Posted on 07/22/2017 11:12:06 AM PDT by mandaladon
A newly-obtained memo written during special counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton rejects a commonly held view that a sitting president can't be indicted, The New York Times reported.
The discovery adds a possible new wrinkle into the investigation into Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign.
The memo has been locked away in the National Archives since 1998, but was obtained by the Times' Charlie Savage through a Freedom of Information Act request, and represents a thorough analysis of the opinion, the newspaper reported Saturday.
According to the findings, the memo concludes that "no one, even President Clinton, is above the law" and says 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."
Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics, was assigned to write the memo when deputy prosecutors told Starr they had enough evidence to send to a grand jury against Clinton. The prosecutors also compiled a draft for an indictment against Clinton.
The Times has also put in a request for that, but the National Archives is still determining if the document could fall under secrecy rules for grand juries.
Starr's findings were not the first time a special counsel had determined a sitting president could be indicted. Watergate special counsel Leon Jaworski, in 1974, also got a memo from his staff saying then-President Richard Nixon could be indicted.
Starr, as well as Jaworski, chose to allow the matter proceed to impeachment, rather than indictments, but the memos bring up a possibility that former FBI Director Robert Mueller, in charge of the Russia investigation, could have options allowing him to proceed with a criminal case.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
In the Starr memo, Rotunda argued that if the "framers of the Constitution wanted to create a special immunity for the president, they could have written the relevant clause."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The liberals have been planning on this since the day that we elected Donald J. Trump as our president.
US law is now based on memos???
What about the grasping at straws memo?
A memo is not a law.
You can indict a ham sandwich
This is just the opinion of one professor! many professors have a different view! The damn NY Times is on an all out witch hunt to destroy OUR President and they don’t care if they take OUR country down in the meantime!
Donald Trump has not broken any law. Everything we have seen is that the democrat party members are crooks.
Depends on who writes them. It would be a Supreme Court case. Indictment would have nothing directly to do with removal from office, which would still require the House and Senate.
>>US law is now based on memos???
Not all memos. Just cherry-picked sentences from cherry-picked memos.
It is also based on court decisions from a single Circuit Court and not on legislative actions taken by Congress or by state legislatures.
But it is not based on enumerated rights in the US Constitution nor common sense, although “penumbras” can become law.
This is the heart of Progressive “governing”.
In that case it should be no problem to indict former presidents, sec.s of state, AGs and so on and so forth.
MEMO: to whom it may concern. NO ONE has crap on Trump.
Obama armed AQ
W Clinton gave away missile technology
H Clinton gave away uranium
Trump did what?
However I was also taught that prosecution under this scenario is merely speculation and has never been done in our nations history. It is uncharted territory for the lack of a better word.
No, but the dimwits are based on making retarded statements that have nothing to do with reality. Then they pretend, with the pleasure of the sicko media, who believe day is night and night is day, that it somehow applies to Trump.
A memo is not a law.
___________________________
So, a law professor opines that a sitting president can be indicted. You know what you can do with that memo. Meanwhile, there are two OLC opinions, which are official opinions from the U.S. Justice Department that says just the opposite. Note there is no mention of the OLC opinions so we are left to conclude this is a deliberate omission and more contrived or fake news.
The key words here are “ criminal acts contrary to official duties of the president”. Exactly what criminal acts has he committed?
for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties.”
************************************************************
I take this to mean any “crimes” must have been committed while serving as president.
Exactly. In firing Comey - for any reason - Trump was acting within his Constitutional powers. A President can legally fire an FBI director. It’s not obstructing justice because: there will be another FBI director, the investigation of Russia is on going in Congress, a President can express his opinion about any investigation, and because he has the power to pardon Flynn. Nothing here is independently unlawful.
Nixon conspired to commit a burglary. Clinton lied under oath. Both are acts that are independently unlawful.
The President can be indicted. But he can also pardon himself. That’s why the Constitution permits the House to impeach the President, and permits the Senate to subsequently remove him from office.
Raising the issue is simply part of a coordinated campaign to create the impression in the public mind that the President has done something indictable and/or impeachable.
But make no mistake. Liberal politicians and journalists will be the first to hang or be shot. A country doesn't implode without severe unintended consequences.
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.