woodguru

It says a president cannot sit while under indictment. The Trump white house rolled out the interpretation early on as openly expressed by Kelly Anne that because a president cannot sit under indictment he can't be indicted...

Two trains of thought on this, and it is unsettled law. But the very idea that a president could do anything and not be indicted for it is patently absurd. It comes down to the rule of law, if the president did something he should be indicted for does he get charged accordingly and the court system uphold the law, or does he get a free pass until he is no longer president?

The general DOJ "rule" is an unwritten rule that has been expressed but not challenged, the wisdom being that if indictments are indicated he gets impeached first then charged. The question here is whether Barr sees it as a matter of blocking indictable offenses from being released by Mueller to Congress.

Congress has the right to see everything without a filter that would protect Trump from evidence that indicates he broke the law. Obstruction being a big deal that results in prison time.

JoyV

If a president has done something any other American would be indicted for, that would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. He could then be impeached. If removed from office he could be indicted. But whether he were removed from office or not, he could be subject to indictment once he no longer held office.

Section 3 of Article I sates:

"Judgment in Cases
of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification
to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust,
or Profit under the United States; but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable
and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment
and Punishment, according to Law."

https://borgenproject.org/step-by-step-how-are-presidents-impeached/

But for an indictment to occur, he must not only have first been impeached, but must be charged with an actual crime, not an ideological dispute or political incorrectness!

vernon

Here you go with your innuendo games again.Now name one crime that Trump has been charged with.
You just play on some peoples minds insinuating all this trash hoping people will fall for it and think they
about to see Trump indited. In reality i think muller and most of the doj most of the fbi are about to go to jail.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Does it say that I can't give you a wedgie in front of your homo friends? All in good fun, of course.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Wedgies...
I remember those...
Racked up a fair bit of wedgie related detention back in my earlier days...

The real question here should be whether the constitution allows a man to wedgie a beer snob if properly provoked?

A technicality I know.... But an important distiction....

Sorry for the easy lob return Arch... Seems I pulled something earlier on the courts...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Detention? I got swats! Lots of swats......

I don't think giving a beer snob a wedgie is a constitutional issue to be honest. It's a matter of principal.
Depending on the magnitude of the snobbery, a purple nurple might also be in order!

Red Onion Rip Loc: Oklahoma

I don't know what the constitution says about indicting a sitting president, but I know the following doesn't look very good for President Trump's immediate future:

NEW COMPLAINT ALLEGES TRUMP FAMILY DEFRAUDED WOULD-BE ENTREPRENEURS THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL-MARKETING SCHEME; PLAINTIFFS MOVE TO SUE UNDER PSEUDONYMS

New Complaint Alleges Trump Family Defrauded Would-Be Entrepreneurs Through Multi-Level-Marketing Scheme; Plaintiffs Move to Sue Under Pseudonyms
By Michael Keough on October 29, 2018
Posted in SDNY Blog
A complaint filed today alleges that Donald J. Trump, the Trump Organization, and members of the Trump family falsely promoted the multi-level-marketing scheme ACN, reaping millions of dollars in secret payments to promote the scheme that led to would-be entrepreneurs losing millions of dollars. According to the complaint, the members of the purported class invested in the multi-level-marketing scheme by paying fees and purchasing training sessions that would allow them to sell ACN’s products (which included an obsolete “video phone”). ACN events featured prominent Trump endorsements of the scheme, allegedly without revealing that Trump was being compensated for his endorsement or that investing in the scheme came with high risk and was unlikely to result in any return to the investors (with costs at some times exceeding returns by a factor of ten to one).

The complaint includes federal RICO claims as well as state law and common law claims.

The plaintiffs are three individuals (and putative class representatives) who have also just filed a motion to proceed under pseudonyms. Their motion begins:

Even for the most sophisticated and well-resourced adversaries, filing suit to hold the President of the United States accountable for breaking the law is a perilous decision. The current President, Donald J. Trump, has a documented history of wielding his wealth, stature, and Twitter account to attack people whom he perceives to be his enemies, including people who file lawsuits against him. That has been true for decades, and it has remained true since he was elected to a position that affords him the largest bully pulpit on the planet. But the threat to Plaintiffs here now extends far beyond President Trump’s own tweets or rallies. In the current environment, President Trump’s political followers instantly unleash harassment, verbal assaults, cyberattacks, and even death threats against anyone who dares to challenge him—whether politically or in a court of law

A judge has not yet been assigned.

===============================================

If they (the Southern District of New York) finds him guilty of RICO violations they can confiscate ALL of his money and properties as well as that of anyone else involved like Don Jr. and Ivanka and it may even affect Melania. Can you say President Pelosi, or President Clinton immediately after Pelosi! Can you say Revolution!!

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Get a job.

JoyV

If these ANONYMOUS individuals try to sue Trump over ACN they will just prove themselves fools.

In 1993, Robert Stevanovski, Greg Provenzano, and twin brothers Tony and Mike Cupisz, founded the American Communications Network. In 2006 Trump Trump became involved in a business relationship with ACN and appeared in promotional videos touting the company's “revolutionary products”, devoted an episode of The Apprentice to ACN's “revolutionary” videophone, and earned millions of dollars giving speeches at ACN International Training Events, up to early 2015, where he has praised the company's founders and business model. He neither own, operated, nor was on the board of ACN. He terminated the relationship in 2015. He was paid for this as is normal for celebrities when promoting a product. Do you object to Kaepernick being paid by Nike? Payments were not secret. Due to several complaints, ACN was investigated. It was determined that the actions giving rise to the initial concerns were not part of the ACN business model, but instead were isolated instances taking place by certain ACN's independent representatives in Montana. In fact, ACN's Income Disclosure Statement bears the warning that "not all ACN Independent Representatives make a profit and no one can be guaranteed success as an ACN Independent Representative."

woodguru

In all the semantics of indicting a sitting president one key piece is conflated with undergoing a trial. The argument is that a sitting president should not have to deal with the distractions of a trial, no, he shouldn't...but an indictment is not a trial.

If a president has done something of a nature to be prosecuted for breaking the law (remembering no man including the president is above the law), a grand jury hearing is convened. The evidence is laid out and it is determined in a short period whether there is enough to proceed with prosecution and a trial.

That is indictment, and the bar for a sitting president would be over the top of high. If an indictment is brought the president is done right there, no trial for a sitting president under indictment. The indictment means he does not have to go through a trial as president, he would be done and the vice president would take over.

The idea that a sitting president can't be indicted is ridiculous, that would mean that a sitting president could break the law in any way and get a free pass. An indictment should mean the presidency is over and done right then and there, as are all powers including the pardon.

woodguru

So far he hasn't been charged with anything, and part of it has to do with a nebulous unwritten DOJ rule that a sitting president can't be indicted...which is by the way untested.

Trump openly lied to the public about multiple aspects of the porn star affair and NDA...stop right there, that is an impeachable offense by black and white statutes against violating the public trust.

woodguru

The way the prosecution did it with Nixon, and which was sealed up until a few months ago, was to lay out the cases for indictment to a grand jury, get the indictments, which then were to be given to congress to decide whether to pass them to DOJ for prosecution or impeach first on those grounds and then prosecute.

The position Mueller will be taking is to lay out the cases for indictments, which congress would then impeach on prior to being prosecuted. It is worried that Barr will refuse to pass on violations that would indicate prosecution, his position possibly being that since a sitting president can't be indicted, he won't pass on evidence which would require that.

I think Mueller will see to it congress gets anything Barr tries to cover up on the grounds it's outside the collusion window.