I agree with others, the founders wanted no king. If some Americans want a despot now, there are plenty of countries they can self-deport to.
29
Why does the NYT & MSNBC give this opportunistic creep so much visibility? I'm not interested in his opinions anywhere. Hoping Robert Mueller can complete his investigation & Trump can be brought to justice. Just prefer to skip the huckster sideshows.
6
If Kavanaugh does get confirmed (God forbid,) than, yes, he should recuse himself from any possible indictment proceedings against trump. Personally, I think that any acts that trump did before being elected can be put in front of a grand jury and be decided by that grand jury and if there is enough evidence to support an indictment, than he should be indicted just as any other person who has been indicted per our judicial system. My opinion only.
7
Hurricane Manafort is coming up from VA, Hurricane Cohen is coming down from NY, Hurricane Avenatti is rushing in from the west, and Tropical Depressions Summer Vervos, Emoluments and the investigation of Trump Foundation are churning offshore. They are forming a perfect Stormy Daniels directly over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
26
I detest Trump and I think he is guilty as all heck, but I disagree with Avenati. As much as the constitution seeks to put no man above the law, it's also equally clear that the framers put safeguards into the constitution to avoid wanton political prosecutions. How do we know? Because we vest the president with an unfettered pardon power (which is primarily a remedy for political abuse) and we vest congressman with "privilege from arrests" while executing their duties unless they are committing treason, felony, or breach of peace, (the speech and debate clause). The President, who is constantly on duty, should be entitled to similar treatment. Unless he is guilty of similar crimes, the indictment can wait. After all the constitution doesn't grant congressman permanent immunity, just while they are doing their jobs.... and it is inconsistent that they would be awarded more privileges than the President.
The founders clearly did this to avoid a profoundly disruptive tit for tat series of political prosecutions. After all if we arrest Trump while he is sitting in office, what's to prevent Missippi from arresting the next Democratic nominee while campaigning in the state for some trumped up charge?
The President should be impeached. Regardless of the outcome, he should only be tried after he has left office. It's just better for the country that way.
14
Thank you, Mr. Avenatti!
8
in Latin "Nemo Est Supra Legis." Simple. If those at the top are above the law, then why have laws at all?! Why have an investigation of nothing will happen?! BUT there IS evidence of collusion, conspiracy, money laundering, RICO, etc. Indict Arrest Jail immediately and guess what, Pence is just as culpable because all of this occurred before and during the election. HRC would be in the White House the very next day and then real work would start to heal and correct the country. AND since this is a stolen election and seats, all that dictator trump and fascist pence and treasonous mcconnel have done would immediately become moot and all would start from the time that good person President Obama left office and continue forward from there into the 21st century and not backwards toward the first century. Tax the rich tax all corporations tax all republicans and their supporters out of existance immediately. So, tell me again, why President Hillary Clinton the Dems would have been worse?! Saw a trump hick yesterday in his stupid so called Make America Great Again in his broken down over 20yr old truck. What is wrong with this picture?! Time for no longer allowing the trump hicks and republicans to vote or go near a voting booth ever again!
2
If we are to survive this, he must be held accountable. Democrocy is based on the premise of equal treatment for all. We must elect people who will serve the people and carry out their oath to the Constitution. We must reject and remove those who will not. We are pushing towards a cliff and we must stop this madness. It is our government, not those who serve us in it. VOTE
11
And if prosecution for collusion with the Russians doesn't work out, RICO laws against racketeering should!
6
Mueller and his team have my full faith and trust. They have been working diligently for 18 months to find facts and they will no doubt bring either grand jury indictment once they discover illegal act(s) or give their findings and report to all members of congress to see and carry out their responsibilities.
In the meanwhile Karen McDougal's case is not clear. If somebody pays media to advertise own business and media takes money and does not publish/broadcast advertisement then it will certainly give rise to a legal claim. However if National Enquirer purchases a story then it becomes NE's property and then it would be their decision as to what it wants to do with it.
3
Trump will only leave if there are both Federal and State indictment that are not "stayed" while he is president. Just as Al Capone got napped for income tax evasion. one will undoubtedly find many suspicious and possibly illegal transactions by following the money.
In particular, I would be especially interested to see if any of the funds received by Michael Cohen in his Essential Consultants was expensed in ways that benefited DJT personally, his children and In-Laws, or the Trump
Organization? Were funds from that account used to pay other individuals covered by other NDA? enquiring readers would like to know.
5
Hmmm the DOJ just seized 4 of Manaforts homes and his bank accounts. Wonder what the Trump properties will fetch at auction?
7
If the President is to be indicted, should it not be for the serious crime of kidnapping about 2,000 children from their parents? If I took one child from their parent, sent the child to another state, wouldn't I be charged with kidnapping? And would illegal entry into the U.S. matter? For my crime, I suspect not at all.
So why not charge the President with kidnapping? What gives him the legal right to separate these children from their parents when it would be a serious crime for the rest of us?
What do I not understand here?
8
If I may borrow a phrase from Nike: Just Do It.
6
The Constitution provides that a sitting president can be impeached then removed from office. Art. I. Once he's convicted, he can then be indicted. Id. Only an ex-president can be indicted, I think. But the only question I have is what happens with the running of the limitations period. A 2-term president may be able to wait out the limitations period. I'd indict and get a court ruling on the propriety of the indictment and tolling the limitations period.
1
No, No, No.
None of this rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor required to impeach. It is fun to pile on to a crude player like Trump, but he can save himself by not lying under oath like President Clinton. If you care about the future of our republic volunteer your time at a school, shelter or soup kitchen, but stop trying to bring down an excellent civilization that, temporarily, has poorly misguided leadership.
8
An indictment is a waste of time because the prosecutor already has probable cause to get info and he can’t be tried when he’s in office. Otherwise the courts will wield a lot of power now and for future Presidents to be bombarded. The Constitution says that upon conviction he can be held accountable legally. It just will make Democrats look foolish. Unless that is he fires the special prosecutor and a grand jury is needed for using probable cause to gain access to tax returns etc
No, no, and thrice again no. Study the history of that term of art. "High crimes and misdemeanors" in 18th century legalese means essentially anything unbecoming of the office. Constitutionally speaking, you can impeach a ham sandwich.
1
@Noa Please pay better attention to the facts. Thank you.
1
Do we have a President or a King? Evangelicals and Attorney Sessions believe that Romans 13:1-7 puts our “rulers” above the constitution. They say disobeying a ruler is disobeying god...the divine right of kings. Do we follow the constitution or is the bible the absolute authority when it comes to interpretating and enforcing our laws? If we decide our President is above the law and cannot be held to account...do we not in fact have a king?
3
Go get him and punish him for what he has done to America!
5
A million thank yous to Michael Avenatti.
Intelligent, articulate and tough.
You are the perfect person to take on this con man masquerading as a president.
6
Lock him up.!!! He has no respect for the Law.
4
In the oath of office comes: "so help me God."
As a Catholic, Kavanaugh should be able to consider Trump's words an actions as a matter of conscience on a very high plane. We'll see. Indictment and/or recusal might fall under "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and under God what is God's." Is it "Justice is mine
saith the Lord?" Therefore we humans don't have to make judgments? I remain pagan.
You'd think.
Avenatti makes a clear case (along with the Clinton case and Republicans cheering for Starr every step of the way) for a Trump indictment-the American people deserve ACTION (and relief) on a process that would trigger an acceleration toward direct accountability by the subject, Trump, and at best secure the ANSWERS we deserve-that are long overdue from this president. Trump’s behavior to date proves over and over he his unhinged and quite unfit to execute the duties the office of the POTUS. The American deserve much better and the GOP majority REFUSES to act, as is their DUTY as representatives of the American people.
While Avenatti's opinion is credible as well as reasonable, the same cannot be said for Guiliani's steady stream of pathetically meandering, contradictory and snarky comments. Yet each, unfortunately, in his own way, unfortunately, is playing the game of trying their cases in the court of public opinion while also trying them in the court of law. Meanwhile Robert Mueller chooses to remain silent, keep his down and focus on delivering the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
1
Even if Trump were indicted by a grand jury for criminal behavior the amount of time he would be required to spend inside a law court to defend himself would be likely much less than he now spends playing golf and doing all the other things he does to entertain himself while those he appointed run the executive branch of the government. The government currently runs without Trump's direct input. He usually muddles things even more when he gets directly involved. This president could certainly stand trial while the government went on in his absence. He could even appoint VP Pence to do the job during the hours he might be required to be in court. Trump in court would be a lot safer for the country than Trump in the White House.
3
Oh, and - did I mention I am running in 2020?
1
Finally! Someone willing to stand up to the GOP thugs and bullies bashing our Constitution and stealing our democratic country (or what is left of it) in broad daylight under totally false pretenses.
Yes, bring it on! Open up Trump's dark, dank, locked closets by initiating indictments to get this manufactured GOP media circus and stalemate off the dime and out in the open.
Ask Americans in general if they think our president should be above the law and not indicted while in office. I think most would say no president is above the law.
Then ask them if President Obama did the things Trump did/does while president and then lied about it, if Obama should be indicted? I am pretty sure the salivating Trump supporters would be screaming for indictments against Obama, prosecution, and jail time.
But ask them if Trump should be indicted, or is he above the law? I'm afraid all bets are off, thanks to decades of right-wing money, media outlets and propaganda, a campaign of incessant talking points that are untrue, and treating politics like a team blood sport.
Trump is a test for our country. And the key question is what happens when truth no longer matters, and neither does justice?
And that is our moral and ethical dilemma in this country. Partisanship should not make a difference, but it surely does, and that will be our downfall.
Avenatti is doing what the Democrats should have been doing all along. Why haven't they?
6
Very well informed opinion. I believe that Mr. Avenatti laid it out all on the table. Its time to bring American justice to Mr Trump once and for all.
3
As one commenter mentioned, the notion that the president cannot be indicted only persists under white collar crimes and low end misdemeanors.
If Trump did something like rape, physical assault or murder, there can be no question he would be indicted.
Therefore, the discussion is how dirty the act must be: white collar crimes are "clean" and physical crimes described above are "dirty." So why isn't the debate on the relative filth of the allegation, and in that, we should ask why are the cleanliness and dirtiness of crimes now the point upon what turns the prosecution?
3
Isn't it obvious? Nixon couldn't be indicted. Clinton could be indicted. Trump is a Republican, only Democrats can be indicted, so Trump can't be indicted. Just ask the constitutional "originalists."
1
I totally agree, the president is not above the law.
2
The Republicans should also be indicted for failing to protect the US Constitution from the machinations of Trump's zany disconnected efforts to demolish the rule of law. Given that 3,000 of our fellow US citizens died in Puerto Rico's Hurricane Maria---more deaths than the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 911 Attacks, where are the congressional hearings on this fiasco? Just because Trump lies about their deaths doesn't make it so. In comparison, we received endless congressional hearings when four citizens died in the Benghazi attacks, proving then as now, Republicans never really cared about those deaths in the first place. Republicans serve the agenda of Rupert Murdoch's media empire to propagate fear, hatred, bigotry and undermine our rule of law. If we are going to indict, Trump, indict his co-conspirator Republicans in congress as well. The souls of 3,000 Americans who died in Puerto Rico's Hurricane Maria clearly deserve justice where is their hearing, Republicans? Exactly.
2
If we ignore the crimes of anyone then the whole system of justice is destroyed. You do the crime then you do the time regardless of who you are or what position you are trying to hide behind.
3
I thing Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenetti are doing the right thing in not succumbing to the hog wash that the President has super powers that put him above the law.
3
I'm surprised that Donald Trump has not already been indicted.
1
It is absolutely incomprehensible that a "sitting" president might be above the law. And, of course, the one we have now is the best example of how terrible might be the consequences it.
1
Democracy will not die on this generations watch. We will fight back, we will vote, march and grab . Save our democracy and listen to want Avenatti is stating and THINK
2
@Tony: We need more people to think like you. We can't let our democracy die.
2
The Democrats need an attack dog like Michael Avenatti to publicly rebut Trump's lies...every, single day. That's what the GOP would have done if Trump were a Democrat. And that's why the Democrats have only themselves to blame if they don't take back at least one branch of Congress and provide the oversight of Trump that the GOP has avoided.
2
A very large percentage of Americans believe that those who commit crimes should be indicted and stand trial and if proven guilty by facts sentenced for their crimes. Why any Judge on any court would proffer that a sitting President is not indictable for crimes he/she may have committed is absolutely ludicrous.
2
I agree with Mr. Avenatti's main point, that only by indicting a sitting President and allowing the case to run its course will we ever get a definitive resolution to the question. However, either he is grandstanding or woefully ignorant of the law when he suggests "Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory".
There is no law forcing Justices to recuse themselves on any cases. In lower courts, refusal to recuse can be grounds for appeal to a higher court, but in the case of SCOTUS, there is no higher court for such an appeal to be filed. Therefore, while he may feel that recusal is desirable, it can never be mandatory since no on has the power to mandate it.
12
Not only should a president "indictable" as any citizen would but I believe that the notion of "pardons" should also be revisited.
There is no reason why a "delinquent" president should not go to prison. A 10-year minimum sentence could be extremely appropriate since we the people would like to demand that NO secret service protection (or any other such privileges) be extended to him or members of his family upon his release.
I should have said "him or her" but, not at this moment, when it is obvious that Hillary Clinton would have had us on a MUCH higher gliding path.
My understanding is that the rule against indicting a President is limited to indicting him WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE (which I believe is Kavanaugh's view). The idea (and let's just assume for a second that we have a normal, hardworking President) is that an indictment would unduly distract from his Presidential duties, especially, e.g., in time of war. This is a legitimate concern. The statute of limitations for the crime for which he is charged would simply be tolled (stopped) WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE, and once he's out of office, the AG could then decide whether to prosecute. In the meantime, regardless of the pending indictment, Congress can decide whether to impeach and remove the President.
If I am correct, then no one, including Kavanaugh, is seriously advocating a President being "above the law" - a clumsy, imprecise statement and piece of political rhetoric. Only this person, with his uniquely important job, would be temporarily immune from the criminal process going forward.
2
It is the Rule of Law. It is the point of origin for all debate and analysis. The Rule of Law applies to all individuals, irrespective of who the person is. The only people who would dispute that are those who argue that the law does not apply to them.
As a retired attorney, these have been my thoughts exactly. Even Brett Kavanaugh stated that "no one is above the law."
I'm no fan of Trump, but it is premature to speculate about indicting him before Robert Mueller finishes his work. Even then, there are clear structural problems with indicting a sitting president, not least the fact that the President has the power of appointment over the Justice Department and all U.S. Attorneys. It seems to me that, except in situations in which a statute of limitations will run out during a president's term of office, indictments against a president, even one as shady as Trump, should be deferred until after the president is out of office. Should evidence support an indictment of the president, the grand jury should name him as an unindicted co-conspirator and then the persuasiveness of the case can be put to the Congress in impeachment proceedings.
It is nice to have simple "structural" solutions But sometimes it is not so simple. What if there are a dozen serous but not political crimes? Can't go to impeachment but but also can't go to indictment? Not so simple.
I think that the DOJ guideline of not indicting a sitting president will be revised should the president face charges of conspiring against the United States and also quite possibly for obstructing an investigation into said conspiracy.
We may find out fairly soon.
1
@Chris
Trump is INDICTED, daily, by his own words and deeds!
=========================================
My guess is he will not last more than a more few months.
I think if the Democrats take the House, in November, then Republicans will start to "jump ship" and reject Trump.
In order to win re-election in 2020, Republicans may have to abandon Trump. They may start to look for new candidate for president, as well.
Let indictment talk continue, but see if Trump quits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that precludes indictment of a sitting President. If the Framers intended the impeachment process to be a substitute for indictment, they could have said so. It is insulting to the rest of us in ways both mundane and metaphysical. A President who spends his time playing golf and watching TV should not be "distracted" by criminal charges? What about doctors, nurses and other first responders who have to stay focused on saving people's lives? Police offers and firefighters? I would rather they not be distracted by criminal charges either. But letting people get away with criminal acts because of the position they hold, especially including the President, is the worst option of all.
11
If there were grounds to impeach the President, Democrats would have universally called for his impeachment. The reason they don't is that they know they couldn't get a majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats should stop using investigations to undermine the President and debate the issues. We need to balance the Federal budget. We need to balance trade. We need an immigration policy that 70% of Americans agree with. We need to stop using the threat of prosecution to fight political and policy debates. This sword can cut both ways. Personally, I would like an investigation of the finances of Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi and Governor Cuomo and Mayor DiBlasio. I'm sure there is lots to discover. I'd like to see Obama's tax returns for the last two years to see who has paid him back for past favors. Is that really how you want to fight political battles?
1
This column is exhibit A in the case for Michael Avenatti as the Democratic candidate on the next Presidential election. In another article in today’s paper, the concern surfaces that Trump is a master of the media and that he may therefore be too much for a factually based case for his indictment and/or impeachment. This is precisely why Mr. Avenatti would be a better candidate than any of the alternatives, including the professional politicians. He is telegenic and quite the master of the media. But also he is articulate, intellectually forceful (as the article makes clear), and he is a fighter.
5
@Ralph A primary reason why Michael Avenatti would be a fit and successful president is that he is an ace lawyer. He understands the laws and the constitution, of which he would be an excellent and outspoken defender. Our democracy has suffered over recent years due to the fact that too many of our senators and congressmen have not been lawyers, but instead doctors, dentists, millionaires, and others with some personal axe to grind.
@Ralph
Please, please, please Democrats run Avenatti against Trump in 2020 and watch Trump steamroll him.
Much more likely that Avenatti pushes others too far left and Trump beats them.
If "indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country," why wouldn't the vice president be able to step in until the president is ready to resume his duties?
2
@Michael P. Bacon This is not a bad idea.
"Justice Department lawyers have said a sitting president cannot be indicted."
This is somewhat misleading.
The justice department's current policy is not to indict a sitting president. But there is no justice department that says a sitting president *cannot* be indicted.
2
I can understand the desire of Mr. Avenatti to see an indictment of Mr. Trump as it would be good for his legal case. I think we have an opportunity available to us right now, that puts Congress at the forefront of the process, which is to impeach first, then indict. We have two months until the elections, and time to wait for the results of the Special Counsel investigation. There is certainly a sense of urgency among many citizens of this nation as the President seems more and more disorganized and dangerous. I guess I say, consider indictment as a possibility but give the normal political process a chance. Voters may yet surprise us and vote for sanity and responsible behavior from our representatives in Congress and the Senate. Change is possible, if we all vote.
3
@Ellen Blanchette
Thank you Ellen, but the most frightening part of the problem is that we NOT have seen ONE HINT of "sanity and responsible behavior from our representatives in Congress and the Senate."
This Do Nothing GOP Congress has consistently failed to do its job of oversight, "checks and balances", of this president and thereby have emboldened DJT to constantly and egregiously attack our basic institutions and undermine our principals of decency, honesty and honor.
The cowardly silence by Ryan and McConnell is what feeds and nourishes this
corrupt mad man's every vile tweet.
Are we supposed to believe that Presidents are infallible like Popes? That is definitely not the spirit of the Constitution. We the people are theoretically allowed to overthrow our own government if it becomes tyrannical. So why wouldn't we indict a President if there is evidence he has committed serious crimes? I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. There is no risk to stability; we have a whole long line of succession all worked out. We're better off changing Presidents every day if we have to than putting up with a criminal in charge.
9
I do not believe the framers of the constitution implicitly or explicitly requires the Judicial branch of government to waive it's duty to serve as a check-and-balance to the other co-equal branches of government. That full duty, constitutionally assigned to the Judicial Branch, cannot be waived for the Executive Branch's leader; the President of the United States. For the Judicial Branch to abdicate its role in serving as an co-equal partner with the Executive Branch to protect the leader of that branch; the President, would be a gross disregard for the rule of law and the role of the Judicial Branch.
4
All sandwiches, not just ham sandwiches, should be indictable; even a BIG turkey sandwich like Trump!
5
Pay your taxes!
2
Thank Gid for people like Michael Avenatti willing to take on this apology-for-POTUS.
5
Why does the NYT editorial page grant an audience to a grand-standing lawyer who has made his name representing a porn star? I suppose all voices must be heard, but your choice of this particular voice is lamentable. The fact that Mr. Avenatti is making noises about running for president would in ordinary times cement his credentials as a delusional crank. But these are truly "no ordinary times." The last thing the country needs is one more self-absorbed delusional crank trying to take down the self-absorbed delusional crank-in-chief. Shame on the NYT for amplifying his voice.
2
Disagree. Mr. Avenatti is precisely what we need. He is articulate, telegenic, and a fighter.
5
@highway - You wrote: "making noises about running for president would in ordinary times cement his credentials as a delusional crank. But these are truly "no ordinary times." The last thing the country needs is one more self-absorbed delusional crank"
I thought you were describing Trump! A delusional, self-absorbed crank. Two minutes after Avenatti passed the bar, he was 1000 times more qualified to be POTUS than Trump.
1
@highway Michael Avenatti can hardly be termed a self-absorbed delusional crank. He is an ace and outspoken lawyer who will take on any member of the now repugnant party who wants to debate him. He would be a capable defender of our constitution against the nonsense in which our current administration and congresss is groveling.
I commend Avenatti for this article.
I do now know of any provision in the US constitution, or in the amendments thereto, which explicitly, or even implicitly, insulate the President from indictment.
Those who advocate that the president should be immune from indictment are proffering an idea that is not based on law but on the vestigial remains of bygone history, of sovereign immunity and of the power of the ancien regime.
If the President were deemed immune from criminal prosecution -- after the theft of the 2000 election and the very undemocratic result of the 2016 election in which Trump won even while he lost the popular vote by 3 million -- wouldn't it be time to admit that our Democracy is a sham.
If the President is deemed immune from criminal prosecution than we have received proof positive that some men are above the Law. And then no one should have any respect for our government, should never rise for the pledge of allegiance and we should ready ourselves for revolution or civil war. Hell, the red states have been fighting the blue states for years. It is time we blue staters accept that we are in a war and proceed to fight it
4
Trump is trying to appoint his own get-out-of-jail-free card to the Supreme Court and Republicans in the Senate appear to happy to enable him. In all likelihood Trump will get his appointee. And if Kavanaugh is appointed, and if an indictment or case concerning the Mueller investigation or any of the multiple investigations currently probing Trump comes before him, he will not recuse himself. And there won't be a damned thing we can do about it, because the constitution does not spell out when Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves.
5
I thought that conservatives were originalists, basing their opinions only on the text of Constitution itself? In the versions I've read there's nothing that says the President is immune to indictment.
Of course after Trump's Red Hats argue that he can't be indicted they'll be arguing that he can't be impeached because he hasn't been indicted for any crimes.
2
The problem I have,with the notion that the President of the United States cannot be indicted is it contradicts our precept that "no man is above the law". Yes one man is.
This only leaves the impeachment process to address a grievous wrong - say for instance machine gunning a class of young children or throwing them in internment camps - some decidedly vile.
