That’s exactly what I mean by “political will.”
In practice legal scholars are far from unanimous in their opinion of whether a sitting President can be indicted while in office. We won’t know for sure until someone tries it. (Please please please let someone try it.)
You’re smarter than this – you’re regurgitating a bunch of speculation that’s been bandied around in the media.
I would like for YOU to show ME where it says in The Constitution that The President is above the law. I imagine that if you can’t do it, it would take quite a legal scholar to make it magically appear out of nowhere.
I didn’t say the President is above the law. I’m saying that many people who teach law at some pretty prestigious institutions believe that the President is largely immune from prosecution while in office. When legal experts from across the political spectrum (and not just internet kooks) disagree, that means it’s not yet a settled issue.
The prevailing view among most legal experts is no. They say the president is immune from prosecution so long as he is in office.
“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.
Note the word “implicitly.” Professor Amar acknowledged that the text of the Constitution did not directly answer the question. “It has to be,” he said, “a structural inference about the uniqueness of the president himself.”
The closest the Constitution comes to addressing the issue is in this passage, from Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
This much seems clear: The president and other federal officials may be prosecuted after they leave office, and there is no double jeopardy protection from prosecution if they are removed following impeachment.
“This will give me more time to spend with my family.
In the tree, making cookies.”
In fact, this segment of the Constitution seems to imply that The President IS INDEED subject to the normal rule of law. It is simply (and clearly) saying that the only power the impeachment process has is to remove them from office, NOT to find them guilty of other laws. And then they say, that’s because we have all the rest of the law for that! Impeachment itself just relates to removing them from office. Please, tell me how I am mistaking clear English here. Because I’m missing a vague “implication?” Because the Founders thought they should just weakly imply one of the most important aspects of the rule of law of the new country they were founding, largely to prevent leaders from having too much power???
It’s amazing how stupid some very highly-respected people are. Or, again, they have fascist agendas. And given this is Yale we’re talking about…
Between the firing of Session and pulling Acosta’s credentials, it looks like the regime’s strategy was to go full-bore against the institutions of liberal democracy whatever the outcome of the midterms. I’m sure he’ll be asking for tips on this from Putin next time they meet in person.
The White House press corps needs to boycott the briefings until Acosta is re-instated. It’s Benjamin Franklin time: “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Yeah, but then he packs it with Breitbart et. al.
Personally, I think the media should do their damn jobs and call his lies, lies (none of this “critics disagree” bullshit), and his racism racism.
Quit sucking up and giving him what he wants. Go to the pressers and take notes, then fact check the fuck out of them. Tell the truth instead of kissing ass for access.
But that’s me, hoping for too much.
Although, ironically given Trump’s response, Sessions was legally required to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation (since he worked on the campaign), so that’s not an example.
Acosta should have stood up for himself at that moment not as a journalist but, as a person and called trump a lying asshole to his face. Somebody should.
The lying about violence came after.
Donald Trump calling someone else a rude and horrible person.
Well, Trump is also legally required to not accept emoluments from foreign powers… But he is!
Checked the mood over at Breitbart, Fox News.
The news orgs are pushing the same line as Trump, but most people do not actually mention anything about assault or violence (more like Acosta should have been banned long ago).
And Fox will stay, too. I should have specified the reputable White House press corps, as regimes like this let in not only propaganda outlets but also fringe characters who debase the value of a free press.
I’ve always thought the idea of the reputable outlets sending interns to do stenography and ask basic and obvious questions might be the best way to show their contempt for this romper room of a briefing without missing out on reporting what was said. Then let the experienced reporters do what you say: fact-checking, context, analysis.
The problem is that the reporters who get into the White House pool are mostly self-serving careerist/access journalists and their employers, reputable though they might be, are still acting as if there isn’t a right-wing populist regime (i.e. a thuggish and lying one) occupying the executive mansion. So yeah, we’re both hoping for too much.
And it sounds like his appointment of the new acting AG may not be legal, either…
Another profile in integrity.
Plus, Trump’s probably been sitting on that undated resignation for months.
And not the only one. If a majority of the cabinet ever looked like they were thinking of removing him, brraaaap!
