Is the President immune from a criminal investigation?

originally posted by: network dude
I'm glad you brought up future presidents. Any democratic president elected, should have impeachment hearings enacted behind closed doors from Inauguration, until his first term is up, providing he/she can withstand the constant barrage of attacks. yes, precedent has indeed been set here.

I don't know if they should, or shouldn't. It would depend on the person, and what they were accused of.

Personally, I'm not dedicated to either corrupt party, but I can certainly see that such immature behavior and attitudes like yours seem to have become the norm in both radical parties. Neither seems interested in rising above it. Republicans and Democrats have become Israel and Palestine; both at fault, neither willing to take any of the blame, and neither willing to give an inch towards fixing things amicably. Neither party truly gives a damn about political corruption in D.C.. They only really care about having their side get away with corrupt acts while distracting their followers by pointing the finger towards the other.

a reply to: redmage

You've been educated, you are welcome to keep being wrong. There is nothing further to say.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And, how successful has anyone been on getting the IRS to hand over the taxes?
And, I might be wrong, but I think they are asking for more than just the taxes. I think this revolves around Cohen (?) Claiming trump was underestimating the profits and income when it came to filing taxes while inflating the profits, ect when applying for loans. New york has laws against both tax fraud and bank fraud that can be prosecuted through state courts.

a reply to: dawnstar

My question is what crime can the IRS not find? The IRS does not need to hand anything over, they can investigate. They have the taxes.

It's a political stunt.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The state has the right to investigate when their state laws are broken, dont they?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have, and thankfully you had no part in it, but you are correct in that you have nothing to say... at least nothing worthwhile until you figure out what his lawyers are actually arguing, and how law and precedent works.

let me guess, you didn't think Hillary had "intent" to be charged with over 600 charges of mishandling of classified documents, and agree she can't be held accountable...

Aren't you playing whataboutisms?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: Rob808

One, Hillary is not the POTUS.

Mentioning her tells me you are not here to have a genuine conversation but here to deflect.

Does anyone with any bit of sanity think the President is not only immune to prosecution, but from any investigation into criminal acts?

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: dawnstar
Let's say a guy got into office and it turned out he was a homicidal maniac.. and he was leaving behind him a trail of bodies along with a bunch of witnesses all identifying him as the murderer across multiple states.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Then you impeach him. Why is that so difficult to understand?

How would you draw up any articles of impeachment without being allowed to investigate and gather evidence of Presidential wrongdoing?

Eyewitness? To bad, you're not allowed to investigate by interviewing them.
Fingerprints on a weapon? To bad, can't investigate and subpoena prints.
DNA evidence? To bad, can't investigate and subpoena blood or hair samples.

This is about the President's lawyers making a legal argument that a President is immune from investigation.

You nailed it. Even many of Trump's faithful on here get it.

There is just a handful of posters who are being intentionally obtuse about the ramifications of this.

In a sane world, the argument that Trump has immunity from any investigation would be thrown out. Unfortunately we do not live in a sane world, especially the world of politics.