When Democrats quote “ No one is above the law” does that include a sitting President?

Question

Never before has a DA attempted to prosecute a previous President.  (Correct me if I am wrong!) Just as no sitting President has ever been prosecuted by a DA! ( again correct me if I am wrong)  I am talking about criminal charges brought forward for prosecution not impeachment.

Am I to understand that both of these past precedents are to be dismissed from now forward? Can/should/could President Biden be possibly charged or challenged in a court of law for treason for allegedly selling access to his “office” when he was VP or currently as President? If not why not?

Do statutes of limitations expire for all citizens except Previous Presidents? How about current or future sitting Presidents?

Rules seem to be changing right  before our very eyes. Is this progressive or regressive?

Enquiring minds want to know!

What say you?

Answer 1

I say some can be bent. Others can be broken.

Answer 2

SHOULD we be surprised when this happens?  I don't think so.  Look at the litany of public officials who have been embroiled in legal problems while running in or serving in office:

•  Rick Perry (indicted for 2 felonies while running for President). He was ironically named by Trump as head of the Department of Energy (the department he said he wanted to eliminate but famously forgot in a debate.)

• Eugene Debs (in prison for Seditious Conspiracy and ran for President from prison.) He got nearly a million votes.

• Lyndon LaRouche (ran for President and for Congress while in jail)

• Marion Barry (D.C. mayor convicted on cocaine charges yet elected mayor again four years later.)

• Rod Blagojevich (Illinois governor who tried to sell Obama's Senate seat) He is suing the state after serving 8 years of a 14-year sentence (issued clemency by Trump) so he can try to run again.

• Spiro Agnew (Vice President who resigned after making plea deal with Justice Department whereby he would resign and would only be charged with one minor count instead of the host of bribery and corruption charges that were awaiting him.)

I think almost all of us agree that "no one is above the law," right? The only exception that I can think who didn't support that idea is former President Richard Nixon, who gained even more infamy when he was being interviewed by David Frost.  Frost asked him if there were a situation in which violating the law would be excusable if it were "for the good of the country."  Nixon responded with, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal," by definition.

Trump is facing charges in New York, and he is being indicted on Tuesday, we think.  We will learn the charges then, even though many have come out with strong opinions about those charges before they have even been announced.  He will probably face charges in Georgia for election interference (the phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger where he said, "What I want to do it this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state."  He might face charges for the case being overseen by special counsel Jack Smith concerning illegal possession of classified documents and obstruction of justice for refusing to turn over those documents for more than a year after they were requested.  Finally, he is liable for his actions up to, during, and after the January 6 insurrection.  Mitch McConnell said, "We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being accountable from either one."  (This was said AFTER he said, "There's no question--none--that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

So... I would suggest that we should NOT be surprised or shocked by what is happening now.  

Further, I would hope we would all agree that no one is above the law.  The justice department should follow the facts in each of these cases and if there is enough evidence, an indictment might lead to a trial, and we all would hope that the trial would show his guilt or innocence.  The same can be said for President Biden.  If he is guilty of "treason" or some other crime(s) for allegedly selling access to his office while he was Vice President, then the justice department should follow the facts and bring an indictment against him, which may well lead to a trial and possible conviction on whatever the charges will be. [Note" Current justice department policy precludes indicting a sitting President.]

In other words, I think we all want everyone to be subject to the same laws.

P.S.  Ken Paxton, who is the sitting Attorney General in Texas, was indicted five years ago... and he still has not been brought to trial.  ::smh::

Comments

Trump and Nixon have both proven that they are above the law. Trump for being out after having incited a coup against the government of the US, and Nixon for not going to jail after he authorized the criminal activity that lead to his impeachment. Trump isn't going to jail any more than Nixon did. Why? Too many Americans would riot if her were convicted - or so we are lead to believe.

Personally this is BS. Many countries have sentenced their leaders to jail and few have suffered any consequences for it. It is only in America, and England,  that we still have that much reverence for royalty.

---

Media,

Are you in favor of indicting a current President for his/her/etc crime(s)?

And while the Justice Dept precludes indictments of current President's, is that in fact a law or written in the US Constitution? Will that be the case in your opinion regardless of the party affiliation of that President?

I am interested in your personal opinion, here.

---

Coolguy,

What is your opinion of William Jefferson Clinton?

