern.

2nd question— I’ll leave that to the experts I cited.

Not about being above the law but ok. In that case, you’d have to take dispute to the Speech and Debate clause of constitution as well

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

If a president can only be Impeached and not indicted and there isn't enough support to impeach him, due to the government being either too afraid or not interested, the president can essentially do anything he wants, without fear of repercussions. That sure sounds awful.

No one claimed the president couldn’t be indicted and only impeached. Please read the article I posted earlier. Further, impeachment is essentially an indictment - which I think is easily seen by anyone familiar with impeachment proceedings, I.e, senate has the power to Try the impeachment.