Reply to Grand Jury Issues Sealed Indictments in Mueller Case

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Grand Jury Issues Sealed Indictments in Mueller Case"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment. [/quote]

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right? [/quote]

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really.  Worse than firing Mueller.  Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically.  Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator. [/quote]
Do we know that Trump can't be indicted? The presidency is not a magic shield.[/quote]
 It's unclear. Jones v Clinton said that a sitting president could be sued, but that was civil, not criminal. [/quote]

I think saying that the president is unindictable is correct.  There is already a mechanism for these issues.

That doesn't mean that the president, once out of office, remains unindictable.  Unless he is pardoned by his successor.[/quote]

So Obama can be indicted for Uranium deal if there is enough evidence? That seems like a slippery slope. [/quote]

An President gets an unbelievable amount of leeway when acting on matters of national security or in his official capacity.  For all of Trump’s asshat nuttiness and half cocked schemes and conflicts of interest, there is not a lot indictable there, that we know of, after he was sworn in.  Firing Comey, like Clinto lying under oath, is a problem if he did it to save his own skin. As opposed to because he hated Comey’s haircut. Which is why the fact we have memos outlining Obstruction are important.

If it’s not a war crime, we don’t indict President’s for official acts, or even really stupid decisions we strongly disagree with. We vote him out. We vote his party out. We vote his cronies out.  GWB left office, and the whole starting a war on fake WMDs thing disappeared.

So yes.  If Obama personally took kickbacks while in office to sell the US out to Russia, then yes, he could be indicted. But it is a really bad idea. Which is why Ford pardoned Nixon. At some point the country needs to start fresh and move on. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics