Talk for Article "Can a sitting US president be indicted?"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    The text of the story has disappeared! I can’t seem to fix it on mobile web!

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    As below

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Following on this article on whether a sitting President can be indicted for a criminal offence, can I as a simple foreign attorney (albeit from the country which gave you your basic legal system) ask a simple question of those who think the answer is no. Taking the matter to its logical conclusion, are we seriously saying that the President could not be indicted for murder? (It’s only a question of the degree of criminality.)

    But that he could only be impeached and then only on a majority in the House and convicted only on a 2/3 majority in the Senate. How likely is that if Congress, as now, is held by the President’s party and/or does not contain enough men of non-partisan integrity, so that the famous checks and balances are not working? So the President could effectively be above the law? We executed one king for that belief, and I understand that that was one of the drivers for the American Revolution. This position surely just lacks common sense.

    I think the compromise position that has been proposed of indicting during but prosecuting after tenure is also flawed. One must assume that federal indictments are not frivolous, and that proof is evident and the presumption great that the indictee is guilty of the charge. In those circumstances, if the offence were murder, any other citizen would be held without bond pending trial. Even for lesser offences, bond would be required. And how would any of that reflect on the office?

    One could try to hand-wave around the issue, by arguing that no president would ever be guilty of such moral turpitude. Really? After Nixon? And others? What also seems to an outsider to make a further nonsense of the matter is the convention of an incoming President automatically pardoning his predecessor.

    Yours, puzzled, Peter Draggett, York, UK

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I don’t think it is correct to say that Robert Mueller is ‘examining’ Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. This would imply that there is something to examine… As I understand , Mueller investigation is yet to reveal any evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. The Mueller investigation is actually about looking for evidence that Trump, or anyone in his team collaborated in any way with Russia to influence the US elections rather than just Russian interference.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Fair point, Terry. Feel free to make the edit and I’ll approve it.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us