In the case of a particularly partisan Congress whose majority is the same party a the President, he gets away with it.
2
Man, Johnny Sins has been taking this role REALLY seriously. This is the most erudite thing to come out of a porno plot since Learned Hand decided to put his famed dexterity to other uses and quit the business.
2
The Office of Legal Counsel is not a court and does not create precedent. It is staffed by elitist Ivy League lawyers protecting their political class patrons. No person in this country is above the law. For instance, if trump conspired with Russia and his pal putie to get elected or sexually assaulted many women, he should be indicted. Oh, that’s right. He did both.
3
Swish the womanizer from his throne. He has earned it!
1
So tired of this leftist, deep state non sense. No one is getting
Indicted or impeached.
The bat is so high it’s not even worth discussing.
1
Judge Kavanaugh says that the president is not above the law but then won't commit to saying that a president cannot pardon himself. Huh? Doesn't B follow from A?
Kavanaugh appears to be a smarter version of Michael Cohen but he's just as sleazy in his own way with an agenda to which the Constitution takes a back seat. Do not expect him to recuse himself in any matter concerning the current occupant of the Oval Office.
1
Michael, you have made yourself a fortune with your anti-Trump harangues, while claiming to 'defend' Ms Storm. Meanwhile, she is still working in dive bars, with men throwing dollar bills to her face. Seriously, won't you share some of your wealth with her and her family?
2
Good luck with the indictment idea, but I think FEAR is key.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear, itself."
Is that not the title of Bob Woodward's new book, "Fear"?
Trump uses fear, to dominate the media, daily.
Why can't the Democrats use fear to bring down Trump?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
Interesting that we are so interested in what a porn lawyer says about a sitting President. Let's take a step back and insert Hillary Clinton's name for Donald Trump and ask yourself the following. What laws have been broken? Hillary had sex with a male porn star. Hillary wanted this kept silent so she paid money out her own funds to keep it quiet. No laws broken so far. Bad judgement and perhaps disgusting but no laws broken. As an elected President Hillary is exposed to constant legal actions by the Republican party for her email and Foundation activities. How do you now feel about the ability to use indictment on a sitting President? It will never end. All a President will deal with is investigations and lawsuits for Political purposes. The solution is to win at the ballet box and use impeachment if necessary and stop taking advice from a porn lawyer trying to use this a stepping stone. Wake up America!
2
So let me guess? Laurence Tribe wasn't available?
1
Uncle Donald is very sick. Who in the family/village will take him to the doctor?
4
Avenatti is better than no natti at all.
2
I hate Trump and pray he loses in November. But Mr. Avenatti is just an opportunist and the Times debases itself by publishing his writing on this important topic. What he has to say on it is neither news nor a particularly informed opinion.
A woman sleeps with Donald Trump. Trump decides to run for president. He doesn’t want her talking about their tryst because he doesn’t want his affairs public or because she is an adult actress or both. She is paid off for her silence through Cohen, a high ranking Trump organization officer. This should be investigated for possible campaign finance and other violations of law—of that there is no question. The legal question of whether a sitting president can be indicted is an important one.
But let’s be honest. It’s not like Clifford’s motives, nor Avenatti’s, are the defense and protection of the Consitution and the Republic. Avenatti is a shameless, self-promoting, media-hog attack dog, seeking to make a name for himself. And Clifford has not demonstrated that she is anything other than a person seeking to increase her notoriety so she can charge more for her appearances, and maybe parlay all of this into a book deal and a rejuvenation of her career.
There are more than 450,000 lawyers in the U.S. A number of them have been studying the presidential indictment issue for decades. Surely the Times can get better and more qualified legal “scholars” than Michael Avenatti to opine on this important question.
2
Considering the recent Nike ad and how that has gotten under Trumps skin, continue the Nike brand barrage and .....
"JUST DO IT!!!"
1
The case for indicting the president is rationally justified by virtue of the fact that the president manages, administers, engages, participates, and controls of affairs of the federal RICO enterprise, a continuing criminal enterprise, by and through commission of mail fraud, wire fraud, witness tampering, witness retaliation, obstruction of justice, extortion, and both conspiracy and aiding and abetting to contravene those federal, and certain New York state, criminal statutory provisions. The abject failure (fierce refusal) of the chief executive to protect, preserve, and defend the Republic is ostensibly apparent. The federal Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 [RICO][Title 18 USC 1961 et.,seq.] accommodates returning such an indictment. The chief executive, who falsely prides himself from being directly involved in any wrongdoing, is amenable to RICO 1962(d0 conspiracy liability exposure. That conspiratorial predicate is significantly substantiated and substantially corroborated by invocation by the Pinkerton Doctrine, Pinkerton v. United States, 328 US 640 (1946). Quite appropriate here since the chief executive consistently denies knowledge or involvement with anyone directly in committing criminal conduct. The Pinkerton Doctrine addresses and resolves that lame contention. the chief executive furthers and facilitates the very wrongdoing he adamantly denies the existence thereof. Yes. I wholly endorse Michael Avenatti's position. Indictment now
7
I want to see him tried for treason. The only head of state that trump allowed to sit on the photo op right seat was Putin. What does Putin have on Trump Inc? Madeline Albright, who is clearly much brighter than trump, had it right when she said Putin was smart but evil. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-smart-truly-evil-man-says-madeleine-albri...
5
There are people too dangerous to leave in society. Most have a long history of damaging their fellow citizens and society to benefit themselves. They are usually known to the authorities. Anyone dealing with them from their mother on up would rather see them in prison. They and their associates tend to put together syndicates to empower the "enterprise". Most have a coterie of opportunistic legal representation. Of course depending entirely on how much loose cash is available.
If this group (pense is also filthy) prevails I would ask H. Varzi to help find me a place in Iran. Qualified, willing to work in the agricultural field. Quaker.
I'll take Mikie with me, he can stir up trouble there and see how that works out.
1
Didn't we fight a Revolution to free us from being ruled by a King?
2
Bring it on, Mr. Avenatti.
3
No one is above the law! Presidents that commit crimes, and as in the case of Trump crimes and treason, must be tried in court. There is no constitutional prohibition nor should there be any, to charging and prosecuting a current president.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
Our friends at Nike, have something to say about indicting the president...
JUST DO IT.
3
Indicting Trump for his crimes would not affect the functioning of his presidency as Trump spends most of his time tweeting, watching television and golfing.
4
Trump has always been an expert at hiding behind whatever shield available to him. Whether it was bone spurs, bankruptcy laws, money, legal agreements to remain silent, or lawyers, Trump has been able to find ways to avoid punishment for his various crimes. The presidency is the ultimate stay-out-of-jail card for this person. If he can, he will try to be president for life.
2
I agree with Mr. Avenatti. The Supreme Court, not the Justice Department or the talking heads of the legal community, should be decision maker regarding whether the indictment of a sitting President is constitutional. Mr. Mueller should bring any indictments he believes are legitimate and then let the courts do their job.
I agree with Avenatti that Trump should be indicted if Mueller finds sufficient evidence of indictable offences committed by Trump - either before he became a candidate for the presidency or, and I think especially, if there is evidence of the commission of felonies in his campaign to become president.
The order empowering Mueller provides the power "to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."
The Rules governing special counsel provide for "closing documentation", "... a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel."
And further, "... Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General."
Avenatti notes, and anyone paying attention already knows, that the DOJ policy at the moment is that a sitting president should not be indicted. It seems to me that as things stand, if Mueller were to conclude that indictment was appropriate, he would need to consult with the Deputy Attorney General to act contrary to the existing policy.
But I'm not Mueller and he may take a different view. The point is that it can't be allowed to happen that Trump wins the presidency through a criminal conspiracy then is shielded from indictment by being in office. That can't happen.
4
Constitutional experts sympathetic to liberal causes have explained on these very pages why this idea is folly, both legally and politically.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/opinion/neal-katyal-indict-trump.html
Stop wasting resources better expended upon beating Trump in the ordinary way.
1
Did you read the Entire article you reference? Your conclusion is incorrect, as Both options remain viable, alternately, and depending upon the route necessary.
I confess to a certain amount of bias.
Avenatti’s op-ed tries hard to read like the sober argument of legal professional interested in equal justice for all.
But after watching him on Tucker Carlson last night in a 4-grand suit hawking himself for—are you ready for this?—president!—as he pretended to be protecting his porno-star client who was, as he was promoting himself, playing strip joints in small towns to pay her legal bills, he seemed more pimp than lawyer.
Bias aside, the problem with Avenatti’s op-ed is the architectonics. A precarious conspiratorial conceit, it totters on a crumbling foundation of false premises and self-serving self-contradiction.
Consider his central argument:
A Justice Kavanaugh must recuse himself for conflict in the conflict-riddled “case” of the conflict-riddled special counsel Mueller, in order to demonstrate “impartiality of the rule of law” in a conspiracy of Obama-Clinton Ds & never-Trump Rs to weaponize the FBI/DOJ to exonerate a crook, fix her election & take out a sitting, duly-elected president. Mueller's perverse architectonics—a special counsel in search of a crime, which has it exactly backwards, proves venal purpose.
In another op-ed in this very same paper, Anonymous confessed to the aforementioned sedition.
Why?
Desperation. The Anonymous op-ed, like this one, is a Hail Mary.
Anyone following the real news knows prosecutions of the coconspirators are imminent & the only way to stop them is to get rid of Trump.
1
@Marian I agree, Marian, you do demonstrate plenty of bias! I support your right to whatever opinion of Michael Avenatti you wish but you fall into Fox delusional complex in your assertion about Mueller and the probe: "Mueller's perverse architectonics—a special counsel in search of a crime, which has it exactly backwards, proves venal purpose." A counsel in search of a crime? "Anyone following the real news knows" that multiple guilty pleas and convictions--even serving jail time already--have already proved that there are real crimes in evidence. You may be happy to live under a corrupt wannabe dictator but most of America isn't happy about this. We will wait for Mr. Mueller's final report but this isn't an Obama/Clinton/Democrat cabal to overturn justice in this country. Bias, indeed.
1
I began reading this article with the impression that Mr. Avenetti would offer specific facts that would support an indictment against President Trump and that based on those facts he would argue that the issue be tested with an actual indictment.
Instead, what we got was another publicity piece by Mr. Avenetti that added nothing new to what we already know.
This piece belongs in Star Magazine or the National Enquirer or maybe People. But it doesn't make the grade for space on the editorial page of a serious, national newspaper.
2
As to the above-the-law argument, could not a court decide that the President needs to be examined in a mental institution?
I am not saying that he is insane, just that he can't be above the law on this, therefore that he can't e above the law.
Michael, we have had our share of amateurs. We need a president with legislative experience. Please return to your law practice, full time.
2
Man I love this guy! He is the only one who seems to have the courage to hold Trump accountable for his obvious corruption. Ill be the first to vote for Avenatti 2020. He would cream Trump in the debates and actually call Trump out by name for what he truly is: A lying conman, whereas the rest of the dems are more concerned with polite political correctness, as they continue to lose elections. #Sanders/Avenatti 2020!
5
If indicted perhaps he will resign....trump indicted.....
A default of his entire administration and pence being indicted as co- conspirators. That would be wonderful.
This administration caused a current constitutional crisis and deserve punishment. We then have precedent!
2
"No one is above the law" is an American myth, sadly a joke.
The Constitution does not prohibit indicting a sitting president. Find the words in the Constitution, which state a president is above the law!
If evidence suggests a sitting president committed a crime, he must be indicted. Not to do so, is to undermine the rule of law. In other words, to destroy the myth that no one is above the law. But once the myth has been destroyed, you will never get the worms back in the can, the American people will know that the lie is a joke told by the powerful and wealthy to placate the peons. Americans will know the truth: money and connections put you above the law; you will only get the "justice" you can afford. This will call into question....
What other American ideals, values, 'rights' are actually lies and myths?
5
Thank you Mr. Avenatti, For keeping the nation's attention on this corrupt man's crimes. Two thirds of the country hopes to see him in the dock ASAP.
6
The mills of the gods grind slowly; but they grind to dust
3
Wait wait ,,,,,
Chancellor Trump spends 1/4 of his time playing golf.
And how many hours does he spend watching TV and tweeting?
How does an indictment impinge on his "president" time?
5
Michael Avenatti ignores the tension, if not conflict, between justice and law when arguing that the Supreme Court should allow the indictment of Trump while in office.
In its 229 year history, the U.S. government killed millions of innocent persons, but the rulers in all three branches of government have enjoyed immunity in the courts. Nixon, Johnson, their generals, the top officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches were not given the correct penalties for the Vietnam Holocaust.
No prosecutor indicted them since the legal system accepts the Nazi defense. Nixon, Johnson and the other responsible perpetrators would have claimed they were just following the law.
The change that Avenatti is promoting in the name of "impartiality of the rule of law" would not touch the legal system's evil core -- it would still thwart justice and remain illegitimate.
8
@Terry M I suspect you may not be conversant with the prosecution of Nazis at the end of WWII. The US government may have been responsible for the deaths of many over the years, but American officials were not spared prosecution because "the legal system accepts the Nazi defense". The Nuremberg trials established that the orders of a superior ("I was just following orders") was not sufficient defense against prosecution. It could be invoked to lessen sentences but not absolve of responsibility. Just because we may be imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving for impartial justice.
Regardless of the Federal case, "President" Trump can and should be indicted by NY State prosecutors for various crimes including money laundering.
6
Look at it from the extreme: let's say the POTUS is enraged about statements and conduct of one of his Cabinet members. During a meeting in the White House, he is so unhinged that he takes out a gun and shoots and kills the fellow. Does he get a pass? Is he not arrested and indicted for manslaughter?
3
The whole point of our declaring independence from England was as a revolt against governance by a monarch. Yet Kavanaugh and his ilk believe in giving unbridled power to a US president...thus making the occupant of the White House a monarch.
3
So the president could kill someone in the White House and not be charged? That is obviously absurd. No-one in this country can be allowed to commit crimes without being brought to justice.
5
This is an issue that very few people in the nation are competent to give an opinion on. Only those who have studied the Constitution intensely (including the circumstances surrounding its writing) and the long history of cases interpreting it can give an informed opinion over whether a President can be indicted. That groups consists of a few law professors and judges. Not the porn lawyer. Certainly not people who casually read the NYT.
2
Is Avenatti's voice an important one ?
Sorry, Mike, while I might agree with you, I'm not sure you bring a compelling legal voice to the discussion....
Win the case you've got.... then, maybe....
3
Mr. Avenatti's timely piece makes a worthy contribution to contemporary political discourse. I'm willing to bet the merits of his argument will not lost on other thoughtful citizens, especially those who recognize the existential threat posed by Mr. Trump and his tortured administration. We, as a nation, ought to be thankful for the likes of Mueller, Rosenstein, Orr, and others (like Mr. Avenatti, too) who remain faithful to the tenets of our republican form of government and the liberal democratic principles enshrined in the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
4
The Times is reporting tonight about the damage the Trump Administration is causing by dismissing the legality of the International Criminal Court - good news for despots the world over is the conclusion.
Indicting Trump is worth testing to send a message to the nation and the world that no one is above the law, especially if campaign laws were violated
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/europe/icc-burundi-bolton.html?...
3
Why take an unenforceable oath and if a president is that close to indictable, does he really possess any "ability to lead the country"?
Perhaps there is another book in the offing: "Oaf of Office".
3
Gorsuch must also recuse
3
The special counsel is bound by this regulation: A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice.
With the Moss memo extant, Mueller isn't authorized to prosecute.
I know Avenatti is famous, but you should save your space for a more thorough analysis. And mandatory recusal? Mandated by whom?
1
Historically, when it came time to title the chief executive at the Constitutional Convention there was discussion what to call the head of the executive branch. The title president was chosen due to at the time, it had little significance. It could describe the head of a college, a presiding officer, etc, but it had no weight such as king or emperor in leadership. It was chosen because it had a lower case p. It implied little power. Of course as the US moved into world leadership following the Spanish-American war, president assumed more stance in the world.
For all originalists please be consistent, the Founders chose president because it did not separate him from the population. The Founders would have approved of a president being called before a grand jury.
2
I can't consider Mr. Avenatti's piece seriously in light of his representing Stormy Daniels. Is this a sincere thesis or is it part of his duty to conflictioneer for his client?
1
@JOCKO ROGERS Is your objection based on the perceived "character" of his client? It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter even though she's shown tremendous grit and, yes, character given that she and her daughter were threatened in Nevada if she went forward with her suit.
1
Shouldn’t Neil Gorsuch’s recusal also be mandatory?
4
Thank you Mr. Avenatti. This is what leadership sounds like.
4
The very point of the Declaration of Independence was to revolt being governed by a monarch. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves at the notion of giving a US president the unbridled power of a monarch.
3
The Founding Fathers never faced this issue directly because they had designed the Electoral College to prevent a coward, a snake-oil salesman or a criminal from becoming President. Unfortunately, their safety valve was destroyed by party politics early in the history of the Republic. Impeachment now also seems to be in the process of failing, as the House GOP clearly prefers its perquisites of office to its honour and the safety of the Republic.
If Trump were only a vain fool, the nation could probably wait out his term. His minimal contact with reality and his solipsistic narcissism make him a danger to world peace. While an indictment would almost certainly put the Presidency on autopilot, that is probably a desirable outcome.
If Trump spends the rest of his term closeted with his lawyers, perhaps the adults can concentrate on foreign affairs and the economy.
4
The law is absolutely clear: only Democratic presidents can be indicted; Republican presidents are protected.
4
It is self-evident that Republican presidents cannot be indicted but Democratic ones can.
Where is the constitutional ambiguity?
2
Apart from David Leonhart's opinion piece on "followin the money there has been no further discussion on the possibility of money launderin by the Trump oranization. I fiind this very stran e. Obviously as CEO of the Trump company DJT would be or at least should be indicted. But my question is related to this article. Should there be evidence of money launderin surely this would be an indictable offence. Yes?
2
Yes but the president is determined to install a justice who believes the potus is above the law.
4
Do not waste your time and energy. Do not give false hopes to Democracy lovers. If the issue goes to this Supreme Court, everyone knows what will happen...
1
How on earth are we going to select a non-partisan Grand Jury !
1
Don’t forget that Kavanaugh also refused to say whether a president has the power to pardon himself. To even entertain the possibility that a provision intended to permit mercy could be employed to conceal the president’s corruption suggests the Constitution could be interpreted to produce a ridiculous result. This violates every accepted principle of constitutional interpretation. If Congress has the power to declare war, does that mean it can declare war on the United States? I suppose Kavanaugh would refuse to answer on the ground this is a hypothetical case.
3
Mr. Avenatti could also contribute to impeachment of the Great Orange Nothingness by deposing him in his client's lawsuit. Trump's own lawyers concede that he is incapable of surviving a sworn deposition without perjuring himself--and here, all Avenatti has to do is ask the G.O.N. the same questions to which he has already falsely answered. He can't stand to tell the truth, because that would mean revealing to his base that he is a liar who lacks the courage of his espoused convictions.
4
For those who think the President cannot be indicted while in office ... what if the President killed someone in a rage or, for that matter, did it in cold blood?
You think he is above the law? Really?
2
Sorry but this country has become a joke. Greed is all that matters.
2
The other point I'd like to make is that given the precedent set by this nation to elect Donald Trump president -- ELECT DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT! -- I'm going to run for president myself, and my vice presidential candidate is going to be the ham sandwich I ate for lunch today...
2
In 1649, when Parliament indicted, tried, condemned and executed King Charles I for treason, he was still the king of England. As Oliver Cromwell explained to Algernon Sidney, "I tell you, we will cut of his with the crown on it," and that is what they did. If a reigning monarch can be indicted, why not the president of a republic?
4
In furtherance of my earlier post that the 25rh Amendment provides a remedy if an indicted president believed an indictment interfered with performance of presidential duties, I quote the specific language of section 3 of the Amendment: “Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”
1
How can a sitting president not be indictable if he is truly not to be above the law? To first require that he be impeached before he can be indicted and tried in a criminal court presupposes that Congress is not populated with scoundrels or even co-conspirators who will protect him from impeachment. And we now know that's not the case. Criminals should not be shielded from justice by politicians.
4
Such an indictment should include corruption on a grand scale, violations of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, conspiring with a hostile foreign power to rig an election, moral turpitude and money laundering for Russian mobsters. Unfortunately, all this seems to be OK with Trump's Republican enablers, who would fight tooth and nail to prevent an indictment.
6
Americans got rid of King George over 200 years ago because, among other reasons, he was above the law. No where in our Constitution does it state or infer that the Founders (Originalists) wanted a President like King George. This absurd policy would mean that the President could murder his wife while in office, and not even be subject to investigation. Too busy running the country to not be distracted? I don't see the evidence for that.
3
I recall a President once said that “if the president does it then it is not illegal.” He later said he was not a crook. We all know where that ended. It was illegal and he was a crook.
The difference between now and then is that we now we have a Congress that is happy to rubber stamp the crook’s illegal dealings.
193
It is absolutely time to test the constitutionality of indicting and trying a sitting president.
The constitution is silent on the subject. But while there is some evidence indicating the founders thought a sitting president should not be subject to indictment and trial – Hamilton in Federalist Nos. 69 and 77 seems to say this as did Ellsworth and Adams in the First Congress – their aim was to insulate the president from debilitating petty political harassment, not to place the president above the law.
If Mueller finds what many think he is going to find, the abuses of power by Trump will be anything but petty and political.
The framers quite simply never believed that under the system they were creating, that a truly evil oligarch like Trump could blunder his way into the presidency.
5
The concept that a president should not be hindered in the execution of his duties due to the impedance of an investigation is a very slippery slope for the country to find itself on. Indeed the nation is already on this slope having recent experience with the results of its application. The "too big to fail" logic implemented during the financial crisis of 2008 placed the executives of the worlds biggest banks out of harm's way because hindering their ability to manage their institutions was too grave a risk for the nation. Now, 10 years later we have clear insight into how the citizens respond when a person of power is able to use his/her position to avoid the consequences of breaking the law. The resultant distrust of the very core of the beliefs of the nation is palpable!
Where would this logic lead us if President Trump was able to prove himself above the law?
2
I thought the three arms of our government were purposely balanced? How can we hold the presidency above the laws of the land?
3
There's a good argument in favor of indicting a sitting president. An indictment means the president can't abuse the statute of limitations. Impeachment isn't even necessary. Whatever a grand jury decides is prosecutable will be sitting there waiting whenever the president leaves office. High crimes and misdemeanors need not apply. Criminal action is treated normally once the president is a regular civilian again.
At least hypothetically. There are two problems with this scenario. First is the pardon power. We'll ignore self-pardon for the moment. However, failing to pardon an outgoing president facing criminal charges is an inherently political act. The newly inaugurated executive branch does so at their own peril. Second, and probably more important, no one wants to test this theory. No one wants to try because we might not like the answer.