Should he have been indicted for rape, assault etc? I believe those are felonies in every state? 

Why do you think he was not criminally indicted on a felony? Riot? Past precedent?

I am curious?

---

Lady (and later, Cool),

First of all, no, it is not in the Constitution that a sitting President cannot be indicted, as you know. That's why I was careful to say it is the Justice Department policy not to indict.

What are my views about indicting a sitting President, regardless of party affiliation?  My opinion is that a President should be indicted while in office, depending on the type and severity of the crime.  For example, corruption charges are not, in my mind, game-changers, and Justice should wait until he/she is out of office.  However, violent crimes such as murder and rape should be actionable.  If the Department of Defense should for some reason believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that the current President is guilty of treason (for example, they have a tape of him/her offering an enemy of the state our military plans or the identities of covert agents in other countries, etc.), then they should move, with the support and coordination of Justice, towards arresting and charging the President.  In the case of things like financial corruption--for example, the President offers to support a bill in Congress that is favorable to a foreign country in exchange for money (or money to come), such as a new hotel deal in that country, which could be seen as a violation of the emoluments clause--then I do not think the President should be arrested and charged on the spot.  Those types of offenses should be taken up under the impeachment clause of the Constitution. The only time I think that "instaneous action" should be taken is when there are immediate consequences which threaten the immediate safety of the country (as above) or which demonstrate that the President is acting in a physically violent way which is bringing harm to others (committing rape or murder). THEN the President should be physically detained, and the 25th amendment should be invoked until Congress sorts out whether to impeach him/her and remove the President from office. These are strictly my opinions, and they are not based on any special legal or Constitutional knowledge on my part.  If the Congress decides to remove the President through impeachment and ratification in the Senate, etc., then let the criminal justice system run its course for the charges that have been made.  

Cool, the only reason Nixon escaped indictment and possible imprisonment was because he was issued a Presidential pardon.  Same with Roger Stone and others that received pardons from former President Trump.  That doesn't necessarily mean they were above the law; they were able to evade the law.

Concerning Clinton: There were credible charges leveled, but without the physical evidence present (results of a rape kit test from a hospital, record of concurrent notification to the police, presence of other witnesses and their testimony, etc.), it remains in the "alleged" category.  This is also true regarding the credible testimony of many women with their charges that Trump either raped them or sexually violated them in some way: there is no physical evidence, and the charges remain "alleged."  This is ALSO true about the credible charges brought against Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford (even though she had corroborating testimony from others) and the credible charges brought against Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill during his confirmation hearing.  Even though a plurality of people might say all of the above charges are true, the Justice Department has not and most likely will not act, because there isn't enough physical evidence that would result in a criminal conviction.  Civil suits are an entirely different matter, though.

---

Awesome! I thank you for your transparency! It is absolutely refreshing to hear someone outline their opinions instead of talking points italicized by their affiliated political party.

I essentially agree with everything you have listed as I would think any fair minded ,rational person with common sense would support!

We may have different policy opinions but rational minds can agree to disagree and even during times of national crisis compromise for the good of their country!

---

Exceptional, Media!

---

Lady4u, I 100 percent agree with your statement to Media.

---

Lady4U - As far as Whitewater was concerned there was no reason Clinton should have gone to jail, and getting oral from your intern isn't an impeachable offense.

Whitewater was a failed real estate deal, nothing more. Ken Starr was asking Susan McDoogal for testimony to indict Clinton that was false. Her imprisonment was illegal and Starr should have gone to jail too for asking her to lie.

However Clinton's pardoning of all those criminals at the end of his term was too much. But however wrong it was, it wasn't illegal. I think it should have been and I think he should have gone to jail for that.

About charges of rape yes Clinton should have gone to jail if convicted. There were many good things Clinton did like the Surplus, but he was morally challenged. I wouldn't have been happy about his impeachment but I would have understood and accepted it.

---

A fair answer!

Thank you!

---

I appreciate your informative answer, Coolguy.

Answer 3

Is it only Democrats that say it? Why isn't everyone saying it? Didn't a lot of people die to ensure it among other things? Isn't a POTUS a citizen President? Don't they return to being a normal citizen when they are no longer President?

King Charles III is above the law, is that right?

