Is the President immune from a criminal investigation?

Apparently Trump and his lawyers think so.
[Trump renews claim that he is immune from criminal investigation in effort to block Manhattan DA probe

President Trump on Friday repeated his assertion of sweeping executive immunity — arguing in court that, because he is president, he cannot be investigated by any prosecutor, anywhere.

This is absolutely insane and in my opinion represents a serious Constitutional crisis and is a threat to our Republic. It is vital for our checks and balances for a sitting president to be investigated for wrong doing and I am deeply troubled that Trump thinks he is immune from this.

Before the Trump train chimes in to defend him, just think if Obama said this. The same folks who continually justify Trump's actions would have lost it if the previous administration said the same thing.

a reply to: jrod

I tend to agree with this stance which is why there is a removal process to make a President a private citizen again and subject to criminal prosecution if any illegal behavior occurred.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yep and because the president was a nationwide selection of the people, the removal process should also be transparent especially when it isn't being carried out over any classified material. After all, the phone call in question has been made public.

a reply to: ketsuko

When/if it gets to a trial that's the Senate's job in the matter.

a reply to: jrod

The case is about them, again, trying to get Trumps taxes. Its like a never ending hamster wheel....

I guess the question probably should have been asked 20 years ago. If Trump feels that he's immune to investigation, I would think the previous presidents thought they were too (and were probably right).

So you wait until you get a president who is so unpopular and controversial that even people in his own party are turning on him before you notice that the president feels like he's immune. Could it be decades of precedent that gives that impression? I guess 16 years of Bush and Obama bypassing every single one of the checks and balances (and getting away with it in broad daylight) might have given Trump the right impression. Which is that no one cares as long as you're doing what makes them happy.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jrod

I tend to agree with this stance which is why there is a removal process to make a President a private citizen again and subject to criminal prosecution if any illegal behavior occurred.

That's not the issue being argued by his lawyers. There's a difference between prosecution, and investigation. His lawyers are arguing that a President can not even be investigated.

No President could ever be removed if basic investigations are not allowed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ketsuko

When/if it gets to a trial that's the Senate's job in the matter.

Although the precedent and custom for both Nixon and Clinton in the House proceedings were for openness and transparency not closed door, one party proceedings like these.

a reply to: jrod

At least your head of state is decided by method of election! 😂
I'm English and our queen can do what the # she likes, it is enshrined in our law. She could go nuts one night shouting "# this Phillip, I've had enough of your crap" stab the # out of him with knife until dead, phone the emergency services up, tell them, but there is nothing, zero, nada, that anyone can do. She is totally immune from even arrest or detention by cops.
If she was daft enough to abdicate the role of monarch after murdering Phillip though, she loses all protections of that job. Actually can get away with murder 😱
😁

originally posted by: ketsuko

Yep and because the president was a nationwide selection of the people, the removal process should also be transparent especially when it isn't being carried out over any classified material. After all, the phone call in question has been made public.

Nope, again, there would be no removal process at all if Presidents are not allowed to be investigated first (which is what his lawyers are arguing).

So no Whitewater (Lewinsky) investigation. No Watergate investigation. No investigations period.

a reply to: jrod

Not to investigations, but to indictments as long as he is in office.

The Constitution made it so if you want to remove a president you would have to impeach him or vote him out of office. It was written this way so that they President can focus on more important things then be bogg down by accusations.

originally posted by: redmage
His lawyers are arguing that a President can not even be investigated.

Then they're wrong.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: jrod

The case is about them, again, trying to get Trumps taxes. Its like a never ending hamster wheel....

Try again! This is more than his taxes.

Trump’s lawyer: If Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue, “nothing could be done”

Trump's lawyer said a sitting president is above the law.

Regardless if you like Trump's policies, any reasonable person has to be concerned about this. The President is not above the law, we do not live under the rule of a tyrant who does what he wants without consequences.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Although the precedent and custom for both Nixon and Clinton in the House proceedings were for openness and transparency not closed door, one party proceedings like these.

The hearings are not "closed door, one party proceedings". Republicans are on all of the committees hearing witness testimony, and asking them questions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Although the precedent and custom for both Nixon and Clinton in the House proceedings were for openness and transparency not closed door, one party proceedings like these.

Precedent doesn't count for anything. The Congress is afforded the ability to set it's own procedures.

And the Republicans were the last ones who changed the rules on this process.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

You shoulda had Nixon as President. I did....he said "I am not a crook"...then when he discovered he really COULD be held accountable...he ran tail between his legs away. He thought he was Omni-potent...until realizing he best not fight. And he didnt.

Same in many ways with Orange Man..It's going down all over. You should been there....

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Then they're wrong.

I would agree, but it's now up to the courts to decide because that is the argument Trump's lawyers are making.

a reply to: jrod

Trump's lawyer said a sitting president is above the law.

You kinda sorta missed the most important part of that , didnt you ?
By about 200 parsecs.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: ketsuko

Yep and because the president was a nationwide selection of the people, the removal process should also be transparent especially when it isn't being carried out over any classified material. After all, the phone call in question has been made public.

Nope, again, there would be no removal process at all if Presidents are not allowed to be investigated first (which is what his lawyers are arguing).

So no Whitewater (Lewinsky) investigation. No Watergate investigation. No investigations period.

I may be wrong on this, but wasn't there just a few years of some guy who's name begins with "M", doing a bit of looking around at Trump?

a reply to: redmage

But they are closed door. No one outside is allowed to know what's happening inside. Technically, we're no supposed to know even as much as we do. Notice all the selective leaking, mostly by Democrats designed to create a highly negative impression. No one in the public or press is allowed to see the testimony or read any of the transcript on their own, so it's all being filtered by the president's political enemies.

Of course, Republicans can use this tactic too, but as the Democrats seem to have recovered an absolute zeal for the letter of the law, how long would it be after the wrong things were revealed before those Republicans were prosecuted for leaking which is actually illegal?

Not long, I'm sure. The best we can do is know that at least one lawmaker had a very damaging cross examination of Taylor that more or less deconstructed his story.