As a hypothetical, let's say the Supreme Court rules a president is not indictable while in office. Does anyone sleep better at night knowing the commander of the world's most powerful military knows he or she is acting with impunity while in command? Guessing at the legal specifics is something of a check on the executive branch. Witness Bill Clinton. We don't know whether a president is required to answer a subpoena with verbal testimony. 'Ole Bill sure didn't want to find out though.
We need to think beyond a Trump presidency. We don't ask some questions because some questions are better left unasked.
1
@Andy The overarching reason that a president should be indictable is what will happen if the precedent is set that he cannot. Picture an unshackled and soaring Trump in his remaining time in office: there is no corruption beneath him, no deal too craven; no capitulation to Russia too brazen. Picture the effects on the Justice Dept., the FBI and the NSA. Indictments can't be waiting in the wings for the moment this president is dethroned--don't you think that waiting indictments is the surest path to a permanent power grab? Where will the fourth estate be then?
1
Well said. No one is above the law. The president is the elected leader of the land sworn to defend and uphold the constitution. That leader represents all of us and therefore should be held to the same rules of law to which we are all bound.
Let’s imagine (and nothing seems impossible with this president) he gets so angry with his attorney general that he gets the secret service to take him to the department of justice, walks into Mr Session’s office and shoots him. Point blank.
Really. Would we not indict him because it would be distracting from the affairs of state?
2
Mr. Avenatti,
I agree with your logical and legal opinion as a conscious citizen. They say the proof of pudin is in its eating. so bring the indictment with whatever you have first. Then Mr. Mueller will bring his own. Your writing will be read by few but actions will be seen by many. The office of the presidency has been transformed to be a farce by this President. It must be stopped so that we cannot be ridiculed in the history of the world.
By the way, if you become successful in this indictment your candidacy for the presidency in 2020 will increase manifolds.
2
Because of the statute of limitations, failing to indict and try a President is tantamount to letting him off scott-free.
3
Trump should be indicated, criminally charged and impeached. If not for collusion with Russia, then for money laundering.
6
If this does go to the supremes- I hope that they all have updated Dictionaries. For some dang reason they tend to use outdated Webster’s.
Michael Avannati is an American hero.
8
“The fact that Mr. Trump is a sitting president should not derail a process that applies to all Americans, regardless of stature or station.”
End. Of. Story.
8
Let's stand back from agonizing over how to remove our dangerous POTUS within a now-corrupted system. Instead, let's consider the possibility of a private meeting between Mueller and POTUS, explaining to POTUS how he might best serve himself and avoid further investigation woes by simply resigning, say, for health reasons. VPOTUS could go later, but not much later. Call it an annulment. Maybe this won't even be a first.
2
No one stands above the law including Donald Trump. If Mueller's investigations warrant an indictment then so be it. Kavanaugh is another matter and a discouraging one at that. Yes, he was had selected by DT AND since the Clinton era, he has changed his mind on whether or not a sitting President can be charged with civil or criminal matters.
This article sites the precedence of the Clinton rulings. I think this is the precedent that should be followed. We have a man in office who meddled with the election (to win it) and secretly engaged in paying off former mistresses to keep them quiet. There is no way this man should have made it through the election and now, unfortunately, we are watching the demise of USA on so many levels because of his incompetence. He cannot, or at least not at this point, be tried and convicted for his incompetence, but he can be indicted on other very serious matters.
Kavanaugh came to believe that a civil or criminal investigation against a President detracts from the daily task of doing the job as President. In my humble opinion, the WH would do just fine without him. He seems to create a jumbled mess of things that aides and people in positions of authority constantly block. He is just simply not competent.
If I am not above the law, then neither is he. I haven't committed any crimes, but he has. Throw the book at him. The country charges people on daily basis with crimes far worse than his.
2
The DOJ is under the authority of the President. It only makes sense that those two opinions would conclude that a President may not be indicted. Had they concluded otherwise, the then AG would have rejected them; and they would never have seen the light of day except as opinions of two former DOJ employees.
The absurdity of the DOJ position is evidenced by Trump’s claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Under the DOJ opinion, this is true. Trump would need first to be impeached by 50% of the House and then removed by 67% of the Senate and only then could he be indicted. Whatever happened to our obsession with law and order?
The DOJ opinion conflates impeachment, a very political process, with the criminal justice system, which at least in theory should not be political and should be about justice. It is wrong. They are two separate processes to address two different types of situations.
2
We would be doing trump a favor by indicting him. Whatever way it plays out in the courts, setting a precedent for whether or not you can indict a sitting president would be his greatest accomplishment.
The real constutional issue is much, much simpler than the arguments of over educated lawyers.
Must the criminal justice system be impotent in the face of a renegade rapacious president? The only answer is no. They must do their constitutional duties especially where it is another branch
He is a president in a constitutional democratic republic, not George III, nor Louis XVI
2
No one, including the President ,should be above the law. We have a democratic republic, not autocracy. Particularly obvious with this current president is his concern only with matters concerning himself, no emphasis on serving the people of our Nation. There are provisions possible , vice president taking over, as if the president were ill, as with Reagan after he was shot.
1
Under the Constitution Donald Trump, as president, is a public servant and administrator. If a servant steals from or embarrasses his employer, we the people, he should be removed and possibly charged with a crime. Rule of Law must be maintained
1
It is wishful thinking to suggest Kavanaugh would recuse himself. It would be more likely that a constitutional amendment clarifying the issue would pass in the event R's are substantially stripped of their majority.
2
It's pretty clear that the Constitution provided a means for the President to be indicted and tried. It's called impeachment (by the House acting as grand jury) and trial by the Senate.
If you disagree, think about how this would have affected President Clinton. He clearly could have been indicted for perjury, and absent jury nullification, likely would have been convicted.
1
@J. Waddell, the Constitution does not speak to the President's susceptibility to an indictment by a grand jury for a violation of the criminal law. Impeachment is a charge of abuse of authority and need not be criminal. It's not the same thing at all.
Hear, hear! Bringing comrade trump before a jury of his peers, all citizens of our same teetering democracy, would be illuminating. We the People would value and should insist on the opportunity to watch trump summon words, the best monosyllabic words, in his own defense. it ain't gonna happen but wouldn't it be grand? Seriously, though, it would strengthen the country and help restore our reputation globally.
7
The original constitution have safe guards so unfit persons cannot become presidents and for removing them in case it happens. Many of these safeguards are not very democratic, and we have been tinkering with them to make the US government more democratic. But we need to understand that direct popular vote has its risks. First, the electoral college was supposed to be an independent voting body that can cast its votes against the will of the people. Today, we have the electors voting in line with the popular vote and we also have winner takes all states. The electors were a safeguard. Highly educated and respected members of society. But I understand the sentiment today of giving more power to the people, but then you get Trump. Then senators were appointed by the state legislature so they could be independent thinkers and to shield away from the sway of public opinion. Now senators are elected by popular vote. The framers of the constitution understood that direct popular vote can lead to bad decisions. We are changing the constitution to allow direct popular will to affect the direction of the country, in the name of democracy. And now we are facing the law of unintended consequences. Is the public better educated now than 250 years ago ?
2
Refusal to hold a President accountable guarantees the kind of corruption, greed, narcissism, and unprecedented lack of humanity that we are seeing with Trump.
No man should be above the law. Our founding fathers instilled very important principles into our Constitution in order to distinguish it from the failings of Monarchies and authoritarian power.
A President should not be immune to accountability for criminal acts. Nor should any member of Congress be immune from justice when they aid and abet a criminal who threatens national security and commits acts that may be considered crimes against humanity.
If we are truly a country of law and order, we will act accordingly. Right now, the lack of law and order is eroding our country from within and it's time to do something about it.
2
i dont see how the president cannot be indicted, are all possible crimes ruled out against a president, what is he NOT immune from? Its a ridiculous argument, if we all woke in the morning and Jeff Sessions lay on the whitehouse lawn stabbed to death and the President sat nearby with a blood spattered knife, what would happen? Would Trumps supporters argue that he should stay in power until after his term? Justice delayed is justice denied, i doubt the founders of your country had this in mind while drafting the constitution, do you? Or would he be removed and the VP would step in, yes of course he would, there would not be any choice. As to the argument that Trump would not be able to carry out his duties if he were indicted, wouldn't that be the case if the VP had to step in? As Michael makes the points, if Trump were impeached this would have an affect on Trumps ability to fulfill his duties, any one of the three options, removal, impeachment or indictment would have an effect on his ability to carry out his role. If the evidence is there indict him and be done with it,
2
The constitutional remedy of impeachment was clearly intended as a means of removing a president from office. It's a political remedy for a political problem.
But impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for a criminal problem. Yes, impeachment can coincide with a criminal remedy but it's not the point. It's about removing a president from office, not punishing them for crimes they have committed. That's for the courts to decided.
Should Trump shoot that proverbial man on 5th Avenue, how utterly ridiculous it would be for him to remain at large while he continued to serve as president. Thank you, but we've jumped enough sharks already.
2
Legal Piffle.
A state that did not vote for a President
could easily arrange to find a Grand Jury
guided by a politically motivated Prosecutor
to indict the President.
This is why only the House may Impeach
and the Senate - Try and Convict the President.
The nation elects the President, the Representatives
of all the United States of America serve as the
Grand Jury and the Trial Jury - not some grand jury
in a state full of biased lawyers/politicians.
As for any Supreme Court Justice having to
recuse themselves for any trial involving a President
who appointed them, what if all the Justices were appointed by the President ?
2
@John Brown
When was the last time a president appointed all nine justices?
The founders could not have imagined a Congress that would allow such a president to remain un impeached. They never imagined the craven Republicans of today. But that is what we have and so we must go ahead and find out if indictment of a president is constitutional. We must, however decide that without Judge Kavanaugh deciding.
One reason I can see for allowing a president to be indicted while in office is that if a corrupt president thinks the only way he will not be held responsible for law-breaking is to remain in office, the likelihood is that the corrupt president will do what is unlawful and tyrannical to stay in office past his term. That this president may think such a thing fits his character to a tee.
2
The betrayal of the public trust by certain members of Congress has resulted in legal contradictions which one might contend are by themselves criminal. To wit:
1. One co-conspirator in a criminal case can pardon the other.
2. An accused criminal can claim that he can pardon himself.
3. An accused criminal can appoint his own judges.
Legislators such as Devin Nunes, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, charged with helping write our laws, have instead violated their oath of office and further engaged in behavior resulting in the deliberate damage of our legal infrastructure.
I would start by taking these impostors to court for criminal malfeasance.
8
Couldn't agree more, except that bringing anything up to the Supreme Court now is a mockery of justice. Surely we can't expect SCOTUS with Kavanaugh on it to rule in favor of indicting Trump, can we?
4
If the Supreme Court is going to take the view that a sitting president cannot be indicted, it is best to know this prior to the next crooked, unethical "billionaire" seizing the highest office in the Land. Trump has broken the rules, the norms with eg. not producing tax returns, making $$ from the Office, etc. and the next "trump" will only hesitate if it is known that:
1) while sitting you can be indicted;
2) while sitting you can be prosecuted;
3) a president cannot pardon himself, and the pardoning of witnesses against the president is, at a minimum, an abuse of power/obstruction of justice.
Yes, time to find out if it's going to take a Constitutional Amendment (or Congressional legislation?) to ensure that "no one is above law" is a fact and not just high-minded words.
1
The reason a sitting president should not be subject to indictment—say those who argue in support of that position—is that it would interfere with the president’s ability to carry out his or her duties.
While it’s impossible to conceive that such an argument would ever apply in favor of Donald Trump given his golfing, tweeting and television addictions, the argument is meritless on its face because the Twenty Fifth Amendment provides the remedy.
The Amendment allows the president to temporarily step down in the event he or she believes circumstances prevent his or her duty performance. It’s the president’s call whether to invoke that remedy.
A criminal president should never be able to escape criminal consquences just because of his or her office. If Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he has bragged he could do without political consequence, he should be subject to indictment and imprisonment. The presidency should never afford a free pass to a criminal.
4
The danger is that Avenatti's proposal will inevitably politicize to judiciary even more than it already is (which is already too much), and is likely to degenerate into weaponizing the legal system based on policy differences instead of serious crimes. Who gets to indict a sitting president, how can we trust their wisdom and judgement in the matter, and how do we know that the process will not degenerate into the criminalization of policy differences as a mutated form of #resistance?
I am reminded of Harry Reid's unwise elimination of the filibuster for certain judicial nominees, which has come back to haunt the Democratic party now that it is in the minority, big-time. We do not want to empower a bunch of unelected Lilliputians to paralyze the presidency, regardless of party.
The Constitution provides for impeachment in the case of malfeasance by the president, who can be indicted and prosecuted after leaving office. This seems to me to strike a reasonable balance between impunity and cynical political manipulation of the Judiciary to paralyze the Executive (which, to be blunt, is the current goal of many on the Left).
Anybody who can spend so much time at his golf courses and watching television clearly is already not meeting the physical time requirements for this onerous role of President. So either option of being impeached or being indicted isn't going to make much difference in this particular instance.
2
You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to see what is correct here -- the most fundamental principle is that no one is above the law, and, hence it must be applied equally to all.
A President must be subject to indictment if evidence of criminality supports it, period.
The "even if he's a crook, his job is too important..." argument is nonsense. If a President is unable to fulfil the duties of his office, either through incompetence, wilful misconduct, or distraction resulting from supportable allegations of criminality, he can be removed from office via impeachment or exercise of the 25th Amendment.
The absolute necessity of this is even more evident now -- as Aventatti points out, this is not someone lying about a tryst totally unconnected to executing his constitutional duties -- we now are faced with a President who may have committed treason in aiding a foreign power undermine the United States in fraudulently securing his election, who has possibly abused the power of his office to obstruct an investigation to uncover the truth.
Ummm...
If there was ever a time when the wheels of justice need to roll over everyone who deserves it, including a sitting President, it is now.
4
"Should Mr. Trump be indicted and in the event that the case reaches the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory."
Unfortunately, all sorts of things that should be mandatory aren't, especially now.
And with Kavanaugh being nominated rather explicitly for the purpose of immunizing Trump, I really wonder whether "It is time to clarify the issue."
We actually don't believe that no one is above the law. That is just something that is said to poor people when we send them to jail. If your wealthy there are many laws that don't apply to you. Trump is used to that treatment. He is obviously surprised that things have changed now that he is president. If he had not won the presidency then he would still be under the radar on all the crime. And even now as we see that there is a high likelihood that he has committed numerous crimes he still may get a pass. "If we really believe that no one is above the law" No, no we don't believe that, never did. The laws are for controlling the poor people.
1
Uh. Didn't we fight a revolution against a king and set up a republic and didn't George Washington refuse a third term because he was afraid of being perceived a king?
The president is a citizen and lives in the White House, not a palace. Wasn't he inaugurated, not crowned?
So, what's the problem? Trump is not above the law. The Republicans didn't think President Clinton was above the law.
5
It seems so incongruous that a sitting president is above the law. Goes against every fibre of the Rule if Law.
It is time for a new constitutional amendment to answer these questions: 1) the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' seems vague and almost self-contradictory 2) the principal that nobody is above the law must include the president 3) rules are needed to prevent politically motivated indictments and 'fishing expeditions' 4) the president's pardon must exclude himself or when used to obstruct justice by promising it to potential witnesses 5) the Federal 5 year statute of limitations needs revisiting: assume that well into the 2nd term a president is discovered to have committed a crime early in his first term
High crimes and misdemeanors is a clear phrase. To the founders, it was clear it referred to serious political offenses that undermines faith in the President to carry out his duties. Misdemeanors in this sense means political offenses that are not crimes, not the minor offenses the term encompasses to us
1
@Unconvinced Jake, if it's so clear, then why didn't they spell it out the way you did? It might be clear to you, but constitutional scholars have disagreed; ergo it needs to be better spelled out: that was my point.
I insist that Donald Trump be impeached and indicted not because I am a vindictive, sorehead Democrat. I insist that he be impeached and indicted so that my grandchildren will come to understand that those who act as though they are above the law, who lie and manipulate others to serve their own selfish ends while posing as public servants, who have no concern or empathy for others, and who hypocritically embrace the flag and cross while mocking those who were willing to sacrifice everything for our country will eventually be punished. Donald Trump must be humbled and incarcerated so that my grandchildren will know that good is stronger than evil and that God's Justice, often delayed, is ultimately inevitable.
407
@Glenn Wright
I whole-heartedly concur. I am not a Democrat either, I count myself as a conservative Independent.
But every time I see Trump, all I see is an insult to the American flag and to everything it stands for.
I wish that those who continue to support him would realize that by doing so, they are doing the same thing he does every day: Desecrate our flag, our Constitution, and all America has always stood for.
There is no honor in Trump and no honor in supporting him.
6
@Glenn Wright: I think President Donald J. Trump should RESIGN. This is my letter to President Trump posted on my FB page: Dear Mr. President: You have been given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to unite, repair and lead our challenging Country. You, Mr. President, have succeeded in SO many areas by increasing our economy...creating jobs...and resolving World problems. Save yourself. Save your family. Save our Country. With all due respect - *RESIGN* /SIGNED/A Patriotic American
@Glenn WrightNot so d sure about "Gods" justice since he/she was a really violent mass murder throughout the bible but agree with the idea of justice.
I have two issues with respect with respect to Democrats' fixation on impeachment or indictment and trial.
One, removal would result in a backlash which would only enhance Republican prospects and turn the Presidency over to Mike Pence a politically savvy dyed in the wool Christian who would if he could, nominate The Trinity for the Supreme Court.
Two, it diverts attention and resources from the vital November election which could result in a Democrat controlled Congress which could effectively put the brakes to Trump's agenda just as the Republican with their majority did to Obama's.
3
@Sam
First of all, the Democrats are not "fixated" on impeachment. They realize that the last thing they want to do is to fire up Trump's shrinking base. At least I hope they are smart enough to see that.
There are few people that Trump fear more than Michael Avenatti. Why?
Because Avenatti is extremely well educated, articulate, intelligent and...fearless. He dares to say what others lack the courage to state.
We should be paying very careful attention to this man and his conclusions. Democrats should be thankful to have someone of his caliber, expertise, and COURAGE on their team.
It's about time!!
13
The framers of the Constitution wrote in checks and balances assuming each of the three branches of government would do its job. But what should happen when, in the face of clear evidence of impeachable, criminal offenses by the President, the House ignores or glosses over the evidence and effectively refuses to even investigate? Should the judiciary weigh in, at least on the criminal aspect of the offense? Does it matter that the criminal conduct was a significant or even determinative tool in attaining the Presidency.
The Constitution clearly allows for the distraction of impeachment and it doesn’t explicitly prohibit indictment. It seems to me there are cases where the judiciary should weigh in, and cases where they shouldn’t, at least on the criminal aspect of the offense. The judiciary is set up to adjudicate cases of criminal law, the House isn’t.
Adjudicating the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about a president’s affair is not worthy of a constitutional crisis. However, adjudicating criminal conduct, conduct aligned with the purposes of a foreign enemy, that was significant or even determinative in attaining the Presidency is.
7
Given the pace of our justice system, a president could be indicted at the start of their first term and never face a trial until the end of their second. But snark aside, I understand the danger of weaponizing the indictment. I suggest that only certain types of crimes can be indicted during the presidency, and that the statute of limitations for all crimes be suspended for the entire term of the presidency. Sometimes complex, nuanced solutions are best.
1
Since there appear to be arguments on both sides of the issue, why not wait until after the midterms; should enough Democrats win back House and Senate seats, either impose the 25th Amendment, or start the impeachment process. In the case of the latter, there has been some form of speculation that Trump would resign.
In either case, he would no longer a sitting POTUS; thus making him vulnerable to indictment.
1
Why don't democracy-loving Americans lodge a court challenge against the DOJ's arbitrary ruling (that a sitting President cannot be indicted) and let the Court determine this contentious issue?
3
Mr Trump's behavior is highlighting the things that none of your founding fathers would ever have imagined possible from a person holding the highest position in your land. It is a sorry state of affairs when potentially beholden political appointees are entrusted with making rulings that determine the very tenets of your democracy.
13
@j'aideuxamours - what exactly are these things you speak of? can you list them out, so we see how severe they are.
This analysis is spot on! The law either applies to all citizens or not. There is no prohibition for indicting the President in the Constitution which, I believe, indicates the founders never contemplated an exception for the President and this would particularly be so if the indictment pertained to some conduct or criminal activity that took place when the citizen was not President. I don't think this question is even a close one. Whether Trump or any other President there should be no exemption or special treatment given to a President with respect to being indicted and prosecuted under the law while serving in office.
13
Thank you, Michael Avenatti, for your editorial. In short, the argument that a president is too busy and important to face an indictment when in fact that exactly what happens during an impeachment process.
Go get’em, Mr. Avenatti. You have this American’ full support.
26
A sitting US president, Ulysses Grant, was arrested, tried and convicted on a traffic charge not once but twice by the same Washington DC officer, William West. Grant told the officer that if he was indeed driving too fast the officer should "Do your duty." As commander of the Army of the Potomac Grant had likewise complimented sentries who stopped him as he rode about in his plain hat and coat. This case is a clear precedent that no sitting president is above the law. Clear at to President Grant.
The heads of the other two branches, the Chief Justice and the Speaker of the House, are not exempt from indictment. There is potential for conflict of interest: the justice department reports to the president. The solution to that is to create a stronger position of special counsel who has access to justice department resources, but cannot be fired without agreement at least from the other two heads of branches.
If Mueller has even one strong case for an indictment for criminal conduct then he should bring it. If the court rules that the special counsel is not qualified to bring an indictment, what a layman would call a technicality, then the law will need to be changed. But if a court where to use the more typical standard of whether credible evidence connecting the accused to the crime exists, then the indictment will be found valid and the case allowed to proceed.
21
.If the President is above the law, he can declare himself King Trump. Who's to stop him as he calls out the military to ruin our country?. When McConnel refused to allow Mr. Obama's supreme court pick to even have a hearing by the senate, that was a step directly in the direction we are in now if the court has no balance. Trump's pick for the SC would likely fail to limit his powers. There goes the great experiment down the dr
20
Federal prosecutors work for the Department of Justice, including Mueller. They are bound by DOJ opinions. Mueller, and SDNY prosecutors, do not have the authority to act in contradiction to a DOJ opinion, and therefore cannot indict a sitting President unless the DOJ changes its opinion.
1
We have a congress and judicial branch, plus we have a very competent if not repugnant vice president and whitehouse staff. Let's get real here, folks, there is not, nor has there ever been a day in the Trump administration when this nation couldn't be ably run and managed by those remaining professionals in the absence of Donald Trump showing up for work.
Brett Kavanaugh's claim that an indictment would interfere with the job of the president may have been true for Bill Clinton, he had something to lose by such a distraction. What is there to lose by Donald Trump going away? Having Pence at the helm is the republicans dream.
