Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law…. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT;… The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT…” The Federalist Papers : No. 69 ‘The Real Character of the Executive”, From the New York Packet. Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander HAMILTON: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

According to William Gallo-VOA News: “For those who say the president is immune from indictment, the argument basically comes down to the practicalities of governance. A criminal indictment, they say, would prevent the president from carrying out his or her constitutionally assigned functions as head of the executive branch, effectively hobbling the government…. It would not be proper, they argue, for a jury’s guilty verdict to effectively overturn the will of the people, as expressed through a presidential election.

But those on the other side of the debate argue if the framers of the Constitution wanted to make presidents immune from indictment, they would have explicitly written that immunity into the text. They argue another constitutional principle – that no person, including the president, is above the law – supersedes other considerations.” (See VOA-Gallo article below). 


The argument that he can’t be indicted because of “practicalities of governance” is bogus because there is a line of succession and the government is currently hobbled by the slowness of the FBI, which should have taken action well before the election and the refusal of the corrupt US Congress to start impeachment, which is a slow process. Impeachment is effectively indictment, anyway. The majority didn’t even vote for Trump and an even larger majority no longer approve of him. Any honest Trump supporter has to admit, at least to themselves, that they have been had by a professional con man, whether that was someone (e.g. Putin) telling Trump what to say or Trump is not entirely certain.

The only valid argument can be that “No person, including the president, is above the law“. This should especially be true for crimes that pre-date his presidency. However, impeachment is indictment, so what Hamilton was essentially saying is let him be indicted and removed by Congress and then put on trial for any crimes.

Since the time the article, below, was written there have been multiple indictments-convictions: “Several members of the Trump campaign and administration have been convicted or indicted as a result of the investigation, including Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)

Since the time of the article, a grand jury was also impaneled:
“On August 3, 2017, Mueller impaneled a grand jury in Washington, DC, as part of his investigation. The grand jury has the power to subpoena documents, require witnesses to testify under oath, and issue indictments for targets of criminal charges if probable cause is found.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)

From VOA News: “Can a US President Be Charged With a Crime? It’s Complicated
July 27, 2017 2:26 PM, by William Gallo
WASHINGTON — 
It’s an old constitutional question for which there is no clear answer: can a sitting U.S. president be charged with a crime?

The question has become newly relevant as a special counsel investigates possible links between the Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russians who attempted to interfere with the 2016 election.

There’s no evidence that special counsel Robert Mueller will attempt to indict any of Trump’s associates, let alone Trump himself. But Mueller does have authority to prosecute any federal crimes related to the investigation. At least theoretically, that could include the president.

Mueller is reported to be looking into whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired former FBI director James Comey.

If Mueller’s team found evidence to bring charges against Trump, it could spark a legal battle that would almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court. And it’s not clear which side would prevail.

Lack of clarity

While the Constitution lays out conditions under which a president can be impeached and removed from office, it does not directly address whether the president can be prosecuted. Neither does federal law. Courts have never ruled on the issue.

As a result of that lack of clarity, scholars base their judgement on more vague factors, such as constitutional principles and the original intent of the founders.

The prevailing view among legal scholars is that a sitting president cannot be indicted, according to recent reports. But legal opinion is divided, says Eric Freedman, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University.

“It’s an important and unsettled question,” says Freedman, who sees indictment as an additional tool to impeachment to help keep the president accountable.

To make his point, Freedman cites the first meeting of the Senate, in which lawmakers engaged in a heated debate over the issue, according to the diary of one member.

What are the arguments?

For those who say the president is immune from indictment, the argument basically comes down to the practicalities of governance. A criminal indictment, they say, would prevent the president from carrying out his or her constitutionally assigned functions as head of the executive branch, effectively hobbling the government. They say this principle is implicit in the Constitution.

This is the position twice taken by federal lawyers in the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel, which has considered the issue in 1973 and again in 2000. It would not be proper, they argue, for a jury’s guilty verdict to effectively overturn the will of the people, as expressed through a presidential election.

But those on the other side of the debate argue if the framers of the Constitution wanted to make presidents immune from indictment, they would have explicitly written that immunity into the text. They argue another constitutional principle – that no person, including the president, is above the law – supersedes other considerations.

 Kenneth Starr, who headed the independent counsel investigation into former president Bill Clinton, espoused this view.

“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,” according to a Starr office memo recently uncovered by The New York Times. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law,” the memo read.

Impeachment

James Pfiffner, a public policy professor at George Mason University, concedes the question is “really difficult.”

“In principle, I think yes he can be indicted, but in practice probably not,” he says.

In Pfiffner’s view, the more constitutionally sound way of holding a president accountable is through impeachment, which effectively makes Congress the court that tries the president. But impeachment is a political, not legal, process, he says.

In Pfiffner’s view, the more constitutionally sound way of holding a president accountable is through impeachment, which effectively makes Congress the court that tries the president. But impeachment is a political, not legal, process, he says.

The Constitution says impeachable offenses include “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but Congress alone has the authority to interpret that standard.

All it takes for a president to be impeached is a majority vote by the House of Representatives, which essentially serves as an indictment of the president. A president could be removed from office if two-thirds of the Senate agree to “convict” the president.

Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives – Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Both men were acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before the House could vote on his impeachment.

Pardons

Impeachment isn’t the only way to hold a president accountable. After a president is removed from office, he or she can be prosecuted for crimes. That’s of course, assuming the president hasn’t been pardoned by his or her successor.

It’s at least theoretically possible that presidents can also become immune from prosecution by pardoning themselves. Like the question of whether a president can be indicted, it’s a constitutional cliffhanger that hadn’t been considered much before now.

“You can’t spell everything out in the Constitution,” says Pfiffner. “And a lot of American government and constitutional law is based on norms” rather than strict legality or constitutionality.

That’s worked pretty well for most of U.S. history, he says, “But when somebody goes against history and tradition and breaks those norms, then you’ve got to figure out what to do about it.” https://www.voanews.com/a/can-a-us-president-be-charged-with-a-crime/3961703.html

“Trump wouldn’t be the first U.S. president to consider pardoning himself. During the Watergate scandal of the 1970’s, some of President Richard Nixon’s lawyers argued a self-pardon would be legal; however, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel took the position that he could not.

Nixon eventually decided against pardoning himself. After resigning, Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him for all federal crimes he “committed or may have committed or taken part in” while in office.” https://www.voanews.com/a/can-us-presidents-pardon-themselves-nobody-seems-know/3953877.html
See: https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download

“The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18