Posted on 06/22/2017 12:37:51 PM PDT by jazusamo
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” -- DOJ opinion, October 16, 2000
The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).
However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment. After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.
So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.
It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If it takes as long as Dtarr’s investigation Trump will get more of his kind in2018 and will be reelected in 2020
If it takes as long as Dtarr’s investigation Trump will get more of his kind in2018 and will be reelected in 2020
You are under the impression that politicians follow the rules
“Just might be the trigger a lot are waiting for!There Will Be Blood!”
If they pull it off, this old man will clean his rifle and go hunting.
It's all academic anyway. Unless the crime was murder or rape, no prosecutor would subject a deposed president to criminal trial.
The way I see it (academically), Congress has limited remedy - removal from office, prohibit from office. If Congress refuses to remove from office, that doesn't create "legal jeopardy" so that a criminal trial is precluded. I think prosecutors just avoid prosecuting the criminal case as a political matter.
Congress also has more latitude, in that it can impose the remedy of removal and prohibition without proving the elements of a statutory crime.
“I don’t think Mueller has obstruction on his plate, anyway.”
Please everyone, stop being naive believing somehow this will all work out! There is a reason why Mueller has hired at least 13 criminal lawyers. They will subpoena all of Trump’s tax returns, financial records, everything they can and will do everything possible to find SOMETHING. You are obviously not reading enough about this process historically. Somebody goes to jail! They have to come up with somebody to justify the investigation. This investigation must stop! Remember, the Democrats were saying, from the moment that Trump was elected that he will be impeached. They will not tolerate a Republican president.
How many Republicans are willing to give up their seats by voting to impeach a GOP President on false charges?
In many of those cases, prosecutions are probably rare because — as in Clinton’s case — the case often ends up with the right verdict anyway.
He won't be able to do that in secret.
-- You are obviously not reading enough about this process historically. --
There hasn't been but a handful of these. I'm not saying they don't dig, but other than Starr, they have tended to stay in their lane.
I'm not saying Mueller will stay in his lane either, just that if he wanders the way you predict, all hell will break loose at that time.
He pursued this presidential run in a way that would have been considered reckless and irresponsible for anyone else, but he didn't care because his reputation is already etched in stone -- for better or worse!
Newt says they are giving up on obstruction so now they are looking at finances. Desperate fools
Ok.
I thought you were saying Greg Jarrett needed to get his facts straight.
Jarrett makes a very good point:
Namely, that even though there was insufficient evidence to mount a legal case (as evidenced by failure to indict Clinton after he left office), and even though a sitting president may not be prosecuted (due to the co-equal branches doctrine), - that did NOT prevent the DOJ from making politically motivated charges in order to trigger impeachment, which, as a purely political process did not require a preponderance of evidence, as would a legal conviction, but instead requires only a sufficiency of political will for removal.
Lucky for Clinton, there was not sufficient political will in the Senate for his removal.
God will intervene. I don’t have any idea how He’ll do it, or whom He might use; but Trump was picked by God, and elected by God’s people, to bring in the Golden Age of America. In the process, a number of high and mighty politicians, judges, etc., will go down in shame.
YEP! The fix has been in since the day spineless Sessions recused!! It’s all beginning to make sense now.. this is a very evil sinister plot! And they have it packed down to a T!...with Rottenstein, Mueller, Hitlerys lawyers and the traitorous RINOS in the mix!! We need to start calling the capital lines AND DEMAND our guys stop this horror show!!! The people have spoken!!!!
“he won’t be impeached or indicted. He didn’t obstruct anything.”
Doesn’t matter. The democrats will still press for impeachment based on the accusation. They were calling for impeachment before Trump was ever sworn in.
The Republicans could shut down the whole investigation tomorrow if they wanted to. But they won’t.
And they’ll get enough GOPe-RINO never-Trumpers to impeach him.
Will a bear shit in the woods?
Call, no. GO to the capitol, YEAH
You could be right...Hope not :(
Gregg Jarrett has been doing yeoman’s work on this topic...Really a bulldog...Reminds me of Sharyl Attkisson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.