7
I never thought there would be a serious debate over whether a sitting U.S. president can be prosecuted for a crime. But since we now have some legal scholars declaring that such immunity is in fact constitutionally afforded, let's assume for the sake of argument that they're right.
No provision of the Constitution is absolute. The famous example is that freedom of speech under the First Amendment doesn't mean you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
So there must likewise be limits to presidential immunity from prosecution, right? It can't be an absolute.
I guess the next question to consider is, at what point would a president's lawbreaking rise to the level of clear and present danger?
20
We presently have two systems of law in the United States: one for people who can afford the best legal assistance and one for people who can't afford any lawyers or who can only pay for minimal protection. The latter get hammered by the system.
It can be argued that indicting a sitting president would be good for the country because it would demonstrate that the law itself is paramount, not the holder of the office. In how many cases have prosecutors across the nation argued that "this conviction" sends a message? How many times has indicting someone itself been promoted as upholding the vitality of criminal laws and the willingness to invoke them no matter how powerful the person might be? Start with a thousand times and go up from there.
It is my own personal view that being faced with civil and criminal proceedings does, indeed, hamper a president, any president, in performing the duties of the office. So, I disagree with the decision in the Clinton/Jones matter because there are truly critical decisions that a president must make and, therefore, must have the time to study them carefully be making. (Even if, like Trump, no study is involved? Don't know.)
So, a president should never be indicted over a minor matter while in office, but we could look to precedent in regard, for example, to campaign violations. Corrupting the election process is a serious matter. It is highly possible that Trump will be indicted, but the trial held over until he's out of office.
6
I served on a grand jury 30 years ago. The vast majority of the cases ended up in indictments. One that didn't, failed because the prosecutor's assistant realized one "bill" was dangerously flawed and urged us to reject it.
The whole process was a rubber-stamp, and I saw little point to it.
3
We can't worry that Mr. Pence would be worse than Mr. Trump as President. As long as he were not a criminal himself, he should serve in the event of a conviction of his predecessor.
The voters voted for a Republican, the voters voted for change, and the voters voted against Ms. Clinton. The voters can do otherwise in two years. That is all immaterial to the question at hand.
This should be the guiding principle: A criminal should not be the President of the United States.
26
@Logan
To be precise, the voters voted for Ms. Clinton by a margin of 3 million votes, after which the Electoral College voted for Mr. Trump.
40
So, some say a President cannot be indicted while he/she is in office.
But, the day he/she leaves office, the indictments can then happen.
I am so curious if immunity from indictment originally hinged on not having term limits.
Why does that matter? Well, when Presidents had no term limits, all they needed to do was stay in office to avoid indictment.
Before term limits, this was possible.
Now that we have term limits, the President now faces the day when he/she will be indicted the second he/she leaves office.
Knowing that indictment is certain and hinges on staying in office can be cause for some very questionable, squirrelly, unreliable decision making, right?
In other words, why delay the indictment when the occupant knows it’s going to happen?
In the mean time, we all have to endure the motives and actions of a very exposed individual?
Immunity from indictment makes no sense at all to me.
27
I think we have a pretty good idea what the Supreme Court will say, at least with a Republican president. Soon to be Justice Kavanaugh won't recuse himself and it's simply a partisan affair from there. Trump can count to five justices, so Trump is the law.
13
Make America Great Again !!
Impeach Trump.
40
Indict Donald Trump, beginning with the strong record of collusion with the Russian mafia to launder illicit funds through Trump & Co. This con-artist has damaged the reputation of the nation and the Office of the President of the United States profoundly.
39
And what, pray tell, does Putin have on Trump Inc? It is appalling that Republicans, who traditionally have taken a tough position on the Russian Federation, are drinking the same cool aid as trump and sidekick Pence. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-smart-truly-evil-man-says-madeleine-albri...
A grand jury indictment of this president would raise the status of ham sandwiches everywhere.
27
@Peter CPY - don't you mean lower?
@Peter CPY
Witty! You, sir, have a way with words. Nice.
1
To everyone saying the Constitution doesn’t say the President can’t be indicted—you’re correct. It doesn’t say that. It also says nothing about gay marriage, abortion, people of the same sex having sexual relations, and contraception. You’re gonna need a better argument.
13
@Jake: The Constitution also doesn't authorize an Air Force, just an army and navy... yet we have one. I think the OP is the one needing a better argument.
@Jake: Not indicting the President for a crime any other American would be indicted for, can be argued to be as unconstitutional as forbidding the four examples you mention, of which contraception has never been considered a crime anyway.
@Anna, as a social democratic Democrat I hate to have to tell you this but contraception was illegal in a number of states until SCOTUS ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that there was a privacy right to contraception. Until then it was illegal in Connecticut and other states even for married couples.
This was quite well written.
26
Like him or not, Avenatti is a smart and effective lawyer. In general, those kinds of lawyers are good on the papers.
18
A sitting president cannot be indicted because it would interfere with doing his duties as a president? That's a garbage argument. What's the Vice President for? The best argument is that Grand Juries almost never refuse to indict. But putting the POTUS above the law is far worse than indictment. Clinton survived attempted impeachment and got reelected.
16
First, Clinton didn’t survive “attempted” impeachment. Clinton was impeached. He just wasn’t removed from office by the Senate.
Second, Clinton’s impeachment and the Monica Lewinski’s affair only came to light after Clinton was re-elected.
1
Trump is ensuring that he gets to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to any possible indictment brought against him. He has already publicly proclaimed that he has the absolute power to pardon himself. So, if worse comes to worst, it is quite likely he’ll do a “Gerry Ford” on himself before he leaves office. We are slouching towards becoming a banana republic!
25
Slouching? Feels more like a sprint.
Everyone is intitled to due process, for President Trump, this process is overdue.
16
A felicitous turn of phrase worthy of Justice Jackson.
It is time to hold the POTUS accountable. The message should be clear to the self-adulatory President, the sycophant aides who warp the reality to suit him and the complicit party. It is time to test the constitution. Aren't we in search of a more perfect union? As we learn more, the experiment called democracy needs to be perfected and that is the intent of the framers.
8
Trump assaults, rapes, or kills a White House aide - he should not be indicted? Yes he should be! He is not above the law. No legit POTUS (which I don't consider Trump) isn't.
18
The deference of grand juries to prosecutors' seeking indictments and the desirability/utility of further testing the contention that in certain circumstances a president should not have to dilute his attention to the affairs of the country to also deal with his/her personal legal responsibilities, are beside the point here and now.
The critical questions are whether a prosecutor has come to the judgment that an investigation has proceeded to the point where he or she is able to determine that an indictment of a president - this president - ought to be made and has made the determination that it ought to. In those circumstances, the prosecutor has a duty to seek to obtain the indictment.
At that moment, anything else is incidental and, in any case, out of the control of the prosecutor.
matter is complete and furnishes a basis for seeking
1
I remember reading that when our country was first founded, and how its leader would conduct himself, it was George Washington who said that in no circumstance would our nation's leader be treated as if he were king.
Perhaps though in this one instance, as Donald imagines himself king, an exception could be made, that being that kings can be deposed. So when will the deposition and the removal of his 'crown' commence?
17
Trump spends a significant amount of time on the golf course, watching TV and roaming the halls of the White House irritating people. He does not adhere to a 16 hour day scripted to the minute with challenging presidential duties. He can make time to handle a criminal indictment.
24
The big difference between Michael Avenatti and Trump is in the hairdos.
Avenatti was losing his hair, so he lopped it all off.
Trump, on the other hand, had a transplant (according to wife#1), takes the drug Propecia, (according to his doctor), colors it, fluffs it, sprays it, and who knows what else.
Alec Baldwin did a great parody of Trump bathing with a shower cap with his staff. The premise being that nobody could wear a wire.
Trump's hair is a sign of cowardice.
11
... and why can't we also indict Stormy Daniels for prostitution and other forms of deviant conduct?
3
If she engages in prostitution against state law she can be criminally charged. But I thought she was a porn star, not a prostitute.
7
@JePense Because to indict someone it has to be a crime someone commits and she has not committed any. Thank you and Peace.
@JePense
Deviant conduct. Define that.....
I vote for indictment. So, please go ahead and indict, notwithstanding what those so-called august legal minds of Alan Dershowitz and the constitutional centerfold, Jonathan Turley say. Let’s test the law. Destructive corruption should not be shielded under any circumstances in a democracy.
27
Dershowitz will say anything to be in the limelight. His opinion has no legal value.
7
So, why not try this?
--
1. If warranted--that is, if President Trump has indeed broken one or more laws--then convene a grand jury. ["Shoot first!" That's the American way.]
2. While the grand jury deliberates, and while the very act of indicting a sitting president, is being tested by the Supreme Court, "sideline" Trump using Article 25, while Vice President Pence takes over as acting President. [Why waste time?]
3. If and when the SCOTUS rules that indicting a sitting president is constitutional, then it's high time to consider impeaching Trump--that is,if and when the grand jury indicts--while Pence continues to run the country. [So what's wrong with Pence!?]
4. If impeachment is in order, and Congress ultimately convicts the President, then swear in Pence, and boot out Trump. [Yea!]
5. Now, proceed to try the former President in a regular court of law. [And please, don't consider "pardoning” him!]
6. And if Donald Trump is indeed guilty of breaking our laws, then "lock him up," to resounding cheers! [As a man sows, so let him reap.]
--
And what's wrong with that?
5
It is still not clear what crime occurred in Stormy Daniels matter. What is known is that Michael Cohen paid Stormy $130,000 to get her to sign an NDA (Non Disclosure agreement). The NDA has never been published verbatim anywhere, if it has, then I haven't seen it, my fault. What was to be not disclosed for the consideration. Avenatti and Stormy have been asserting that the NDA is not valid because Trump never signed it (probably he smoked but never inhaled it). In any case Michael Cohen has now agreed with them that there never was a valid NDA and he is suing Stormy to get his (or Trump's) $130,000 back. I can't quite figure out this 3 way circus.
3
If Cohen gave stormy money on the mistaken belief that the NDA was valid but now realizes it was not, under what legal theory is he entitled to his money back? I don’t see one. It isn’t as if Stormy deceived him into giving her the money, it was his idea.
We're not indicting president, we're indicting cheater conman Trump.
Graphic designer has made a big mistake in the image; they should have put "TRUMP" in gold letter inside jail not the POTUS symbol.
4
Ask any GOP deplorable leaders and voters; would they have indicted Barak Obama?
You will get the answer.
10
During campaigning, DT declared he could safely shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and 'not lose supporters.'
Only a monster thinks like this. He's already told us what he thinks about the law and his relationship to it, and he wasn't even President yet.
This pathological nightmare doesn't recognize laws and his very Presidency is an affront to the Constitution.
37
Where isn’t Avenatti these days? I’ll expect to see a line of motorcycle accessories of his at Target soon.
1
Mr. Avenatti is spot on. Let's get on with it!
26
Avenatti is right, eloquently so. Kavanaugh should be put be out to pasture, his recusal, if he is confirmed, considered automatic, given the Judge's on the record bias in favor of Presidential immunity. Trump's desperation in appointing such a cat's paw is telling.
27
@Jacques Triplett. Cat's paw? Is this a French idiom? Tres drole.
1
Indict Trump for what crimes, malfeasance, corruption, or collusion?
3
How can a president be impeached for crimes or misdemeanors, if not first charged & CONVICTED of said crimes or misdemeanors? Impeaching a president before a court conviction, seems like putting the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse. If the House of Representatives impeaches a president solely on ACCUSATIONS of a crime or misdemeanor, it is not following the Constitution, which clearly states that the House may impeach for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Consequently, a president must be indictable by a Grand jury. AND no one is above the law!
2
@Don't shoot the messenger: It is the Senate who convicts and impeaches. The House indicts.
Avenatti is showboating. He provides no basis for his argument and demonstrates how foolhardy indicting the president would be.
He is right. The matter would be appealed "all the way to the Supreme Court," where, presumably Kavanaugh would be sitting. He insists Kavanaugh must recuse himself. If "[t]he American public’s view of impartiality of the rule of law and of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance," why risk it? No one can compel Kavanaugh to recuse himself and given the stakes, there is no reason to believe he would, any more than the Republican Justices did in Gore v. Bush.
Further, it would give the GOP all the tinder it needs for another onslaught of opposition to the Mueller investigation.
Perhaps the president can be indicted, but would it be wise? Whose purposes would it serve? Avenatti's Op-Ed serves only to get his name in the papers again.
5
If you read the article I think you will find that his thesis is that it is not settled law that a President not be indicted , and thus, if evidence warrants an indictment, prosecutors should go ahead and bring a test case.
4
Prosecutors should not be deterred if there is a compelling case. But test cases should only be brought where the underlying facts are strong and not where the consequences of bringing such a case are carefully weighed. Avenitti has not considered the extralegal consequences, which are equally serious.
IF one reviews the legal argument for immunity, it amounts to an argument it is ill-advised, but in fact has no real foundation in either the text or the structure of the constitution. It may be true it would be unwise, but that’s a different question from whether the constitution forbids it. I’ve never encountered anyone who can point to any specific language barring such indictments. Funny how these supposed “textualists” suddenly give great credence to such non textual arguments when it is the indictment of a Republican President is at issue.
(Also, it isn’t just Kavanaugh who should have to recuse himself but also Gorsuch. ).
5
Trump does not have the guts nor the temperament to withstand the impeachment process.
5
I sincerely doubt that Kavanaugh would have the decency to recuse himself. A person of integrity would never have allowed themselves to be nominated to the court under such tainted circumstances in the first place. If he is approved, there should forever be an asterisk next to his name to indicate his questionable rise. Kavanaugh believes he is a man on a mission and the ends justify the means. He is just salivating at the prospect of sitting on the bench and enacting his hidden agenda on abortion, gun rights and presidential powers.
10
There are other possibilities with Trump:
1. Let's assume that Trump committed a STATE crime. Then he could be indicted under State law, tried, convicted and sentenced to Jail. Only the Governor could pardon him. Under "States Rights" the federal judiciary would have to defer to the State since all laws not reserved by the US Constitution revert to the State.
2. Let's assume that Trump committed a federal crime. He pardons himself. Legal Kutzpah. Before SCOTUS could rule, there would be riots in the streets of major cities.
3. Let's assume that Trump committed a federal crime(s) and Mueller had proof of such. Trump in a rage fires the AG and the Deputy AG until he gets someone to fire Mueller. Repeat of Saturday Night Massacre. We have a Constitutional Crisis. There would be Riots in the streets in major cities.
Pick your one of the above or suggest your own scenario.
3
There is a CLEAR PRECEDENT for indicting and convicting a Federal official while in office:
In 1986, Walter L. Nixon, Jr., the former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, was convicted of perjury before a grand jury by a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
This conviction was upheld on appeal. U.S. v. NIXON, 816 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1987)
Nixon refused to resign his position as a Federal judge.
On May 10, 1989, the House of Representatives adopted three articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The first two articles charged Nixon with giving false testimony before the grand jury and the third article charged him with bringing disrepute on the Federal Judiciary. See 135 Congo Rec. H1811.
The Senate voted by more than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority to convict Nixon on the first two articles. 135 Congo Rec., at S14635 (Nov. 3, 1989). The presiding officer then entered judgment removing Nixon from his office as United States District Judge.
If that can be done to a Federal judge, it can also be done to POTUS. The Constitution does not distinguish between the POTUS and other Federal officials as regards impeachment, other than to say the Chief Justice presides over the Senate when an impeached POTUS is tried, and that impeachment does not negate trial in court.
8
As a Democrat, I’d like to agree the president can be indicted but look at the idea a little closer. Say the Supreme Court does rule against Trump and convicts him of a crime worthy of arrest. (which I believe he has committed) Who is going to arrest him? The military? The President is the head of the military. The Justices themselves? I doubt it. They’ll send the Supreme Court Police. (they do exist) But the President doesn’t want to be arrested. Would the Secret Service just stand around? Is the Executive Branch going to shoot it out with the Judicial Branch? Maybe Congress can send the Capitol Police, but let's hope the military stays out of it.
Once we go down this road, how do we fix it? The Constitution doesn’t give any guidance in this type of scenario. I like Michael Avenatti, but this Presidential indictment plan doesn’t work out too well for Democracy.
A plan that does work well for our democracy is the one where the House brings charges and the Senate convicts. And what a surprise, that’s exactly what the Constitution says we should do.
If the House or the Senate doesn’t end up doing the “job” you want, you can vote bums out of office and get a new batch to do the job, (in the next election cycle). The only people that can remove President are you and me and everyone else through our vote and our elected leaders.
There is no other route, anything else is dangerous for democracy
2
Why is this different than if he is impeached and convicted but refuses to leave the White House? I would expect that if he was indicted and found guilty that Pence would see to at that he gets sworn in and orders Trump out.
@Peter Cane: Except that those institutions you mention also must upheld the Constitution, so what to do if the president does not uphold the Constitution? The president’s legal counsel said his job was to serve the institution of the presidency, not necessarily the individual occupying the presidency.
Can't indict a sitting president? Why? Do you really think this country would go down the tubes without our daily tweeter?
Whatever happened to the order of succession, wherein the VP becomes president? Cabinet heads are charged with keeping their departments running. Check.
Trump wants us all to believe our country would be in ruins if he were booted. Our nation is much bigger than putting our stock in one man.
18
Mr Kavanaugh’s “opinion” runs so counter to the American notion of no one above the law in a nation of laws that anyone with a dime’s worth of common sense would disqualify him for the high court. But in our Republican Senate owned by America’s oligarchs there isn’t a dimes worth of common sense among the lot.
26
Our President and the Republican leaders that keep him in office are all a joke.
Avenatti is a clever lawyer and an astute showman. He is not a joke.
11
Kavanaugh must not be allowed to sit on the SCOTUS. It's obscene that he lied to Congress under oath (!) about his knowledge of stolen documents during his tenure in the Bush Jr administration, and his far right views on social issues will mean the reversal of Roe vs Wade. Also, as Trump literally doing everything he can to indict himself, it would be highly suspect for him to appoint his own Judge. Impeachment would inevitability lead to the SCOTUS. The Court must remain at 8 seats until Trump is cleared of all wrongdoing (unlikely) or out of office.
5
If "indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country," then it is likely that, through an atrocious failure to lead, the president is impairing the country so severely that indictment remains one of a dwindling number of legal tools to stop the the presidentially-influcted carnage.
10
The argument against indicting a sitting president is that frivolous cases would unnecessarily impede the president’s official duties. That makes sense.
In this case, however, the President is accused of violating election laws and it is far from frivolous.
5
I can guarantee you that no one will dare indict a sitting President for a minor-league 'crime' that thousands have previously gotten away with. This is just not realistic and is not going to happen. Failure to file a report that may or may not have been required, depending on what the president was thinking, is not exactly a heinous offence. The same thing is true of exaggerated and misleading statements, which every politician puts out by the hundreds. Any prosecutor knows he would become the laughingstock of the nation if he tried this.
Impeachment is the proper and dignified course, if serious charges can be proven against a president. There is no indication that this is the case.
4
On Planet Earth, the indications are legion.
3
Perjury about an affair was an impeachable crime. I will bet there is evidence of something at least as significant. Maybe felony campaign finance crimes to win the office he now holds!
1
@Jonathan, since when is Conspiracy to Defraud the United States a "minor-league 'crime'"?
I agree with the author’s need for a firm consideration and fair application of law for all. However, there is an impeachment process that can be used against the president and no such process against the majority of US citizens. Mr. Watchler’s words that were quoted are chosen by Mr Avenatti purposely, I believe, because he was removed from the NY Appeals court in what was a torridly strange and abusive drama; he
Avenatti held back in this piece and I'm impressed with his restraint. Like Glen, in this comment section I am absolutely stunned that anyone, particularly someone with a law degree would think the founders intended to excuse a President from answering for potential crimes, particularly those that directly impact his being elected and colluding with an enemy- indeed, any felony. A President is a mere mortal folks. There's a system in place for replacing him and carrying on without him. We have a line of succession, an impeachment process and the 25th amendment. Only a dictatorship would prohibit due process. We the people put Presidents in the oval office (except those that steal it). We and the judicial system must demand a nation of laws at all costs. In their wildest dreams, the founders could not have predicted a grifter would reach the highest office, but I'm certain they didn't leave the word "king"out by accident.
33
If case does make it to the Supreme Court, I believe that both Trump Supreme Court appointments must recuse themselves.
26
Michael Avenatti asserts there is evidence to support an indictment of the president but neglects to mention what crime the president should be charged with. The Stormy Daniels case is a contract law case being litigated in a California state court. The issue is whether the contact Daniels and Michael Cohen signed is a valid contract.
5
Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator with Michael Cohen in felony campaign finance crimes.
5
@Bj Cohen pleaded guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution, but there is no evidence that Donald Trump asked him to make an excessive campaign contribution. The evidence suggest that Trump told Cohen to pay hush money Stormy Daniels, but that was a campaign finance violation only if it was paid out of Trump campaign funds. It appears the money came out of Cohen's bank account, not the Trump campaign coffers. Cohen billed the Trump Organization, not the Trump campaign.
@William Case, there are several crimes floating about as possibilities, including election law violations; money laundering; conspiracy to defraud the US; tax fraud or election crimes related to Trump's misuse of his charity; violations of laws prohibiting negotiations with foreign states; and of course obstruction of justice. I'm sure you could find more by reading closely the various Mueller indictments and the pleadings related to the various and plentiful Trump associates who've pleaded or been found guilty.
Kavanaugh has argued that a sitting President can't be indicted because it would be too much of a distraction from the duties of the office.
Whether or not you agree with that assumption it simply doesn't apply here. Trump seems to have plenty of time on his hands as his daily tweets and rants have shown.
No one, including the President should be above the law.
17
The mandatory recusal that Mr. Avenatti proposes sounds great--provided one reads it fast enough. There is no basis for mandatory recusal of a Supreme Court Justice save that Justice's determination. Neither the Constitution nor any statute addresses the matter.
Folks will have differing opinions on whether soon-to-be Justice Kavanaugh should recuse himself in the event that a case of the type Mr. Avenatti describes should reach the court. But the only opinion that counts is Kavanaugh's.
Oh, by the way, it sounds great to say there is a right to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Court's jurisdiction is discretionary, through the writ of certiorari. The only right most litigants have is the right to ask the Court to grant the writ. Only a tiny sliver of cases make it.
2
There are two different issues here.
First of all, the Constitution expressly provides certain imunity to members of the Congress. It is a general rule of law that when one thing is mentioned, all others are excluded. Thus, it seems clear that "the framers" did not intend to grant immunity to the president - either civil or criminal. Certainly they knew how to do it:
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution states in part, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place."
The other question is the statute of limitations. If an indictment is not voted, does the president achieve immunity by the expiration of the statute of limitations? If so, shouldn't, at a minimum, the indictment be voted and handed up to toll the statute of limitations?
2
@Eugene - On the other hand, they said: "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 seems to imply that the president can be indicted, but only after being impeached and removed from office. I believe a court might interpret it in that manner.
