Is the President immune from a criminal investigation?

originally posted by: network dude

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?

I seem to remember that too, and it didn't turn up anything despite ranging far and wide of its original scope.

a reply to: jrod

Like almost all of us, the Trump presidency's, and even the
whole administration's orange tint doesn't represent the
Constitutional crisis.. the controversy IMHO is probably due
to whoever is trying to prosecute whatever wrongdoing in
precedent. It was already settled by the SCOTUS as some
kind of traditional internal rule following the CON in '74.

We've got people right now comparing 'hanging the Kurds
out to dry' with FDR leaving all the Jews to fend for themselves
over in Germany '33, instead of taking every one of them in.

If precedent means anything, the statute of limitations clock
probably stops with the beginning of a President's term of
office... and starts again when that 'executive immunity'
stops at the end of it. So says even Judge Nap & Dr. Ed Viera.

That may not satisfy some opposition partisans' bloodlust
however. Unless we're talking something blatantly felonious,
there was supposed to be a clause that shields the POTUS
from at least prosecution for the sake of the individual
getting to do his damned JOB.

Maybe a little off-top, but what this incumbent orange guy
actually GOT DONE in spite of having every White House
appliance thrown at him including that 80LB Kitchenaid 3HP
floor mixer next to the island table--- the record shows the
opposition cabal has already done a world-class job of at
least attempting a hamstringing of Mr. Trump into ineffectiveness.
Buzz. Not only wrong bipartisan answer, but visible FAIL.

But immune from investigation? No Way. Let all the chips
you want fall into the Wish Bucket, and we can save it up
until Jan 20 2024, if we're lucky... but No Cuffs until then.

My guess is that time the Wish Bucket is even eligible for
dumping into the system against Mr. Trump; there's instead
going to be a lot of axmen/women in irons themselves.
I can dream.

It must be a slow news day, this Thursday: and I expect the
same world-shattering duds tomorrow as well. F&S, OP

originally posted by: redmage

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.

Kind of hard for them to make the argument he can't be investigated after Mueller though.

It was spelled out for the whole nation during that time period. The president can be investigated, but the DOJ operates under the directive the sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

So they can investigate, and sit on it until he becomes a private citizen. Just like Nixon wouldn't have had to go through legal battles until after his resignation/impeachment (though Ford saved him from that).

originally posted by: network dude
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?

Yup, and now Trumps lawyers are arguing, in court, that investigations of the President are illegal. This is an executive power grab that even Cheney wouldn't have had the balls to attempt.

originally posted by: jrod
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.

I get what you are saying. Nobody agrees a President can't be investigated but it appears he is trolling again. Biden is saying he can't be investigated either. They are literally saying the President can't look into suspicious activity of any of his political opponents. The only way to do it is get warrants in a secret court with very flimsy standards. Biden also bragged about shutting down an investigation using a quid pro quo which is also fine.

a reply to: redmage

No, what they're arguing is that the current modus operandi of two individuals in the House is illegal. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff cannot just declare they are going to investigate the president and call it an impeachment and make it so through hand waving.

If that was the case, then no president forever after is safe from this.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Kind of hard for them to make the argument he can't be investigated after Mueller though.

It was spelled out for the whole nation during that time period. The president can be investigated, but the DOJ operates under the directive the sitting president cannot be prosecuted.

So they can investigate, and sit on it until he becomes a private citizen. Just like Nixon wouldn't have had to go through legal battles until after his resignation/impeachment (though Ford saved him from that).

Legality changes based on court rulings. That's why conservatives have been fighting so hard to stack the courts. If your sister had an abortion a year ago, and the courts overturn Rowe Vs. Wade later this year, then she better not plan on having another anytime after that. Likewise, the Meuller investigation is irrelevant since Trump's lawyers were not arguing immunity to investigation before now, and the court hasn't ruled yet on their "immune from investigation" argument.

a reply to: redmage

You know ... because I *always* plan my abortions! Sort of sick there what you wrote.

But the RvW thing is wrong. It simply means individual states can decide. Some, like New York, let you kill the kid right up until it pops out, and others are trying to make it legal even after the kid survives birth. So your sister can *plan* all the abortions she wants so long as she adds travel expanses in.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kind of hard for them to make the argument he can't be investigated after Mueller though.

As we are learning, Trump has his Justice Department and his AG, William Barr and his appointee Durham, running around the globe trying to find "dirt" on and discredit the Mueller investigation, and prove that was an illegal fraudulent coup. They want to convince the world that Putin is innocent and Joe Biden, the Dems and Ukrainian officials are the one who interfered in the 2016 election.

a reply to: redmage

Legality changes based on court rulings. That's why conservatives have been fighting so hard to stack the courts.

They'd have to change the articles of impeachment, which I believe (but may be wrong) can't be done with the courts alone.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: network dude
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?

Yup, and now Trumps lawyers are arguing, in court, that investigations of the President are illegal. This is an executive power grab that even Cheney wouldn't have had the balls to attempt.

His lawyers are wrong. And they are proven wrong by recent history. But sometimes lawyers say wild things to stall for time, which is likely what this is. Do you even Perry Mason?

originally posted by: ketsuko
No, what they're arguing is that the current modus operandi of two individuals in the House is illegal. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff cannot just declare they are going to investigate the president and call it an impeachment and make it so through hand waving.

You are severely mistaken. This case itself is not related to impeachment, Pelosi, or Schiff (though the judge's decision could apply since that is a different investigation of the President).

The case is regarding the S.D.N.Y. seeking his tax returns, and Trump's lawyers claiming the President is immune from investigation.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
They'd have to change the articles of impeachment, which I believe (but may be wrong) can't be done with the courts alone.

If his Lawyers win this, then any "articles of impeachment" would be mute since so count could ever be investigated to see if it's worthy of bringing the article up in the first place.

originally posted by: network dude
His lawyers are wrong. And they are proven wrong by recent history.

That's not how law works. While I agree that they're "wrong", our opinions don't mean a thing since you and I are not judges. What matters is what the courts rule, and no one has ever made the argument, in court, that a President cannot be investigated. His lawyers will only actually be wrong if the court rules against them thus setting a legal precedent.

Do you even Perry Mason?

Now we'll find out if all that partisan stacking of the courts will pay off for the Orange Man (and for all future Presidents), because if they lose this case, then they're naturally going to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court to see if they can get a decision that Presidents are truly immune to investigation.

originally posted by: jrod
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.

Laughable OP.... So this is a constitutional crisis, but the left/deep state attempting a coup is what, business as usual???? If anything is a constitutional crisis, its the Coup that's been going on since the Dems lost in 2016 to big bad orange man.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
They'd have to change the articles of impeachment, which I believe (but may be wrong) can't be done with the courts alone.

If his Lawyers win this, then any "articles of impeachment" would be mute since so count could ever be investigated to see if it's worthy of bringing the article up in the first place.

Possibly, but I'm not sold on the narrative they're solely arguing he cannot be investigated.

I think people might be cliff-noting it to make it sound as if it's worse than the cat and mouse legal battle that it is.

It's possible people are misconstruing the lawyers arguing his time as a private citizen before office shouldn't be part of an investigation of him as a sitting president. The debate being that articles of impeachment (to my understanding) are high crimes or misdemeanors while in office. So, they're trying to block probes into his finances prior.

They're also arguing that he cannot be charged while in office, which is nothing new.

Much of what is happening is not in view of the public eye, so I think it's too early to speak in absolutes, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical, skeptical, and vigilant.

a reply to: jrod

Nobody should be above the law, not even a POTUS.

Anyhoo he can claim deminised responsibility for his crimes down to the onset of Vascular Dementia.

This equates to a retirement home and lots of Diazepam, im sure "they" can find one with a Golf Course in an affordable price range.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nobody should be above the law, not even a POTUS.

Agreed, but no POTUS has been above the law, rather, they have some insulation from it while they are in office.

They can still be impeached and then held accountable, but I think the reason they cannot be charged while in office is because many times the president must see things through like war for example. There has to be some level of insulation to protect the continuity of governance.

While it may sound like vast immunity, it's not as extreme as many think. If a private citizen was charged with a very serious crime, and they have a good lawyer, many times their case will go on for years.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
They'd have to change the articles of impeachment, which I believe (but may be wrong) can't be done with the courts alone.

If his Lawyers win this, then any "articles of impeachment" would be mute since so count could ever be investigated to see if it's worthy of bringing the article up in the first place.

Not exactly. Impeachment is a constitutional process.

Are we confusing state courts and federal ones? I would say he's not immune to prosecution and indictment as soon as he becomes a private citizen again for this particular case.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: jrod

Nobody should be above the law, not even a POTUS.

UK Monarch is while on UK soil though Lmao!
See my previous post, she can do what the # she likes and not be charged with any crime...for life, or until she passes the job to someone else.
You couldn't make it up...the UK constitutional arrangements 😂😂😂

* www.abovetopsecret.com...