23 Citizens of NY looked at the evidence and voted to at least put Trump before the Court. As a Citizen Trump has every right a U.S. citizen has. Except poor Black and Brown citizens but that for anothe day.

If it's s proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden committed treason then he should go to  prison 

Comments

The quote I gave” No one is above the law” is the copy and paste response to Trump’s indictment on all the liberal cable new networks last week. I was being a bit tongue in cheek as I don’t recall this same liberal response when Bill Clinton was accused of rape.

I was seeking everyone’s opinions on indictment of a current and past President regardless of party affiliation.

Thanks, for your clear concise opinion.

---

I didn't give you an opinion, I asked questions. I'm interested to know why, after everything that's happened, you still support this man. I find it fascinating. I'm also exasperated with the way people twist every which way to defend him. 

I actually laugh at the what about stuff too, as if one cancels out the other.

We have a King who is above the law. Not because he bleeds purple blood, but because he was born into privilege and power and did nothing deserve it.

---

I am not supporting any candidate at this point.

My political opinions tend to run right of center but I am not advocating for Trump, De Santis, Niki Haley, Asa Hutchinson, Mike Pence or Mike Pompeo.

I am advocating for equality not equity under the law for all citizens.  Unlike DA Bragg who has made it his policy to downgrade felonies to misdemeanors for repeat criminal offenders, I believe you prosecute as the law lies without fear or favor for selected  groups of individuals. Now Bragg has elevated a misdemeanor into a felony for the express purpose of prosecuting Trump. Bragg ran on this exact proposed outcome when running for DA, to Get Trump!

Trump’s lawyers will most likely ask for a change of venue ( a trial at another location)

Trump’s lawyer may ask the current judge to recuse himself, as he was the judge in the Trump org trial.

Neither will happen in my opinion.

---

It was a grand jury that listened to the evidence and agreed that trump should go to trial. I guess it depends where you read your news as it's clear that this matter didn't go away, it was still open and more evidence was gained. 

It's ridiculous that a D.A. has to disclose which way they vote. That's why all this them and us stuff cloud's the issue. This is the reason our Barristers wear a gown and wig, the law is anonymous 

Trump gets to have his day in court and we don't even know what the charges are so again this rhetoric about upping a misdemeanour to a felony is pure speculation

---

Are your Barristers elected or appointed? Is their political affiliation known when they are placed?

Just curious?

---

It's a job, they get it the same way as every job. A barrister is the person who defends or prosecutes in court. A solicitor is your link to a barrister. So it's law school then a course and then pupillage( trainee). 

It's highly unlikely you'll know which way your solicitor and Barrister votes. And the reason for the robe and wig is to remove personality and donates the law is what's important.

Answer 4

What we know is that people in power are rarely prosecuted. With that it would seem that they are above the law in our country (US). How anti-American, right?!. This is one of the main reason that we continue to sit on the edge of chaos. Justice may be blind but society is not. What we have is many forms of bigotry that actually leads some to be treated with more leniency than others. They also have more resources. The most sacred of duties of our government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens. Quote by Thomas Jefferson. 

From what I understand there are no privilege's/immunities for our presidents other than the salary. Those that think there ought to be it is said that congress can provide them. Apparently the key is NOT to interfere with some sort of privilege's or immunity in the constitution for our presidents, but it's to have congress, by statute, enact various privileges, etc.. In other words if congress thinks the president should be sued or prosecuted they can say that. The mistake is thinking that if something is useful or essential it has to be in the constitution. The fact is the constitution gives congress the tools to solve these such problems. Therefore, the argument isn't that our presidents shouldn't have any immunity, it's just say the constitution never grants it. 

Let's face it most people lean towards their political affiliation no matter what the heck it is. Many don't see the hypocrisy or contradictions that are right in front of their faces.

Below is an interesting piece taking from The House of Representatives; 

NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW ACT OF 2020

Whether or not one believes that a president may not be 
indicted while in office, H.R. 2678 simply ensures that, once a 
president leaves office, indictments can be sought by DOJ, if 
appropriate, against a president who commits federal crimes 
that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations 
when they leave office. Again, this ensures that no president 
of the United States is above the law.

Below is the link to read this document to read in its entirety:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-116hrpt705/html/CRPT-116hrpt705.htm#:~:text=2678%20simply%20ensures%20that%2C%20once,States%20is%20above%20the%20law.