1
@Jonathan A court MIGHT. But the first question is the statute of limitations. So it is important to secure the indictment and THEN discus when Mr. Trump goes to jail.
1
My apologies if someone has already made this point....
But the problem is this: Who will indict Trump? The would be answer is, of course, the Justice Department. The problem with this obvious answer is that Trump is completely in charge of the Justice Department. He alone is responsible for prioritizing and supervising the cases brought by his prosecutors.
This is the reason that Congress is the only body which can hold him responsible. (Unless State Level charges are brought)
2
The NY State AG can also bring charges. Hence the relevance of today's primaries.
4
A non-legal observation.
When Washington was inaugurated, those close to him had a talk about how they should address him now that he held the office of the presidency.
Suggestions such as "Your Majesty", "Your Grace", etc. were rejected as being regal and not in keeping with a republic. No agreement was reached, and when Washington entered the room one of them (don't remember who it was), simply said, "Mr. President".
It stuck because it fit - we were to have a citizen-president.
For the originalists in the house, the framers seemed to reject special treatment.
Another vignette: following Jefferson's inauguration, he returned to his boarding house and stood in line for his dinner.
16
I agree. But please don't run for President yourself as you have no governmental experience, and the last thing we need is another man running on his gut.
4
If Trump agrees to leave the office, I will pay for his one way ticket to Moscow. He can travel first class if surrenders his passport.
18
When will this guy just go away? please. He wants to throw the President into prison for his lawyer buying Daniel's silence with the non-disclosure agreement?. And he seems to say Muellar may have evidence that Trump acted in collusion with Putin during the election - really?. Maybe some fringe players on his campaign staff may have unwittingly met some Russians but seems there is no evidence of any serious wrongdoing.
2
Time will tell.
I would suggest that the question is not whether Trump can be indicted, but whether, if he is indicted, who is going to prosecute him and when is it going to be done.
Mueller has a grand jury and he could probably persuade his grand jury to indict Trump. As Avenatti says, it has been said that prosecutors can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, or perhaps more accurately indict a person for eating a ham sandwich. And surely Mueller could persuade a grand jury assembled in DC or neighboring VA or MD that Trump committed a heinous crime, like paying hush money to Stormy Daniels. But if he does that, how does Mueller keep his job. He would probably be fired the next day, not by Trump, but by Sessions or Rosenstein for violating JD policy. And if he is fired, who can prosecute Trump, I would say nobody at least not until Trump is out of office.
But not all is lost. Trump could be impeached and convicted by Congress. And if Mueller indicts Trump, this Congress or the next Congress probably will consider it. Many people despair at the thought of impeaching and convicting Trump because the Dems do not have and will not have enough votes in the Senate before 2021 to convict. But if the Dems win the House and impeach Trump, it will be clear to the GOP that the nation has abandoned Trump, that the GOP has no chance of doing anything in the next two years, and a better chance of recovering with Pence now and maybe someone else in 2020. So maybe.
1
No one is above the law in our progenitor's nation nor in our present. If anyone is then then the dream of the United States of America has failed and we must start anew.
9
Kavanaugh won't recuse himself because he knows the only reason he was nominated was because of his saying (when he was conveniently finished with skewering Clinton) hat presidents should not be indicted, and he knows he owes Trump this seat. The whole thing is completely corrupt.
11
The problem here is that the payment to Stormy could be presented as a personal arrangement, having no relation to the campaign. It can still be argued that way.
Trump is always just out of the law’s grasp.
You won’t get him this way.
His enemy is boredom. That is the only thing which will bring him down.
2
If Trump doesn't have to obey the law, then neither do I.
20
Every president has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, protect the country, and, while not stated directly, to obey the laws of the land. If Trump has broken the law he should be indicted even if he is a sitting president. If Trump was not a Republican president the GOP would have impeached him months ago. What the GOP has been doing since Trump was inaugurated is disgraceful. They are allowing a liar to continue his lying, to govern using racism and bigotry and financial favoritism to the detriment of the country as whole.
Then again, this is the party that refused to acknowledge that President Obama was a duly elected president, that he had a right and a duty to nominate a Supreme Justice after Scalia died in 2016, and that they had no business interfering in presidential negotiations with another country. Perhaps, by not doing anything about Trump they are protecting themselves.
684
@hen3ry
Since Trump is a habitual liar, he lied by definition when he took that oath. In fact, it was plainly visible to anyone watching that he didn't even understand what it means to take the oath of office.
That alone should be enough to get him removed in a hurry.
1
@hen3ry
Based on the information we have of the Republican Congress they should all be impeached as well for not being the checks and balances that their positions require.
5
@hen3ry there is no "perhaps" about it. You are too generous.
1
This piece and its comments are not addressing an important point. Many of the crimes Trump is accused of, he is continuing to commit on a daily basis. Initiating legal action is not to punish him for past crimes, but to stop him from committing more crimes, of which the United States is the primary victim.
27
It’s about time someone made the point. How can a politician who won an office by cheating to win that office not be indicted for the cheating that got him in there? Avenatti seems the be the only one making this point.
I can understand the idea that a sitting president should not be impaired from doing his duties by indictment for some seemingly unrelated matter to his election. But the way that Trump got himself elected is entirely the point of these investigations and possible indictments.
We should not have a king in this country. No president should be above the law. And if he’s breaking the law he needs to answer now. Not after he’s out of office.
31
Right on. He also needs a thorough psychiatric evaluation.
13
@John from PA
Being a psychiatrist myself I do not see him cooperating with the treatment. Besides, his personality disorder and sociopathy is beyond any treatment. Incarceration is the only step to shield the society from any harm from him. If you disagree then read Dr Bandy Lee’s “A Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”
19
In the picture of the jail cell I do not see Mr Trump.
2
Mr Avenatti, Sir go get him. Keep up the heat. thank you
50
I believe there is a threshold beyond which even the Justice Department and the Supreme Court would agree that a sitting president could/should be indicted. Take murder for example. If Trump walked out of the White House and shot a pedestrian in broad daylight in front witnesses, I believe most people would call that an indictable - not just an impeachable - offense.
And if that's the case, then all we're talking about here is the degree of the offense. And as Mr. Avenatti says, it's no more of a burden to prepare for impeachment than to prepare for a criminal trial. Kavanaugh be damned.
9
There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that says a sitting president cannot be indicted.
However, if the thuggish majority ion the SCOTUS ignores the U.S. Constitution in order to protect a fellow thug, then it may write the Trump dictatorship into law.
8
The American public's view of impartiality of the rule of law and (especially) of the Supreme Court died in 2000 with Bush v. Gore. Or at least, it should have.
No impartial observer can reasonably harbor the illusion that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is anything but a partisan arm of the Republican party, and a staunch advocate for the rich and powerful plutocracy that actually rules our so-called democracy.
23
@rhall, absolutely, that was a blot on SCOTUS and the importance of counting every vote. The results, Iraq War, environmental degradation are among the results.
1
Totally agree.
3
If we can’t indict or impeach him, we can at least isolate him by voting Democrats in the midterms then the other options will come into play to rid the US of this Failed President.
26
So if Trump actually shot someone of Fifth Avenue, would the government be unable to indict and prosecute until he left office? Suppose he raped an intern? Murder, obstruction, rape and perjury are all crimes.
Impeachment is a political act. No fine or imprisonment applies. So why should a criminal act be allowed to fester while a president sits in his big chair. Even worse, what would stop him from getting on Air Force 1 and flying to Russia for protection???
9
I would think that if the following law applies;
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)", and the president of the United States of America can reasonably be viewed as owing allegiance to to the U.S.A., a simple indictment alone would be the least of his worries.
8
Who can forget Doonesbury's Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
May Avenatti's Indict! Indict! Indict! resonate likewise decades from now.
(Or decades from now, nothing will.)
7
The (not very) United States of America began with murder and theft. Right of Possession? Siberians (now called "Indians" or better NATIVE AMERICANS) possessed the Western Hemisphere for thousands of years before Vikings (Leif Erickson & fellow Scandinavian plunderers and rapists followed not so swiftly by Spanish rapists and plunderers such as Columbus blessed by raping priests, and then Dutch and English scoundrels.
Then Africans were dragged here on slave ships.
Justice would be to let the Native Americans and the descendants of African slaves divide up the country, perhaps enclosing Utah as a slave camp for Trump and his Cabinet, where gun fans could use them for target practice.
Seriously, George Washington at least refused to be a king.
Paulette Jordan (an Indian woman running for Governor of Idaho) for President. She rides horseback, has two sons, and always carries a gun. (She is a crack shot.)
Oprah Winfrey for Vice President. She can buy and sell Trump several times, even though his true balance sheet is probably somewhere below bankruptcy.
7
Brilliant take on 'real' american 'history' and hilarious take on 'real' justice. Maybe history won't repeat itself.
1
"Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory."
Ditto for Gorsuch.
30
No matter what you think of trump, It’s sad that The NY Times would give this carnival barker a platform. He is just as pathetic as Trump. All journalistic integrity has been thrown out the window in the Trump age.
4
Is a president when in jail, allowed a smartphone so he or she could tweet?
Can the tweeter account of a sitting president be suspended?
Can a sitting president be divorced?
Can a sitting president president meet with high level Russian mafia in Oval Office without a single American staff, correspondent or a American photographer?
Can a sitting president refuse to vacate the office and the White House once he loses the election?
8
I would love to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. But the question of removing an elected president is inherently political. Impeachment is for Congress. If Trump should be indicted he can be indicted when he leaves office.
2
Avenati goes to great length to argue for the legality of indicting President Trump, but lost in his long diatribe is just what it is for which the president is being charged.
2
i don't understand why this fool hasn't already been indicted, arrested, incarcerated, detained and imprisoned. what will it take to get him gone and when can we make that happen? and then what? Pence??? yikes. !!!!!!!whatever happens next- we better make sure it never happens again..
11
Thoughtful, measured, balanced, researched and fact-checked, expressed clearly and with conviction. How refreshing. And totally not anonymous.
9
If golfing and Tweeting and reportedly watching a lot of TV and raging at aides counts as "too much responsibility to be indicted", then I declare myself immune from indictment for crimes, because I spend more time on my job(s) than Trump does on his.
17
If he can not, will not, reveal his tax returns he should not be above the law. President or not. Clouded in secrecy, hiding money trails and corrupt alignments. Fraudulence on so many levels, from a man who loves to attack unnaturalized citizens and "immigrants". The hypocrisy is astounding. Relies on foreign backing, most likely dodged contributing to American revenue. For many years. He's a fraud. A lech, and most likely a crook. To restore American dignity he should be held accountable, as any citizen would, for any and all fractures of law. Especially as President! He's not, despite his authoritarian bent and the GOP's complicity, the king. He's not a king. He's likely more entitled and unlawful than most crooks could conceive of.
16
While I agree with Mr. Avenatti, I sadly don't trust the SCOTUS to be fair and impartial. Nor do I trust Kavanaugh to step aside himself.
I'd like Mueller to run his course and prove criminal conduct, and or NY. et al to bring RICO and the like, to bear upon the malfeasant Trump and his mafioso family along with all the sycophant enablers and appeasers. Sadly, it is looking more and more like many/most Republicans and their entities are all involved receiving tech aid and or money from said out side sources.
In no way should our President be outside the laws of our country that we, its citizens, are all subjected to.
9
Indicted for what crime? Surely you realize there was no collusion, obstruction, or anything else. Name one crime. There will be no October surprise from Muellet.
You are presuming no crimes have been committed. Mueller’s Investigation hasn’t concluded. His thorough report will demonstrate if any crimes were or were not committed. To assume the outcome now, undercuts the rule of law. Perhaps no crimes were committed by the president and his campaign/WH staff/family. We’ll know upon the publication of the investigation. Right now the jury is still out. Both sides need to withhold judgment until we have all the facts.
I believe, it is better to put up with Trump and his band of criminals, and vote him out in 2020, than end up with Pence. If Pence, the self proclaimed evangelical ends up in the white house, he will destroy this country even more than Trump. With Pence in the white house, the constitution will go out and the bible will take its place.
5
Pence has his own issues around vetting Michael Flynn.
If justice is done the VP won't make it to the finish line.
7
You write your best argument for indicting the President.................
"And if the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings, it is hard to see how that process would be any less distracting than a criminal indictment."
Additionally, the terrific graphic art is missing a toilet. Perhaps that might mean Trump is full...............well, you know. I know.
Maybe that's his problem?
1
The SCOTUS is trump's ace in the hole. Kavanaugh will become a justice, and the SCOTUS will protect trump.
2
Dream on. Kavanaugh will not recuse himself. He has been waiting his whole life not to do such a thing. The “deep state” that Trump whines about is actually composed of people like Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, all the others. They fear a democracy that will defeat them.
16
Indictments require a crime. After all this time, there is still no evidence of any crimes related to the President. None.
No evidence that YOU know of. Robert Mueller and his team have not shown their cards yet, so it’s naive or willfully ignorant to state that no evidence exists.
7
Trump is aleady an unindicted coconspirator in felony charges with Michael Cohen. Forgot that already?
2
I wholly disdain Trump but as a lawyer familiar with constitutional law, I've concluded that a sitting president cannot and should not be indicted. The notion was wrong when considered for Bill Clinton and it's wrong now. The Constitution sets forth the exclusive way to prosecute Trump while he's in office - impeachment.
The picture of a jail cell illustrates precisely why. A sitting president couldn't carry out the executive's duties while subject to arrest. Who controls the nuclear codes while the president is in a jail cell? An indictment now would trigger a full-fledged constitutional crisis, with the 25th Amendment providing insufficient comfort and no panacea.
This does not elevate Trump above the law. He is subject to impeachment and removal by Congress and criminal charges after leaving it. The Framers struck the right balance to hold a wayward president accountable.
3
Kavanaugh has issues serious enough that one of them just merited sending it to the FBI for investigation, as was done today by the honorable Senator Feinstein, not known for ever doing anything rash or without serious reason.Kavanaugh has questionable finances around baseball tickets, gambling, and an exclusive club membership all beyond his means. A Brett Kavanaugh associate and long time friend dropped practicing the LAW due to having accosted multiple women. Funny that. This is the man the Republicans want confirmed to sit on the highest court in the land after he opined last week that Trump should be deemed above the law. I say go after him Avenatti.
8
It is quite amazing that the Democrats and Republicans, in the Senate have been so silent to the lawlessness in this White House.
Is this what George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson envisioned for America?
The fact that we have a sitting President. who has been labeled, “an un-indicted co-conspirator” to serious crimes and there is no congressional uproar is stunning.
Why is it always Michael Avenatti who has to stand up for the rule of law?
Where is the congress? Where are the courts? Has Trump paralyzed the voice of the House, Senate and the courts?
Will OP-Ed’s be the new savior of the union?
We are living history, what is happening with this current administration may be written about in future textbooks.
It is so alarming that we have to state the obvious.
“No person in the United States is above the law”.
It is equally sad that we need an op-ed to remind our elected officials of this very obvious fact.
12
There's a reason we don't indict presidents. If we did, every single president since World War II would face indictment, either for war crimes or crimes against humanity. That would be inconvenient, to say the least.
1
Inconvenient for whom?
4
Plainly the Constitution nowhere states that the Chief Executive is immune to our mechanisms of justice, while in office or afterwards.
The evidence that Trump may be guilty of overt violations of campaign finance laws, and of obstruction of justice, mounts daily. And in the background, harder to prove but infinitely more ominous is the distinct likelihood that he is under the control of Vladimir Putin and therefore guilty of treason.
If we allow possible Presidential crimes of this magnitude to escape legal scrutiny we will essentially forfeit what makes us America.
18
Only in banana republicas are the leaders free to commit crimes. That certainly should not be the case in a country that prides itself on being a "country of laws."
21
“Impair his ability to lead the country.” This President is so impaired at this point that apparently “adults in the room” are currently leading the country. Trump has the focus of a gnat. What difference would an indictment make? The man is a criminal and should be treated as such.
11
A compelling and persuasive case put forth by Mr. Avenatti—the Founders, whom Kavanaugh and others love to quote—had just fought a war to rid themselves of a tyrant king, and establish the rule of law, to which all are subject. Indeed, the through line of the entire Constitution establishes democratic (albeit far from perfect) government, with checks and balances, and the guiding principle that no one is above the law.
A final point—Mr. Avenatti may be too generous to point it out, but I am not:
Kavanaugh’s opinion that presidents are above the law (seemingly to include violent crimes, such as shooting someone on 5th Avenue) only applies, of course, to democratic Presidents: he was Ken Starr’s lead attack dog.
7
I believe you meant to say “REPUBLICAN presidents.”
1
Avenetti for Presidential candidate his views add to the discourse us patriots need to here.
1
I'm still waiting to see Trump's tax returns. His greed will be his eventual undoing—with or without an indictment.
If Americans VOTE, we will restore the reputation of the Presidency, we may once again respect the person who holds our country's top office, and we will awaken from this nightmare.
What really scares me about indicting or impeaching Trump is the alternative. A President Pence is far far far right; driven by faith and ideology more than reason and reality. We need a leader who balances all of those things.
5
"Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory" Absolutely, but to whom do we appeal if he refuses to do so? Not the president, obviously. Does Congress have the power to enforce such a recusal, even if they were willing to do so? Or can the other eight Supreme Court justices rule on the recusal of the ninth? As so often happens, I only end up with more questions every time I think of these things.
I understand Judge Wachtler's "ham sandwich" comment--in my 18 months as a federal grand juror we rejected only one indictment, though we weren't exactly the busiest grand jury in the land. It's just not hard to establish probable cause, which is the standard grand juries adhere to, leaving the higher standards to the petit jury (at least for those vanishingly few cases that ever go to trial, but that's a different subject). And in the case of this president, he is pretty much a walking, talking, twittering probable cause, just on the face of it. If we truly hold that no one is above the law in American, it seems to me that the case must be allowed to proceed, or we're just fooling ourselves about the durability of American democracy.
580
@gary89436. Sadly, the Supreme Court itself holds itself not subject to ethics rules. They view themselves as above the law, so they’re not the most credible authority on such questions of ethics and immunity
@gary89436-Agreed. "Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory" and perhaps it will be whenever the person who paid off the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt Kavanaugh owed becomes known. Surely having baseball debts mysteriously paid off could look very compromising.
https://www.gq.com/story/scotus-kavanaugh-credit-card-debt
3
Everybody has an opinion about recusal, but it is not going to happen and should not happen in the instance of the President. The Supreme Court has lifetime appointment to insulate Justices from improper influences based on their decisions. This means that they cannot be touched by the Executive or Legislative branches during their tenure of good behavior. And maybe you do not believe it but about half the country believes Trump's behavior is good and I am not talking about economic performance. So give up on your recusal hope. Even if he were to be indicted by a state court, it would be after years of litigation, probably in federal court up to the Supreme Court before anything significant legal progress was made.
I'm not a lawyer. I have (unlike the current president) read the Constitution through several times. The language and phrasing of the authors, while hardly what would be considered that of daily conversation, especially in 2018, is generally accessible to anyone with a decent high school education. I find it impossible to swallow the concept that the founders held the office of President of the United States to confer upon its occupant immunity and impunity from the duly passed laws of the land. Had that been their intent, they would have plainly stated the the President is above the law, a King, if you will.
No, I think it safe to say that, confronted with the man currently holding office, his history and his current actions, the authors would be appalled, first, that such a person was President in the first place and, second, that Congress had not removed him post haste.
Those justices on the Supreme Court who consider themselves "originalist" in philosophy should have little problem arriving at a decision if they truly are channeling, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin & Co.
1257
Yes, but... This is a highly political undertaking at a critical political time, just six weeks till an important election across the country. The mere thought / threat this opinion represents will galvanize Trump's base. Please let's not go there till after the election!
1
"I find it impossible to swallow the concept that the founders held the office of President of the United States to confer upon its occupant immunity and impunity from the duly passed laws of the land."
You may have "read the Constitution through several times", but you don't seem to have understood it as a whole. First, the US Constitution clearly states the process by which a President can be removed from office -- i.e. through impeachment and trial by Congress.
Second, if a sitting President could be tried, convicted, and SENTENCED TO PRISON, you would have the absurd case of a sitting President imprisoned while still in office. Do you seriously believe that the framers intended that to be possible under the Constitution?
I suggest that you think harder about the meaning and implications of this sentence from the US Constitution:
"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." (Article I, Section 3)
1
Well, GLN, should the scenario of an imprisoned president actually come to pass, we would have to seriously reconsider the quality of the existing members of the House for failing to impeach, and/or the Senate for failing to convict. The wording of the Constitution does not prevent a criminal trial and impeachment from occurring simultaneously. And if that point in time is this point in time, so be it. Bring it on.
2
I agree with every point Mr. Avenati makes. Test it with the Supreme Court and at least we'll have a precedent. As for Kavanaugh, if he's installed, refuses to recuse, sits in judgment on this question in the case of the president and votes to safeguard Trump from prosecution--knowing that Mr. Trump very likely selected him for that very reason--the Supreme Court as a trusted institution is dead. With Congress similarly floundering on the trust scale, our republic is already in great danger. We'd better get this one right.
35
45th is a very DISHONEST PERSON. Now with plea deal of Michael Cohen it has been exposed that his acts were illegal on his way to highest office of the land. This is silly and made America a BANANA REPUBLIC. It is definitely not a good example in the world stage where USA is the leader of the free world.
7
I'm afraid one already can see tell tale signs of Trump Dry Rot on the Supreme Court...
4
What if he brought his Criminality
with him into the Office ?
Then he Corrupted the Office .
5
the question i have is can he flee the country?
5
@slater65
Only Russia would take him in.
4
@slater65Aside from Saudi Arabia, who would take him?
3
@slater65: Would it not be fabulous if he did ?
The 14th Amendment says that ALL citizens, repeat ALL are entitled to “due process”. This clearly implies that the laws of the United States apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY. Anyone who reads Section 1 and concludes that a president is above the law is either willfully ignorant or delusional.
20
I don't know a single person, even democratic judges in Conn that I go to hoop games with, that think there is a chance that trump will be indicted or impeached. I voted for Hilary but don't hate trump and think this past year and a half has been a waste of time for all these news organizations that keep talking about Manfort Ukraine stuff, Cohen taxi stuff and Story, Karen and now Summer? Ridiculous and the most ridiculous of all is Avenatti.
1
When Rudy Giuliani was mayor he made a big deal about serving on Jury Duty as a public duty. You get the double standard I am heading too...
4
Kavanaugh is right. Indicting Trump might cut into his time for tweeting and golf.
15
Here's something to think about. Where you sit on the political spectrum likely governs your views on this and a number of politically charged issues. If you are NOT in that camp and have true convictions, then you'll have no problem loudly refusing to support, say, Joe Biden for high political office going forward. And he's just one case.
Ukraine, anyone? China?
John Kerry has been nothing if not an opportunist, using his political positions to pad his own and his family's pockets.
And it doesn't stop there! Republicans of note have managed very lucrative "careers" hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries, oligarchs, and outright thugs. All this is happening and continues to happen right under most of our noses.
Trump did not collude with Russia. Even the NYTimes knows this is true. Mueller certainly does by now. Did Trump have affairs with ethically challenged Playboy/Porn floozies? Probably, but it's peanuts in the scheme of things.
If Mr. Avenatti has concrete evidence that Trump broke laws (no, paying hush money is not illegal), then he should present it. Otherwise, this piece and others like it are just more bluster designed to lead the American people by the noses. Time to tune it out.
1
@smacc1 Like or dislike of Trump is not a political issue and has nothing to do with one's political views. There are a number of outspoken Republicans/conservatives who have expressed disdain of Trump. Trump tries to make it a political issue by blaming "Democrats" for everything he has done wrong.
7
Curious what crime it is that you suppose Vice President Biden has committed. Or Secretary of State Kerry, for that matter.
The so-called “president” is credibly accused of campaign finance violations by his own personal lawyer. You conveniently ignore that.
You also have NO IDEA what evidence Robert Mueller and his team possess, as they do not leak. Your smug exhortations to the contrary are a scream in the darkness of ignorance.
1
How do know for sure that Trump didn’t collude with Russians? Do you have some information to share that’s not been made public yet? If you do, please share. I think many would be interested to know.
With Trump it should be tested. Indict him.
11
The case is even stronger for choosing your typical shyster and indicting him as a lesson to similar skittering lifeforms that it’s enough when wags predict that following a nuclear holocaust only cockroaches and tort lawyers will survive. Neither should get uppity, for fear that human beings might do something about that.
It’s already been amply proved by centuries of experience that lawyers make the worst sorts of lawmakers; and they make execrable executives. So, one has to wonder what the personal interest might be in Stormy Daniels’s lawyer making such an argument in the Times. An impending run at a House or Senate seat? An attorney generalship or even a gubernatorial run in La La Land? The official organizer of fanmail received by ALL pole-dancing flounders?
A lucrative book deal, perhaps, or a reality show? You know that money has to enter the calculations SOMEWHERE.
By all means, let’s risk a constitutional crisis and the added stoking of a coal engine powering our profound ideological polarity … to experiment with indicting a president. What’s it to Michael Avenatti? He’s merely eyeing the open sugar bowl in a carelessly-kept kitchen … and thinking of nuclear holocausts.
3
@Richard Luettgen " There is no danger whatsoever. Your pal , Trump , gets to pick his own personal judge.
Besides , you misstate the real danger. The real Constitutional crisis is Trump himself. Over 5000 documented lies in 19 months in office.
Fake news , fake news ! Less than 20 deaths in Puerto Rico. The remaining 2950 bodies have been conjured up by the Democrats.
Who are you kidding , Pal ?
4
@Laurence Voss
Well, excuse ME, Laurence. Did I step on Democrats' attempts to flip the House this November?
Of course a sitting president can be indicted. In cases like this, it is insightful to take it to its (il?)logical conclusion. If the president murdered people in broad daylight, without provocation, with numerous witnesses, we would have to indict him. We cannot do nothing. And anything else would not be legal due process.
So the only question is where exactly do we draw the line on crimes committed by a sitting president. Felony only? Only a felony where somebody is physically harmed? That is why we have a system of laws where we adjudicate situations like this and draw the line somewhere. This seems like the time and place to do that.
13
No one is above the law. To me, this means that even the POTUS must obey the law or face legal consequences. This POTUS has been operating as though he is above the law, immune from prosecution, and willing to do anything and say anything, whether it is against the law or not. He seems scarcely aware that there are such things as laws, as recklessly as he breaks them. A fine role model he makes for us and future generations!
5
Here, here, Michael! Yes.
If not this set of facts, then which set of facts? The office of president is already tainted and nearly fully compromised. How much thwarting of laws or actual law-breaking must we witness before this legal concept is tested and put before the Supreme Court?
It is time. Time to push the boundaries, time to subject the scholars' theories to reality. The people need to know.
5
Agree that the president is, and should be!, indictable. It baffles me that anyone would argue that anyone in our country, especially the President, should be above the law. If there is enough evidence for an indictment, no-one, not the President, not me, not you, no-one, should be excluded from that simple procedure to seek the truth of whether a crime was committed. Especially when political will to hold the President accountable is absent in the party in power, a criminal indictment appears the only recourse. And, it's the procedure! For everyone! Why should our president not have to also follow the procedures, regulations and laws of our country? It's infuriating to me that it's even a debate.
14
If the President can not be indicted for crimes on the grounds that it may hinder him in his duties to discharge his responsibilities then the same can be argued in favor of millions of inmates already behind bars. Surely, thousands of them also had duties to their families. Let's set them free too. Shouldn't everyone be equal before the law?
6
One further compelling argument for indicting this President (despite the abstracted DoJ policy against it) is that illegal actions aimed at gaining office should be deterred. If this President has indeed broken the law to help him gain his position, what signal would his getting away with it send? It would mean that any contender for the presidency could just take a calculated risk in breaking the law: if Iose, I may go to jail; but if I win, no problem on the horizon. Surely in a self-respecting democracy that can't stand... one would hope.
5
If evidence indicates that a sitting president is a clear and present danger to the country, due to the president's criminal activity, then that president should be indicted. Case closed. Any Supreme Court that rules against such a policy is derelict in fulfilling its constitutional mandate.
8
The current disfunction of your government should be a good warning to any other country that may be trying to transition into democracy that the US is not a model for democracy. The apparent situation in the US where nothing is actually mandated as law, but is based on tradition of honourable men in high positions seems to allow a president to be an unannounced king. Any country who’s laws allow their highest leader to pardon himself for any crime can more rightly be considered a monarchy.
Get sane people into power, and change your constitution to turn your country into a democracy where nobody is above the law. Until then, accept that the true democracies of the world see you as a cautionary tale in how not to do democracy.
7
Going back to George Washington and John Adams, our first 2 citizen-Presidents, both assumed that their Presidencies did not change the fact that they were citizens, no more. Why this has changed is, IMHO, nothing more than a self-serving obfuscation first created under Nixon, then later under Clinton and the 2nd Bush.
Unfortunately, the decision of a Justice to recuse is either totally the Justice's decision, or, behind closed doors, a reaction to the other Justices' pressure.
We saw Justice Scalia refuse to recuse when judging Vice-President Cheney, despite having gone shooting with him, and found, not surprisingly, for Cheney.
We saw Justice Thomas, in Bush v. Gore, refuse to recuse himself despite the obvious conflict of his wife, Virginia, being employed by Gov. Bush vetting appointment candidates. Not surprisingly, Justice Thomas cast one of the 5 votes for Bush.
Bret Kavanaugh clearly intends, if reaches the Supreme Court, to take make every effort he can to ensure that Donald Trump does not face justice, and can continue to erode our Democracy as he makes himself de facto emperor. He's already said he would like to be President for the rest of his life, and admired Duterte's power to get rid of reporters. And, as far as I know, NOTHING but Kavanaugh's morality compels him to recuse--and the man lied in his answers to multiple questions, both orally and written.
8
Thank you, thank you, Michael Avenatti, for your passionate, relentless work to reveal to the public the grim reality of this president's character, for your clarity, and for your tireless championing of our democratic values at a time that they are under greatest assault.
Thank you for your patriotism, for your indefatigable championing of FACT, and for what to me is your clear love of this country. Thank you for a glimmer of hope.
30
Constitutionality issues aside, in the difficult case of the indictment of Mr Trump, and the subsequent criminal prosecution passing the high bar of the majority of SCOTUS, I think the risk is not Trump pardoning himself. (Another constitutionality issue)
Rather, in the scenario, Trump poses the greatest flight risk prosecutors will ever experience -- Trump can escape justice by fleeing to Putin's Russia on Air Force One, given Mr. Trump and his adult children, and almost all the Trump's dearest and closest associates have had deep ties to the Russian government, intelligence, or oligarchs. These people have basically built their recent "careers" on Vladimir Putin and the Putin criminal enterprise.
5
@Ganyue I think that escaping to Russia would be the best thing that he, his family and Mr. Pence could do for this country, but not on Air Force One. That's an expensive piece of machinery with probably lots of doodads inside it that would best be kept out of Russians hands. The sooner the better, too, so that we can put this country back together. Trump has barely done his job at all, so missing his "leadership" won't be an issue.
3
@Ganyue This is what I've thought will happen and fear for quite a while already.
@Mary Cheung For 101 years since the founding of the Soviet Union, the Soviet/Russian Evil Empire has had one single most important international objective: annihilate world's democracy and establish totalitarian rule.
Putin won in 2016 and thereafter.
But that's not the end. We must fight, and fight to victory. I'm certain we will prevail.
i didn't know michael avenatti until a few months ago when he started being a daily presence on cnn. he is clearly smart. he is also clearly ambitious. he has on several occasions said he is considering running for president.
he does not inspire me much trust. i'd be terribly wary of him in any position other than attorney of celebrities. i doubt his goals are limited to the wellbeing of the country and its people.
i can't stand trump, i hope he is indicted someday if it is proven that he committed crimes. and i hope michael avenatti stays out of politics and also out of cnn, because i'm pretty tired of seeing him there all the time.
3
The consensus view here seems to be that Trump is leading us toward imminent disaster and we need to eliminate him by all means necessary. That is decidedly wrong as indicated by the following truisms:
The ends don't justify the means.
If you fight fire with fire, the fire is likely to burn hotter, longer, and will surely result in more destruction.
Moderation is best in all things.
Be careful what you wish for.
A tactic once let out of the cage cannot be whistled back again.
When battling the devil you know, there may be one you don't know that is lurking.
Beware the person with nothing to lose.
Great good nature without prudence is a great misfortune.
Sure you can turn these cliches to your advantage. But two last cliches:
Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent; and
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
-Plato
1
Fit for fortune cookies, every one of them.
1
I detest Trump.
Reminded of it everyday.
But, this smacks too much of politics - and by an interested party.
3
Which of the 93 Federal District Attorneys should have the power to indict a president -- all of them? Can't you see that this is a road to chaos and barracks emperors?
2
I agree with you. Part of Kavanaugh's reasoning is that the president has too many responsibilities: he's running the country, and no court should interfere with that. Your counterargument, which I'm surprised you haven't made, would be simply to count up the days he's been playing golf. When the president's lawyers try to stop your deposing Trump in the Stormy Daniels case, you might simply say that you don't intend to interfere with his running of the country. All he'd have to do is sacrifice one of his many golfing days.
18
Thank you, Mr. Avenatti. If Mueller's evidence sets forth a Trump conspiracy with Russians to tilt a Presidential election toward himself, he is a clear and present danger to the United States and took an oath to which he had already mocked. This would be a far worse crime to our Country than him "shooting someone on 5th Ave." What would you do with a criminal President if you couldn't indict?
5
All this navel gazing about indictment while in office is a bit much.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to remove the President.
The navel gazing assumes that Congress won't do it.
There are thousands of prosecutors in the United States. Federal, State, County and Municipal.
In some states coroners can issue subpoenas and warrants.
1
In my view, Congress's Impeachment authority does not prohibit indicting and prosecuting a sitting president for any crime or offense committed by him or her, as some constitutional scholars have suggested. Our Founders would be appalled at the suggestion that our Constitution places the president above the law while in office. Such a suggestion ignores the very history underlying the founding of our democratic republic.
I do agree that indicting a sitting president is not Congress's job. Its authority is limited to Impeachment and Removal of the President from Office, as authorized by and outlined in the Constitution. This is so in order to keep the balance of powers in check.
The criminal jurisdiction of our Judiciary cannot not be curtailed by Congress's Impeachment authority, however. If it could, we'd end up with same separation/balance of powers problem that the Impeachment Clause tried to avoid.
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the People, acting through their district attorneys and attorneys general, the power to prosecute public officials for crimes they commit while in office, including crimes committed by the president.
Maurice F. Baggiano, J.D., author, member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
16
@Maurice F. Baggiano
hear, hear.
"Our Founders would be appalled at the suggestion that our Constitution places the president above the law while in office."
I am also appalled.
4
Mr. Trump is already spending a great deal of his time not carrying out his presidential duties: golfing often, holding rallies, and, of course, indulging in his "executive time." A possible indictment for serious crimes against the people of the United States would certainly appear to take precedence over playing games, riling up his base, and watching "Fox & Friends" on TV.
8
Thank you Michael. You have given us something to believe in again. It doesn't matter to me whether you win the lawsuit or not. What matters to me is that someone is willing to stand up against this terrible political system that has put our national interest in the hands of a madman and a political party composed of people who could care less about our country and our citizens.
23
The question of whether a President can or cannot be indicted probably boils down to (as usual) who the presiding judge(s) are; and more to the point; what their political philosophical leanings are. As Usual. Laws are made by man, broken by man, changed by man, and interpreted by man. In other words it is not; as many pretend; written on stone tablets as much as some would believe. That is why Kavanaugh was so evasive in NOT answering direct questions with honest answers. He knows full well that what the law stands for is what he (if appointed to SCOTUS) and the other 8 justices (5-3) will decide what it means. I seriously doubt that bunch would EVER indict Donald Trump. The law being what they say it is. That is why Merrick Garland never had a prayer.
1
The argument that a president cannot be indicted rests on an opinion of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel. This same office ruled that waterboarding was legal.
8
If there was ever going to be a test case, this is it. My biggest hope is that Pence is also proved to be part of the conspiracy and obstruction (only after the election, of course, since Congress will be involved in their replacements).
My fear is that Trump is the gift that will keep on giving for decades. With the detention of young Central Americans who come here for a better, safer life but end up caged and treated like criminals, I worry they could become radicalized and become our own home-grown ISIS. They, and we, deserve better than this. Their culture easily assimilates and adds good workers to the workforce. I am ashamed at how seekers of refuge are being treated. What if we needed to flee for refuge? Would any country want to take us in? Canada, probably...they’re still nice even though they won’t be pushed around.
4
Is the determination for whether a seated Cavanaugh will participate or recuse exclusively to be determined by the newest justice himself?
Is it within the authority of either Congressional House to determine if any Justice may be impeached and tried on the basis of potentially having lied during his interviews before Congress?
May the Supreme Court itself take up an appeal relative to any fully successful impeachment procedure?
If there is an authority or scholar who has studied these questions and can offer insight into circumstances related to them, that would be much appreciated.
3
The one catch with a Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality: what if they say "no"? Would that not embolden a president to commit actual crimes with impunity, at least while in office?
7
Convening a grand jury to determine the validity and strength of proposed charges against Trump could be a way for the spineless Republicans in Congress to avoid at least some of the wrath directed their way.
Congressional Republican leaders could quietly agree to support such a process by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Why not test the proposition that a sitting president can be prosecuted, indicted, and tried in a court of law for actions the president is alleged to have committed prior to his presidency, and for actions taken by him as president? Let's go for clarity about the indictability of a sitting president.
5
Perhaps if there is any reason for an indictment I would agree, I have seen nothing like that. Stormy wants attention and the money that comes with it, and so does her "lawyer". That the NYT gives them what they want says a lot about them.
@vulcanalex
At this point you ( or anyone else other than the group amassing the facts) have access to the details surrounding Trump, and the others being looked at. There are already guilty pleas and convictions; we’ll have to see how things unfold. I’m sure the same was said of Watergate, until the facts came out and Nixon resigned.
4
We already know how reliable a conservative SCOTUS can be in subverting justice. Remember the Bush v. Gore debacle?
But I agree that now is the right time to test our Constitution on the issue of indicting a President. If the case would ever go to trial and Trump is convicted and ousted, then another unprecedented test of justice will soon follow: putting the rightful winner of the 2016 election in office.
If I was Hillary, I would have my lawyers ready to go since VP Pence was an integral part of a criminal campaign and thus tainted by association.
12
By any standards applied across the American breakfast table, Mr. Trump is a guilty of breaking many laws. Were he a liberal or a minority, Republican rally chanters would be hoarse from calling for the president's indictment. I agree with Mr. Avenatti's claim that now is the time to clarify this constitutional blur. Without an indictment, the precedent we set is that a sitting president is beyond the reach of justice and a new America would replace our country as it used to be.
12
The biggest problem with a federal indictment of the President is that the executive power - which includes the power to charge people with crimes - rests with the President. In the absence of an INDEPENDENT counsel statute - which I happen to think is unconstitutional, and it's by no means certain how SCOTUS would rule on the issue a second time - it is the President to whom prosecutors are accountable.
In other words, Mueller could be walking across the room, handcuffs in hand, only to be stopped by one of the President's favorite phrases, "You're fired." Yes, I know that Rosenstein takes the position that he is the only officer authorized to fire the SPECIAL counsel, but he would probably lose that fight.
Someone below wonders about a possible shooting on Fifth Avenue. Different problems. A state prosecutor does not answer to the President, so the "Take Care" problem is solved. But, while the matter was more complicated in the early days of the Republic (when federal officials could be sued in state courts), we have gradually moved toward a broader understanding of federal supremacy - one that makes it unlikely a court would permit a state to prosecute a sitting President.
The residual argument, which I also think is strong, is that impeachment is the proper remedy - or rather, first step, as I see no constitutional reason why an impeached and removed former President should be immune from federal prosecution.
9
For the obvious, common sense reason - that no one in the US is, in theory, above the law - the president should not be immune from indictment. For one thing, the three branches of government are equal. If the president is immune from indictment, then it should follow that so are judges and congresspeople. But mostly, it would be arguable that, if there is one position from which a person can escape indictment for crimes, that being the president, as absurd as it sounds, in theory, one could run for president for the sole purpose of, having committed crimes, hide behind the no-indictment position, and that could not stand. It seems a king could not be indicted, but not a US President.
12
Unfortunately, justice isn't blind, neither in Iran nor the United States. In Iran it mainly affects political protesters, in the U.S. it penalizes the minorities and the poor.
The fact is that in both countries the separation of powers has become a joke. Whoever is the leader makes the rules. Good luck getting rid of yours.
526
@Hamid Varzi There are strong evidence for the USA being a country more defavourable to the poor and members of minorities than many other democratic countries. But the viewpoint that "whoever is the leader makes the rules" in the USA is surely not defendable.
2
@Hamid Varzithank you, sir.
1
@Hamid Varzi We are working on correcting this mistake. We wish you good luck with yours.
2
The Case for Indicting the President: He's Guilty. The prosecution and the Op Ed rest your honor.
3
The fact that the President has not already been indicted years ago for the numerous white collar crimes he most certainly has committed shows the extent to which our legal system grants immunity to the wealthy and powerful (typically white males - but not necessarily). Mr. Trump has spent his entire life committing white collar crimes where he has stiffed the IRS, contractors, business partners and on and on. The fact that it isn't an African American man stealing a wallet on the streets has meant that society winks, nods and lets it go unpunished. This is how the wealthy and powerful operate. Cheat and thieve millions from people like you and me - no problem. Take a wallet with a $20 and a credit card - go away for years. It's time to change that and hold this man accountable for any crimes that the Mueller investigation finds. And maybe we can hold him accountable for his prior bad acts too!
17
So according to the DOJ Trump could commit any gross crime including murder and not be indicted. How ridiculous is that?
5
Thanks for this. I'm all for sending the White House a subpoena toute de suite! If he can get a pardon later he should have to appear before a grand jury sooner. The President is not king American citizens more than ever these days need to be reassured they are living in a democracy.
2
"Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country." This president spends most of his time watching cabal (pun intended) news on Fox and playing golf. He spends the rest of his time lying and figuring out what else he can do to hurt people and the planet. He certainly is leading the country....right over a cliff. He should be indicted, and the choice of Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court is an obvious attempt to protect himself in this circumstance.
Bring. It. On.
12
Being President of the United States is a temporary job for one citizen person in one branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states where the people are the ultimate sovereign. Being President is not an entitlement nor a title. Separation of the Presidential status from the personal citizen is relevant to this inquiry.
Indictment is the first phase of our criminal justice system applicable to all American citizen persons including the President of the United States. Specifically for crimes committed before becoming President and any crimes committed after becoming President unrelated to prior crimes and unrelated to Presidential duties after becoming President.
Removal from office via the 25th Amendment and impeached and conviction is the sole remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors committed related to being President of the United States. The lessons of Jones v. Clinton and Spiro Agnew's case confirm the potency and primacy of a President as a person.
Donald Trump spends his mornings and evenings watching Fox News and tweeting. Trump spends his weekends playing golf. Fighting a criminal indictment will not cut into his work day. Any more than defending against the Mueller and SDNY probes.
43
As Bob Woodward recently said "Wake up".
Hold the POTUS accountable for his actions.
Democracy requires no less. After all, we are and nation of laws.
No one is above those laws.
57
A criminal malefactor, election thief, and treasonous colluder with a hostile foreign power does NOT belong in ANY office, much less that of president of the USA.
That should be the basic, common sense rule of thumb for the law.
And if Trump is one, two, or all three of the above, he belong out of office and in jail. Otherwise, the rule of law and our democracy and election system are all a sham and a travesty.
14
It is due to his dishonesty, arrogance and incompetence that THIS President has been critically impaired in leading our country for the past 20 months, not the possibility of criminal indictment.
All my life I've been told that our system of justice is grounded in the principle that "no one is above the law." No one.
Our pledge of allegiance, recited by schoolchildren every day, concludes that our one nation is "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." For all.
As John Adams (later President Adams) wrote in 1780, we are a nation of laws and not of men, "in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." No other.
Either these foundational principles of democratic self-government are true, or they are not. Quo vadia?
41
Be careful what you wish for- Pence is more dangerous
1
Of course a President can be indicted. All the Justice department has to do is it's normal action in prosecuting a suspect and have a grand jury vote on the evidence. Given a ture bill the DOJ should take it to the Court and ask that the President be indicted. The Vice President could take over or the President could be out on bond. When trial comes the Vice President would perform the President's duty.
If the President gets ill he can be replaced, if he is indicted he can be replaced.
If he can't be indicted then he is above the law. The theory that he must only face indictment after he leaves office leaves the common legal knowledge that " Justice delayed is Justice denied". In this case it would be denied the American People and permit the indictable president time in office to use the power of the office to desgtry America: like removing the intellectual power from the State Department, removing or forcing out the top prosecutors from the FBI, breaking treaties that previous Presidents have made, denigrate our ally cooperation agreements, and denying the rule of law to selective people, like putting children in concentration camps without their parents. All of which this President has done. And continues to do, probably under the direction, or at least massive influence, from Putin.
We can't stop these evils through impeachment, we can through indictment.
7
Critically impair the ability of the President to perform his duties?
Frankly, any overwhelming distraction of the President - impeachment, indictment, television, golfing, groping - would improve the conduct of the business of the United States. In every respect, the country would be better off with him doing anything other than being president.
6
"Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country."
Of course it would. You see, interfering with president Trump's next tee time or distracting him from "Fox and Friends" or composing his next delusional, self-aggrandizing tweet could endanger us all! If you have any doubt of this, I refer you to the esteemed legal mind currently representing president Trump: Rudy Giuliani.
I think I can rest my case.
6
A nicely presented conundrum which fails to address the possibility that Trump might be indicted on numerous counts: [1] various counts of obstruction of justice; [2] acting in concert with a foreign government to win a federal election; [3] violations of election funding laws - Esq. Avenetti's matters; [4] numerous emolument charges - I could go on. How stunned would the nation be in the event of wholesale indictments?
4
We are all equal under the law. This President needs to be removed in any fashion preferably in handcuffs and go straight to jail. America has a real problem right now and it is not just internal. This nation used to be the country you looked up to. Now it is the country you look down on, just because of Trump. I can tell you that back in France where I come from, this man is hated and laughed at. I don't feel sorry for Trump voters any more. They put us in this mess. We as a collective, as a nation, need to clean up this mess: vote the GOP out, get rid of the guy with the orange hair and the raccoon eyes, prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation ( we all know why he was chosen as the next SCOTUS judge, to defend Trump or pretend he did not do anything) and rebuild the trust that this country needs to be back on the front of the international scene. What a clean up job it will be. So let's roll up our sleeves, let's persist, resist, and VOTE!
13
Either America is a country of "rule of law" or not.
We have already devolved to a country where money and status is a get out of jail free card.
Not indicting because of who you are puts America on the level of other "banana republics".
8
This just in, a SCOTUS transcript of the preliminary hearing on whether or not a president can be indicted.
Attorney, “I would like to ask the court, do you believe a president can be indicted?”
Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, in unison, “What party does this president belong to?”
Attorney, “Republican.”
Justices Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, again in unison, “Well, no of course not. Only Democratic presidents can be indicted.”
29
@John Ranta Ha Ha, they can't ask such things, the justices ask the questions, not the lawyers. So your comment is a joke, not a funny one.
1
It seems there IS Case Law...It is The Magna Carta signed by King John at Runnymede near Windsor in 1215.
This was, and remains the basis for the simple fact that NO One is above the Law.
7
That the NYTimes decided that his was the voice to articulate this argument is troubling.
Mr. Avenatti comes close to Trump's ability to (shamelessly) self promote- aided, just like Trump, by a willing media.
2
It has been DOJ policy for 45 years not to indict sitting presidents. That policy went through vetting from career prosecutors and constitutional scholars in a neutral process, without regard to the particular White House occupant. Nonetheless, the Times is giving precious space to a lawyer who is pursuing claims against the president, who is making money off of those efforts, who suggested that he wants to run against the president, and who is quite interested in the outcome of any legal proceedings. Mr. Avenatti is a successful lawyer but isn't a constitutional scholar by any stretch. Giving him yet more opportunity for self-promotion isn't a worthy way to explore this topic.
1
It’s irresponsible to run this opinion piece. Avenatti has a vested interest in seeing Trump prosecuted and is speculated to be running for the presidency in 2020. His legal analysis, at best, is tainted by the appearance of bias. At worst, he truly is biased. Get a disinterested law professor to offer this type of opinion. Not a man who is being paid to take Trump down.
5
@Jake
They ran it as an OPINION piece for a reason. The "opinion" section is another way of saying this is a person's biased view. It's not a news story that is fact-checked, which should report both sides, i.e, be "neutral." And you say in the same sentence that a "disinterested" law professor should "offer this type of opinion," which doesn't make sense--you can't be disinterested and simultaneously offer an opinion.
9
@Jake
Like you have ...Avenatti has an OPINION, pure & simple.
No matter what your opinion of Michael Avenatti happens to be, he deserves our appreciation for bringing Michael Cohen and Donald Trump to ground. His dogged persistence resulted in the national exposure of two serial criminals who continuously skirt the rule of law.
23
Avenatti: "Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country."
"Some" is uselessly vague. Avenatti needs to cite an actual person. Based on previous reporting, Kavanaugh has used that argument. Doesn't Avenatti know that, or is he afraid of offending someone?
Well written Op-ed, by possibly the next president of the United States. Let's hope so. To the issue at hand, Donald Trump should not be president, his legitimacy is in question. Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator with Michael Cohen. Trump has openly and on numerous occassions obstructed justice. Trump has been treasonous to the United States in his poodle act with Putin in Helsinki. Trump never disclosed his tax returns, a suspicious violation of, what is currently a political norm. There is lots more, but what I enumerated is enough to impeach Trump, and definitely to properly postpone the forced appointment, of the hyper partisan, extreme right wing, Judge Kavanaugh.
8
@sarah
Seriously, why? Because you say so?
All are not equal under the law, because there are corrupt attorneys and corrupt judges who DO take pay offs to rule against people who are innocent. This happens particularly in Family Court--divorces and custody cases. It is rare that these judges and attorneys get caught. I do remember one case in NY where the judge was sent to prison (divorce case) as somehow, someone had planted video/recording devices in his office, so there was proof. As the husband in the case handed the judge a fat envelope of cash, the judge took it, and said: "I will see that she gets nothing." But this corruption is prevalent throughout the justice system. -- As for not being able to indict a sitting president that is POPPYCOCK. There is no such LAW. If you cannot indict a sitting president, then that person is indeed above the law if he/she can commit crimes and get away with them! What kind of a justice system is that????? Impeachment is not the way to go with trump, as his crimes are so many and varied, and he's been carrying on with his corruption WITH IMPUNITY, and God knows whatever else Mueller has found...money laundering, obstruction of justice, other financial crimes. NO ONE should be allowed to laugh in the face of the American people as trump and the gop are doing as they destroy this nation. In fact, trump has scammed and conned people FOR YEARS, and laughed in their faces, not paying them for work they did for him, and then keeping them tied up in court for years.
7
@Elin Minkoff
I do not question your view that "There is no such LAW (saying that) you cannot indict a sitting president,"
But you begin by talking about corruption in "Family Court" in New York. Divorce is handled in Civil Court and I cannot speak for what happens there. But I have, in 20 years close observation, never seen any indication of the type of corruption in Family Court you portray as commonplace.
Family Court is focused on the well being of children. The vast majority of cases involve the problems inherent in low income family situations. To a large extent the people are dedicated and, compared to others in the NY Legal system, underpaid.
I consider them heroes and really dislike to see unwarranted denigrations of their character.
@Brian: I have seen terrible corruption in family court. In many jurisdictions divorce is handled in Family Court. Additionally, it matters not WHICH court handles divorces, custody cases, criminal cases, etc. I am talking about PAY OFFS to both lawyers and judges. These pay offs (and deals) happen in all kinds of cases. Because YOU haven't seen them does not mean that they do not exist. Many people are dedicated to the upholding of the laws; many others are dedicated to putting the almighty dollar into their own pockets at the expense of others. As far as "heroes," good for them! The others deserve to be denigrated. Corruption, wherever it occurs deserves to be denigrated.
@Brian: Just a FYI, see below ~~~~~ And if you think this judge below is the only one, then I have a bridge to sell you...It is all well and good to praise those attorneys and judges who have integrity, character, and uphold the law. As for the other ones, don't tell me not to call them out on their greed and deceit. They should be disbarred and jailed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gerald Phillip "Gerry" Garson (born August 3, 1932) is a former New York Supreme Court Justice who heard matrimonial divorce and child custody cases in Brooklyn. He was convicted in 2007 of accepting bribes to manipulate the outcomes of divorce proceedings. Garson was imprisoned from June 2007 until December 2009.
Gerald Garson - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Garson
This needed to happen 18 months ago. Do it. Now.
5
Putting aside that the US Constitution only provides two ways of removing a sitting president, impeachment and the 25th Amendment, try to imagine the following scenario:
A US marshal (who actually works for the president) or police officer (who doesn’t even have jurisdiction) walks up to the White House gates and tells the guards that he is there to arrest the President and take him into custody.
Anyone see the movie or read the book “The Mouse that Roared?”
4
I simply cannot understand how a crime of (apparent) treason can be overlooked.
Our problem now, is we don't have a valid Supreme Court, with Gorsuch in a stolen seat, and Kavanaugh offering Trump a get-out-of-jail card.
My guess is that Mueller will have shocking evidence about Trump, that can't be ignored. That hope, along with the November elections, might save the country yet.
Otherwise, it will be time for a revolution to save the American way.
7
I generally don't like the author "Trump-lite'style, but this piece seems well reasoned.
2
The argument "it's never been done before" has never held water in nearly any human endeavor you can think of. Albeit, the vast majority of them, have been civilization-enhancing positive endeavors.
Donald and his scheming, lying, backstabbing, treasonous gaggle of Russian enabling mobsters have ushered in an incredibly destructive new normal for virtually anything you can think of.
I say, by way of thanks, let's see if we can nail him under the new normal. Let him go down in history as the first. Worth a try.
7
I wish I were a lawyer. But I'm not.
And, Mr. Avenatti--well . .you have (as they say) a dog in this fight. A pit bull snarling and snapping at some cowering Congressional poodles.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to impeach and remove a President. No question.
The Constitution makes it clear: their powers do not extend one inch BEYOND removing him from office.
The reasons are obvious. In Britain, a century earlier--impeachment could be a capital charge. Malfeasance could bring you to the scaffold and the block.
The Constitution--correct me if I'm wrong!--says nothing about the President's role--NOT as a high public official but simply as a citizen of the United States. And for my part, Mr. Avenatti. . ..
. ..I have never understood why a President should NOT be indicted. All reasons to the contrary I have ever seen. . ..
. .. are simply prudential reasons. Well gosh (they say) the guy's so darn BUSY leading the USA--dealing with foreign affairs--dealing with domestic crises. .. .
.. we gotta cut him some SLACK. Shouldn't we?
I'm sorry. I just don't see it.
Busy? Who doubts it?
He's got LAWYERS. He's got aides. He's got a staff.
And above all. . ..
. ..he IS a citizen of the United States.
Like you, Mr. Avenatti.
Like me.
Protected by the laws of the country he serves.
And therefore RESPONSIBLE--to those very laws.
Like you.
Like me.
Thanks. Fine piece.
21
Thank you Michael Avenatti for pursuing this. I hope he is indicted and is treated the same way every other American citizen would be treated who breaks the law. He is not a king; he is a president who should not be above the law.
5
I would go one step further (have said so many times)
If there is beyond a reasonable doubt proof that this President (and others) were involved in a conspiracy to defraud the electorate with the help of a foreign power to hijack an election, then he should be absolutely impeached. (and convicted)
Furthermore, if that happens, then any and all Supreme Court judges (especially the one seat that was stolen from Democrats) need to be impeached as well.
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
13
@FunkyIrishman
Don't neglect Mitch McConnell, who should be expelled from the Senate. He was willing to deny President Obama the opportunity to fill Scalia's vacancy, because McConnell already knew the fix was in. The Republicans knew they had the election in the bag early in 2016, or maybe even earlier, when they decided they would do whatever it took to hijack the process.
3
Why in the world would the president be above the law and free from prosecution for criminal acts? Even the thought of this is bananas.
I thought the US was born out of opposition to having a king?
9
It is foolish to think a sitting president can't be indicted and convicted of a major crime. Just suppose the president committed felonies related to money laundering schemes on a regular basis connecting him/her to racketeering. This was Mr. Gulliani's often used procedure for convicting mobsters. This is a JUST SUPPOSE!!!
12
It is preposterous to imagine that the president is immune from criminal indictment. If that were the case, we could hypothetically have a known serial killer president in office until he or she was impeached and convicted. That immunity is clearly not part of the US Constitution, it is fantasy thinking.
9
Nice picture! But it needs a small side table for the twitter machine and a tv to watch the Fox News.
3
Let's play this immunity otf the president to its logical results: If indeed Mr Trump did kill someone on 5th Avenue, he might not lose voters and even not be impeached by the Republican current majority in Congress, but I cannot believe the law in America is that he could not be indicted because he is President !!
19
Mr. Avenatti,
Do you have any reason to believe that either Mueller or the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York would actually bring an indictment against Trump?
Because I think it is a good bet that if they did, then Trump would either fire them, or pardon himself, or both, and then the crisis of government we already are in (on account of the President being a) a Russian stooge and b) crazy), would become that much worse.
I want to see Trump in a jumpsuit to match his skin color as much as the next person, but I don't see these prosecutors indicting him.
2
When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he not only gave Nixon a pass for serious criminal acts, he also made it much harder for us to ever hold a president accountable for crimes committed while in office. Donald Trump has, to anyone with eyes and ears and a modicum of common sense, committed obstruction of justice. We need to know if his actions and words meet the legal standard for that offense and the only way to do that is to indict him and make him face a trial.
Ford claimed he was sparing the nation, but what he really did was help to cripple our ability to ensure that our president obeys the law while in office. As with Justice Scalia's assumption in 2000 that the SCOTUS had to act to prevent a constitutional crisis (Bush v. Gore), Ford's pardon assumed this country and its system are so weak that it couldn't survive without intervention.
What we may not survive is a presidency where the law is flaunted and the chief executive is allowed to put himself above the law, which is what we have now.
The difference between Ford's pardon and the SCOTUS's decision in Bush v. Gore was that it is conceivable that Ford's intentions were noble. Bush v. Gore was an act of naked partisanship and the line in the historical sand after which it became obvious that the conservatives on the Court are hypocritical partisans with a clear political (and religious) agenda.
If Trump is indicted, I have no doubt how the five conservatives on the Court will vote.
9
@Ellis6
Flouted.
The counterargument, that a POTUS should not be indicted while in office, but can be subject to trial after he or she leaves office, leads to the preposterous position that a POTUS who commits an illegal act in public, for all to see (such as knowingly and deliberately shooting an innocent person on Fifth Avenue in New York) would be able to thumb his or her nose at the world, for an indeterminate amount of time (in the present instance, either 2021 or 2025).
Who among us gets to put off an investigation and trial for the commission of a crime?
Why should the victim of the crime be subject to a delay in receiving justice ("justice delayed is justice denied")?
The US Constitution 6th Amendment recites:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
A speedy, prompt trial is the ONLY way for both the accused and the victim to receive justice.
That logic implies that the POTUS should be subject to indictment forthwith, not some years from now, and to criminal prosecution if an indictment issues.
19
Bring it. No one, including the president is above the law.
833
@KB
I've been saying it for a while now, "Indict him, and see what happens!
2
@KB-Ahh. Trump's national security advisor John Bolton's attack on the Hague Court now makes sense. Bolton is laying the groundwork to spare Trump an international trial when the scale of his criminality is know. The shame of it is beyond words.
U.S. Attack on Hague Court Is Seen as Bolstering World’s Despots
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/europe/icc-burundi-bolton.html
3
How do you feel about diplomatic immunity?
The author has a good point. The Supreme Court should rule on this question of "can the President be indicted?" It is a constitutional question in nature and the appropriate venue would be the highest court in the land.
However, while it may be "wrong" if a conflicted judge on that court should not recuse himself from hearing such a case, the bigger issue at hand is if the political system is so broken that such a judge could ever be confirmed.
This is the real question.
5
The 25th Amendment, particularly Section 3, provides for a sitting President’s voluntary transfer of authority to the Vice-President if, in a written declaration, the President sets forth an inability to discharge the powers and duties of that high office. The Vice-President then is installed as the Acting President, until the President issues a subsequent declaration that he, or she, is now able to resume that office. This constitutional mechanism addresses concerns about a hobbled, distracted, and dysfunctional President who is under active indictment and unable to serve while under such a serious legal cloud.
5
A good alternative to the 14th amendment argument which is so clear I don’t even see how there is even a question that, as he is a ”citizen”, that the law applies equally to the president.
3
The office of President of the United States is a public service office. It is a government worker and not above the law. If President Trump went out into the street and shot someone, he could be prosecuted despite what he has stated previously. The problem with the United States is that tie of big money to their political offices, which makes people think they are above the law and not mere public servants. Better fix that. End Corporations United.
28
Since 25% of the President's "precious" time is spent on the golf course, and the other 75% seems to be spent watching TV and tweeting, I can't imagine that extra time to defending an indictment would be onerous.
71
@Jim L
Don't forget the stupendous amount of time gallivanting around on Air Force One flying to one or another of his rabble rousing gigs.
2
Mr. Avenatti - Thank you for your huge efforts. I have a question. Are we dependent on the Justice Department for a criminal indictment to be brought? Or could they somehow be bypassed? Would the Justice Department be able to stop the state of NY, for example, from issuing an indictment related to alleged crimes in NY?
11
The feds do not control the states, however, anything that happens at the state level concerning the criminal in the White House will most certain find its way into the hands of the right wing judges on the supreme court. That is why Kavanaugh is being shoved down the throats of the nation. He is an insurance policy that will keep the criminal in office for eight years.
3
"Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country."
I would argue that Trump hasn't actually led the country since taking office, so this point is moot. Furthermore, "leading" the country badly and chaotically is worse than having no one lead it at all.
7
That Trump's abusive stance in government must be confronted, no question about it, as he still considers himself above the law, a most arrogant situation. Trouble is, with republican complicity in full swing, a failed indictment may actually strenghten his hand. And that would be an abomination.
1
Mr. Avenatti must have missed the constitutional law class on separation of powers. Mueller is an Executive Branch officer; he can't indict the President because there is a Justice Department (Executive Branch) policy against it. Avenatti talks about the "rule of law" but he wants to breach the rule of law here to get a certain result. And the reason why impeachment is the only option is because that remedy is specifically set forth in the Constitution; gives Congress the primacy that it is entitled to; and is democratic. The Supreme Court is not entitled to rule on "indictment" as a check on the President. And the argument that interference with a president's duties is not an issue because there is already "chaos" is ridiculous.
3
The idea that no citizen of our nation is above the law is imbedded in democracy and our constitution. Yet, if the president was able to be indicted as ‘easily as a ham sandwich’ by an overzealous prosecutor, it would invariably lead to not only abuse, but the crippling of America as succeeding administrations retaliated in kind. We have pretty much successfully avoided this clash of ideas since our nation's founding. If the Dems win the majority of seats in the Congress in November, we may avoid the issue since they have the power to impeach. If not, we can expect this debate to be placed on the front burner. It’s fair to assume that Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh in either event .
1
Since taking office, Donald Trump has spent far more time composing early-morning Twitter rants, watching television and playing golf than he has doing anything that might even be vaguely construed as "presidential." To argue that he's too busy or too deeply immersed in the duties of his office to stand trial is absurd.
7
"Should Mr. Trump be indicted and in the event that the case reaches the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh’s recusal should be mandatory. The American public’s view of impartiality of the rule of law and of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance"
I am surprised to see you draw what I think is a naive conclusion. Perhaps YOUR view of the American rule of law would be vitiated in the absence of a Kavanagh recusal, but for many of your fellow citizens, and certainly for many, many of those from beyond your borders, the bubble burst long ago.
There is no reason a President cannot be indicted. Even if convicted, the 25th Amendment or impeachment by the Senate would provide Constitutional solutions to a jailed President.
If the President shot and killed someone on national TV, there is an argument that he cannot be indicted? Even Reagan passed on the Presidency while he underwent surgery. I'm sure Trump can do the same while being booked and the D.C. Jail.
So, any previous crimes should clearly be prosecuted if charged. No selective prosecutions.
9
I struggle with the issue of indicting a sitting president. On the one hand, if a president literally "shot someone on 5th Avenue" in front of hundreds of witnesses, it would seem the president should be indicted and charged criminally. On the other hand, I can see some reason for granting immunity, because you don't want every state and local jurisdiction (especially those consisting of the other party) being able to issue the president parking tickets or jaywalking tickets, and taking him/her away from their job. You might have some state and local jurisdictions taking political advantage to arrest a sitting president for non-material types of crimes like that. Imaging some local officer trying to deport President Obama for not being a US citizen due to not having an valid birth certificate! (I'm sure there is an unfortunately large number of republicans who might have tried something like that).
But in general, getting elected president should not result in a complete "get out of jail" card for the 4-8 years in office...
5
The argument for recusal is laughably weak.
For actions taken while President the remedy is constitutional and political and so the responsibility of Congress.
For crimes committed before taking office the President should be indictable during his term.
7
Here's what SHOULD happen, if we wish to remain a democracy with checks and balances: (Kavanaugh) if elected and even Gorsuch, who Trump appointed should recuse themselves for anything relating to Trump and criminal activity. And if they don't, Chief Justice Roberts should refuse to hear arguments. If they don't recuse themselves, just refuse the cases.
3
As a law-loving liberal I suggest that we find that Trump has actually committed a crime before we indict. I'd like to wait for Mueller's report.
3
There is ample evidence on which to base an indictment of Mr. Trump. Under the precept that no man is above the law, he must be indicted. Period.
3
"Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country." Well, patently that doesn't apply in this case since Trump is already impaired.
As to Kavanaugh's being seated, if he doesn't recuse himself wrt Trump's malfeasance, I hope his other 8 colleagues would keep him out of the decision-making process.
4
Whether before or after he leaves office, it is imperative that President Trump be criminally prosecuted. We failed to prosecute President George W. Bush for his war crimes and that led ineluctably to the rise of an even more extreme Republican Party. If we don't prosecute Trump the next Republican President will be worse than Trump.
15
It has long been accepted that only congress has the authority to reign in a sitting president. This notion has now been disproven. The founders never imagined that both houses of congress, and pretty soon, with the appointment of Kavanaugh, the supreme court as well, would all conspire to cover up and in fact enable presidential crimes. But this is what has happened, and It shows that the current system does hold the president to be above the law. Per this tenet, Trump is wholly correct in his famous assertion that he can shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it. Of course the president must be protected from frivolous legal actions, but to say that he totally above being indicted for whatever crime, or above being forced to answer a subpoena, makes him a god among men. It means that he is above the law. It is difficult to believe that this was the intention of the founding fathers. It is highly likely that this so called president has committed serious financial crimes. It is highly likely that he has accepted compensation in return for favors. It is highly likely that he has sold out our republic to a hostile foreign power. It is very convenient for Republicans to now say that the only recourse should be impeachment by the congress, since they control the congress. However the rest of our citizenry deserves much more than that. We deserve justice. A criminal president, immune to prosecution, makes a mockery of our system of justice.
6
Trump is thus far an unindicted co-conspirator, a chief executive unfit for office, deeply suspected of violating the emoluments clause and the most craven example of a persistent, compulsive liar and cheat. If he is considered "above the law," we all may as well pack up and find another country to live.
Say what you will about Michael Avenatti, pro or con. I am pro Avenatti, for he knows where and how to jab at Trump and get under his skin and rattle him, as do Mueller and his investigation. If Avenatti wants to run for president in 2020 (and I doubt he does), more power to him. He'll be as worthy an opponent of the current regime as anyone I've seen on the national stage. And probably a great one at putting Trump on the back foot.
16
Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't even have to recuse himself...
In a court of law if a judge or prosecutor is found to be corrupt all cases they have handled are open to retrial.
What recourse do we have if our president is found to be a traitor and a criminal? Shouldn't every appointment and executive order be suspect too?
Shouldn't we view the appointments and orders from the foundation that everything Trump is doing is to subvert America? Therefore every action no matter how well it can be argued as simply a typical political move, should also be considered as potentially threatening to America.
I believe Trump is a traitor. I believe a movie like "Active Measures". And if you believe it too, then surely you believe Trump is intentionally making choices that he believes (or Moscow believes) will hurt us in the long run. That includes Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.
2
"If ... facts and evidence are adequate for indictment, then prosecutors must be blind to the officeholder’s position." This seems obvious; it's sad that it even needs to be stated.
Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution and related laws. He has committed perjury relative to that oath alone - beyond all of his other crimes.
5
The problem has always been that prestigue, money and being white has stopped these people from being indictied for anything.
An example is 2008 when Banks and Mortgage companies failed to be indicted for their crimes. There are numerous examples of this occurring and it's a very sad state of affairs. Trump and the Republican party are disgusting in how they have been operating in the government system. The average citizen is of no value only the 1% and the lobbiests who are paying incredible sums of money to these Senators and Representatives. I am so angry and upset that protesting is pointless.
3
Trump has the full support of the Republican Congress because they share ugly traits. They are willing to cheat (refused to share information, allowed no debates, changed the way laws are passed, dropped people from voting roles), lie (about the enormity of "illegal" voting), and allow their colleagues to act with impunity (Nunes. Pruitt, McConnell and Trump himself.) They will do nothing about Trump. Meanwhile, we have heard very little about the nature of the information that the CFO of the Trump Organization is sharing with Mueller. I hope he has had enough of Trump and will tell the truth about Trump's business dealings. Only unmistakable legal transgressions and/or a blue wave, will rid us of this man.
3
@Judith Stern
Voting rolls.
1
Once Brett Kavanaugh gets seated on SCOTUS, you can bet your bottom dollar that the right-wing majority will never allow an indictment of Trump to stand. Trump could shoot the Pope, and it wouldn't matter. (Note, however, that when a Democrat gets elected to the WH in 2020 or thereafter, that same right-wing majority will find a way to make sure Democratic president gets indicted if he/she were to take actions far less egregious than those of Trump.)
I'm just hoping that the projected Blue Wave sweeps the Democrats into the majority in the House, at which point there will be real hearings into Trump's endless malfeasances. Finally, his dirty laundry will be aired in public for all Americans to see. Of course, that won't change the minds of Republican voters, but it will further energize Democratic voters, and then perhaps in 2020 we can put this national nightmare behind us.
34
@ALB I've seen minds of Republican voters changing. Especially those affected by the tariffs.
2
Yes Avenatti is self serving but what presidential candidate is not? After the last election I am not trusting of the voting public or the polls. What the Democrats don’t need is a sincere but lackluster candidate. We have tried that three times and failed. We need a a charismatic person who can get down and dirty with the shameless, dirty, and often criminal Trump and his party. Do we need more evidence or are we going to get serious about winning elections?
2
Indictment is the ONLY way to get rid of a criminal president if the majority in Congress are frozen in their seats and refuse to start impeachment proceedings. The Constitution leaves us with no other option. The original framers of the Constitution could never have imagined the situation where we find ourselves today.
5
The idea that a President can not be indicted and prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, and thrown in jail doesn’t make any sense.
Let’s assume that President Trump is found to have conspired with the Russians to defeat our democratic process. Am I supposed to believe that he will get away with those crimes?
When a president commits crimes while in office, impeachment is not enough. If it is, then we are asking for a future president to engage in even worse behavior and able to get away with.
5
Imagine a world where the media (most of it) decided to be fair. Imagine a companion piece that was headlined, The Case for Not Indicting the President. But, I kid myself.
How did it happen that for all their own conservative preferences, FoxNews actually turns out to be the most fair and balanced media source (and you only need to turn to the 2016 study by Harvard, if you can't believe it)? I would not have guessed that.
I've said this a thousand times and I've heard many others say the same, including lifelong liberals (which I was for many years) and Ds - the press has really let us down and are partially responsible for his victory.
What kind of lawyer is this? Somebody eager of cheap publicity? He would get much more attention if he sued Bob Woodward.
I watched Woodward’s interview on the CNN last night.
Is he an American journalist or the Egyptian one? According to his thinking he fits the mold of the latter group.
He was fully supportive of the generals and the insiders within the White House conspiring to prevent the democratically elected president from fulfilling the campaign promises to the voters to protect America from losing the trillions of dollars through the endless trade deficits and subsidizing the defense of the foreign countries by the US taxpayers.
Mr. Woodward was supportive of the staffers who were illegally destroying the draft documents in the White House.
He delivered the intimidation of the voters that such a reasonable foreign policy would mean the end of America and lead to the WWIII.
What would be wrong with withdrawing the US troops home, pacifying the Korean peninsula, uniting the two Koreas, making them self-sufficient for their national defense and establishing the balance trade with such a country?
That would be the shortcut to balancing our federal budgets.
However, since Mr. Woodward was unable to intellectually comprehend this alternative, he concluded that president Trump had the nervous breakdown.
Instead of reporting the illegal undermining of the US democracy in his book, he protected the identity of culprits thus becoming a co-conspirator.
2
"... Some also argue that indicting the president would critically impair his ability to lead the country. ..."
Where is the leading part? He is simply milking his position it for all its worth, and poking a stick in the eye of anyone he doesn't like.
12
Judge Kavanaugh just does not ring true to me. He seemed to relish his role in the Ken Starr investigation of sitting President Clinton, but suddenly sees the light now that the sitting president is a republican. If President Obama's nominee wasn't confirmed because of his"lame duck " status, surely
our current sitting president is apparently legally compromised and is worse than a "lame duck". I think Michael Avenatti makes sense. Let's see if our constitution still works in the face of the current mob in D. C.
39
The argument that Trump is too busy with other matters to be indicted is preposterous.
What is he busy with?
Tweeting?
7
Back in the day, during the Clinton presidency, the common wisdom was that an president could be indicted, but not tried, since imprisonment would de facto remove him as president but merely indicting him would not.
Now not only can the president not be indicted, but maybe he could pardon himself going out the door....something that Kavanaugh says he might support even while intoning piously that "no man is above the law". If being able to pardon oneself doesn't qualify as putting one above the law, what would?
9
The article leaves out a very important item. Exactly what crime would Trump be indicted for and what probable cause exists to support any charges.
Nobody can force a SC Justice to recluse himself from any matter. Each Justice is the sole judge as to whether or not to recluse.
Lastly, during the last presidential campaign, Justice Ginsburg made several derogatory comments against Trump. She would be open to severe criticism if she did not recuse herself.
1
@AJ
Recuse. And forget it about Ginsburg. Are you kidding?
Fine that this guy puts on a strong case against Trump and for Stormy Daniels.
But I object to his using this high profile case to promote his ambition to launch a presidential run on the Democratic ticket against Mr. Trump.
After the disaster of the current occupant of the Oval office, we surely do not need another would-be celebrity candidate in the next presidential race and God forbid in the next White House.
Stay in the court house, Mr. Avenatti, and forget about the White House
It's an interesting thought experiment to test the indictability of a sitting president with Donald Trump's own words - what if he were to shoot a person while walking down 5th Avenue? It's hard to believe that the correct constitutional result is to say "meh - that's a problem for the Congress to sort out through impeachment proceedings."
Not that indictment of a sitting president should be taken lightly, but it seems ridiculous as an absolute principle to say that a sitting president is untouchable by the process of law.
16
How the Supreme Court can review an indictment? The right wing judges will always favor the Crooked President we have. As the SC tilts heavily towards the extreme right, we don’t have justice anymore. Bias, and bigotry will reign supreme.
7
This should have been settled with Nixon. For far too long, we have treated our presidents like elected kings. Even Obama acted like one. I remember some bicyclist accidentally stumbling into his motorcade being tackled by SS and being arrested and charged: enough!
The only reason Nixon didn't go to jail was because of graft and corruption on both sides of the aisle but mostly on the Republican side. Watergate was less about Nixon and more about giving the GOP time to get out of the way. Otherwise, we'd have spent the 70's locking up scores of politicians. We, as a country, had better things to do.
Now, is the time, if there was one, to put the president back in his place. President Washington would be ashamed of how this office is being managed now and for the past several generations.
4
I greatly admire and support all that Avenatti has done to shine light on our lying, amoral, disaster of a president. And I certainly don't doubt that a sitting president can or could be indicted. I also hope that doesn't happen. I think it would set a terrible precedent that will weaken the presidency and may be used strategically in the future for malicious political ends.
I think Gerald Ford got it right when he pardoned Richard Nixon so that the country could heal and restore the integrity of the office and institution of the presidency. An enraged nation was out for blood, because they wanted Nixon to pay, and Ford took a huge hit for granting the pardon. People are enraged today (and I think the rage will grow when Mueller's report is issued). An indictment may satisfy the anger, but the presidency will be hurt by it more than Trump will.
Democracies are fragile and an indictment will open up a Pandora's box that is better left shut. Let Mueller issue his report, let it go to Congress, which will hopefully impeach and convict the president through the mechanisms the founding fathers put in place. Let the next president (whether it is Pence or the Speaker of the House in the event Pence is brought down as well) pardon Trump and send him along to the dustbin of history while the nation heals. I would much rather that happen that a criminal trial and imprisonment.
2
The idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted is absurd on it's face. If Trump indeed shot somebody on 5th Avenue, as perverse as we have been regarding Trump, I cannot believe he would not be placed under arrest and charged with murder. A crime is a crime. There are no set standards for which crimes are indictable and which are not. I have to believe based on this logic alone the president could be indicted as the criminal he is proving to be.
22
Avenatti: "... regardless of stature or station."
That's the usual anti-Trump talking point -- that the President is just like everyone else. But that is false, because there is only ONE President, and that President has unique powers under the US Constitution.
Avenatti: "... Clinton v. Jones, holding that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation ..."
Civil litigation is not the same as criminal indictment, so that is a specious argument. A defendant in a lawsuit cannot be sent to prison.
Avenatti: "... they do not begin to approach the weight of an actual Supreme Court decision."
The Supreme Court will not touch such a case -- the Court will say that it is the duty of Congress to punish malfeasance by the President.
Avenatti: "... who on the Supreme Court should be allowed to review an indictment against the president."
Avenatti didn't state that clearly. The Supreme Court would not be "review[ing] an indictment", because the Supreme Court does not conduct trials. Avenatti needs to posit the LEGAL grounds that would lead to REVIEW by the Supreme Court.
1
In my view 45 should be indicted for crimes committed while in office and directly connected to his official duties, namely obstruction of justice, acceptance of monies (emoluments) from other countries and, in my opinion treason, by holding secret meetings with Putin and advocating for removal or reduction of sanctions against Russia. This is not some scandal about personal actions (sex), this is a fundamental violation of laws designed to protect our democracy. If there ever was a situation where indictment and prosecution of a sitting president is warranted, this is it.
4
We definitely will need constitutional amendments after the Trump disaster --
1) Explicitly prohibiting the president from pardoning any of his associates, current or past employees, witnesses to crimes he may have committed, etc.
2) Explicitly permitting the indictment and criminal as well as civil investigations of a sitting president.
3) Mandating that all special counsel or special prosecutors be delivered to Congress and made public -- to the press and the American people.
1
According to his own cabinet, any distraction for Trump that keeps him from attending to the official business of the Presidency would be good for the country.
21
No reason not to indict him. His extensive TV and internet schedule shows that being president doesn't take too much of his time or brainpower.
9
I think the title should have read 'a President', not 'the President'. It is, of course our current Tip Top Exec that has raised the issue. The decision will be a Constitutional one, a precedent that will affect the Oval Office going forward.
We need to protect our system of "rule of law," not supplant it with "rule by lawyers".
Nixon was an "unindicted co-conspirator" who eventually resigned.
Agnew faced likely indictment when he pled no-contest and resigned.
Clinton was not indicted, although special prosecutor Starr recently opined that he could have been.
Could Trump be indicted?
Whether the Supreme Court might agree to rule on the case might depend on whether it thinks it important enough.
Arguably it is not sufficiently important.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Clearly the Constitution places priority on the procedures by which a sitting president can be impeached and removed from power.
In the case of Nixon, it was widely agreed that the question of whether he should remain in office was to come first, and that legal prosecution, if any, would come only later, and assuming that he in fact did leave or was removed from office. As it happened, Nixon resigned his office but was the pardoned by his successor Ford on the grounds that the "national nightmare" had gone on long enough, and that Nixon had been sufficiently punished. That was a quite controversial step, but there was no argument that an indictment should have come first, and instead of impeachment or resignation.
We are living in dangerous times, and may be watching the unraveling of democracy. Certainly, I was taught, from grade school, that in America, no one is above the law. So, which is it?
14
The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. Its opinion on the right to indict is thus tainted. A grand jury is empaneled by the judicial. Under the seperation of powers and our system of checks and balances a different branch of government should be able to challenge the opinion of the executive branch.
7
Trump could be indicted for any number of offenses from Russia collusionin the 2016 election to multiple business dealing with Russian oligarchs tied to his personal income taxes.
But the better way to deal with Trump is to weaken his hold on power in upcoming mid terms this year and then to deliver a decisive verdict by the American people in a solid rejection of his leadership in 2020.
5
If enough evidence is gathered against Trump to justify an indictment, and it has to go to the Supreme Court, I don't see it passing muster. Even if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recuse themselves, which isn't a given, I can't imagine the four right-leaners would ever declare the indictment constitutional.
An indictment, conviction and prison are my wishes for Trump. However, if there is enough evidence for an indictment, there would surely be enough for impeachment. After that, we would have to figure out how to get rid of Rev. Pence.
12
If the rule is that no one is above the law, the NO ONE is above the law. That is the only logical interpretation. How could anyone argue that?
8
I'm amazed that in a country that purports to be a nation based on law, and equality before the law, that this is even a question. Kavanaugh's refusal to address this should be grounds alone for his removal from the bench let alone permitting him to go forward in potential confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court indeed!
28
@Robert
There are too many holes in our constitution and the US constitution is after all not as good as it is made out to be.
1
@Robert
Agreed. As pointed out, indictment is not a verdict. Kavanaugh would not be offering an opinion on the outcome of the case against Trump, but only whether or not others have the right (and obligation) to apply the law to a sitting president.
I've searched the Constitution for words that tell us a sitting president can not be indicted and I can't find them. Scalia, the most famous "originalist" claimed that we must adhere to the explicit wording of the Constitution and not try to divine what the authors "meant." Since there are no words forbidding the indictment of a president, I don't see how any "originalist" can justify a claim that it is constitutionally impermissible unless he or she resorts to the last refuge of originalists -- blatant hypocrisy. And sometimes it is the first.
1
Michael Avenatti offers an opinion which matches mainstream, although arguably minority, support. As a professor of law I am no more qualified than he but my opinion is certainly of equal stature, and is certainly interesting, and I believe correct.
I am familiar with his entire argument but I believed it gives up more than necessary. I have read the Federalist Papers (they really say nothing of substance here).
The Constitution endorses impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors." While saying very little, the Federalist Papers do say that those violations must have a political impact such that they interfere with government.
Let's say Mueller comes out with an endless litany of violations and factors supporting them. He lists ten violations that he believes impeachable. What if the facts reveal another litany of cases that do not rise to the level of impeachable? The theory that impeachment is the sole remedy applies to high crimes etc. Thus Avenatti opponents claim that only impeachment can lie.
Where do all the crimes that don't amount to the impeachable get judicially resolved? Not Congress clearly. Mueller or others can indict him, including the lesser serious crimes. If not , we all agree he has no license to crime. There is only one alternative. Let the court decide which ones are impeachable or not. As long as there is at least one such (ha!), indictment is essential.
6
@Mickeyd
The framers really dropped the ball when they wrote Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
First, the language and its meaning are archaic. We need an amendment to clarify what offenses should be met with impeachment and Senate trial.
In that section as well as in Article I, Section 3:
"6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: 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."
...we learn nothing about indicting a sitting president. It's clear that a president once removed from office can be indicted, but I see nothing to preclude a sitting president from being indicted while in office. Once again, originalists will just have to make it up to fit their desired result. They learned from Scalia.
1
@Mickeyd HEAR! HEAR!
If anyone is above the law, there is no law. If a president cannot be indicted or can even pardon himself this means that the president can break the law with impunity or even declare law, which he disturbingly does with so-called signing statements.
If the law does not apply to one man the law cannot apply to any, since if one man can make up or break the law at will there is no meaning to the concept of law. If the president is above the law, therefore, there is actually no law, which means everyone is above the law. It's pretty obvious this would not be a good thing for any of us.
42
@David Jacobson
"If a president cannot be indicted or can even pardon himself this means that the president can break the law with impunity..."
The president can be indicted once our of office --everyone agrees about that. The president's pardon power is for federal offenses, so he can't break state laws with impunity, although there are plenty of states today where it might be impossible to empanel a jury that would be willing to convict -- even if the evidence was "beyond ANY doubt." Trump's cult support is probably somewhere in the range of 25%-30%. It only takes one juror out of twelve (8.3%) to acquit.
"It's pretty obvious this would not be a good thing for any of us."
Wrong. It would be great for Donald J. Trump. But you're certainly right about the rest of us.
1
@David Jacobson, thanks for mentioning the abomination of political signing statements.
1
Seems that an indictment might provide leverage, and rationale, for Congress to halt the Kavanaugh confirmation.
26
All this discussion and opinion is interesting, but, as Mr. Avenati points out, this needs to be tested to see what the "real" answer is. All judicial appointees of the President should rightly be recused, but that is not likely to happen.
16
@Brewmeister
It's funny, Kavanaugh is worried about pre-judging a case, but utterly unconcerned about being prejudiced in a case (in favor of the person who appointed him). I guess that's because like the completely apolitical Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh is just a plain ol', aw shucks umpire calling balls and strikes.
I all likelihood, Kavanaugh wouldn't be prejudiced in favor of the president who chose him. That's because Kavanaugh has an agenda -- one with both political and religious components -- and his votes are already set in stone. His motto, like Gorsuch's, could be: "Evidence? We don't need no steenking [sic] evidence."*
*I hope Alito, Thomas, and Roberts don't feel left out. They could easily adopt the same motto.
(Is anyone else nauseated?)
Key point not addressed: if presidents could be indicted, they would have greater incentive to obey the law. Even if their party controls congress.
Mayors, governors, CEO’s, senators, billionaires, and everyone else can be indicted. The world doesn’t stop when that happens. And we’re not indicting presidents left and right, it doesn’t seem like it would be a common occurrence.
68
The incontrovertible facts are that the current occupant of the white house committed crimes in both getting elected (collusion, campaign finance violations) and after election (obstruction of justice, violation of emoluments clause). And these are in addition to his pre-campaign crimes as a bankrupt real estate developer. The argument that a sitting president cannot be indicted, as baseless as it is, is even more troublesome when applied in this case of a person who is a national security threat.
70
All nice and well Mr. Avenatti, but eventually the matter will end up before a right-leaning (extreme right in the case of Thomas) SCOTUS. And now with presumptive nominee Kavanaugh tipping the balance, the outcome is pretty certain . . .
2
@PS,
And, this time, unlike 2000, when SCOTUS threw away honor, forever, we should rebel. There should be riots in the streets. When it's done, and the military and police have justly sided with the People, we should hold our own trials of the Supreme Court. They should be tried for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, and political corruption --- epidemic in the Roberts court. Let them rot in prison!
Only an American-born citizen can become the President. Therefore, citizen first, President later. And all citizens are subject to the same laws. At least, that should be the only inference. If the President has committed crimes he has to be indicted - by a panel of judges. A grand jury comprising of John and Jane Does cannot understand the complexities involved. Besides the jury will never be apolitical! But as mentioned if Supreme Court were to review, indictment will never see the light of day. I have no illusions about this Supreme Court. More so if Kavaugh is confirmed. He has stated that he will always rule according precedent which is established law and there is none. Also that Presidents should have immunity irrespective of crimes committed!
9
@NNI. Who are you to say that we, the people, cannot understand the complexities involved????
Trump is the culmination of many tests for a nation we've always thought of and touted as a democracy. However it all ends, Trump will cause a series of changes to our constitution.
Quite clearly, our democratic principles aren't quite as stout as we've misled ourselves into believing. The first indication we have is that our nation began on the basis of the enslavement of others. There are still parts of our laws, whether federal or state, that relegate a citizen's status to something other than in full standing, whether it is due to the past conviction of a crime or the zip code that person might live in.
The prison industrial complex and gerrymandering have been the main way around giving full citizenship to all. The fact that millions are unable to vote even after completing their prison sentences should stand out.
The way our political parties are structured also points to flaws in "democracy." We've seen, in 2016 and 2018, that how candidates are selected can be manipulated by national party figures and entities. Add in money in politics, and all is not well in our democracy.
Lastly... vetting. There is absolutely no vetting process for candidates, at any level. We've relied, this entire time, on scandals coming out in the media to weed out bad candidates, until Trump.
Can a president be indicted? The fact that anyone can cast doubt strengthens the view that we are still not a democracy.
---
What Trump Did While You Weren't Looking
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-37g
82
@Rima Regas
"Add in money in politics, and all is not well in our democracy."
Not to mention that it's generally understood by those who study these things that we are using rigged voting machines.
3
@Fourteen
There have been reports. Some were thoroughly debunked. We have to be careful when talking about rigging. So far, there is no clear evidence of it pre-Trump and anything that comes out of this Trump administration needs several salt rocks. So...
1
"And if the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings, it is hard to see how that process would be any less distracting than a criminal indictment."
This is an excellent argument. The rational about not "distracting" the president makes no sense. Not to mention the average person's question of "Is there no crime that is worthy of indictment?" It's easier to opine that the POTUS shouldn't be distracted for white collar crime, but what if Trump literally shot some on Fifth Avenue?
Avenatti is right. It's time to settle this.
67
@JMM
Distracting POTUS by a criminal indictment may reduce his volume of tweeting. Since he is incompetent in "governing", compared to at least the last ten US Presidents, such a distraction might allow him to concentrate his chaotic brain onto a memorable topic. Assuming he has the staying power. However, getting an such indictment past SCOTUS seems like a very long shot.
1
1. The Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones supports indictment because it held that a sitting president may be named as a civil defendant, and is therefore required to respond to civil discovery, which is often an onerous and time-consuming process. By contrast, there is no discovery in criminal cases. By definition, therefore, a civil trial is substantially more burdensome than a criminal trial.
2. Nothing in the Constitution's structure or logic bars a state from indicting a sitting president for state law crimes alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the state before the commencement of the president's term of office. States are quasi-sovereign entities, and their power to enforce their several criminal laws is not preëmpted by taking the presidential oath.
52
"States are quasi-sovereign entities, and their power to enforce their several criminal laws is not preëmpted by taking the presidential oath."
That's ridiculous. A politically-motivated state prosecutor could indict a sitting President, and then what? Issue an arrest warrant?
You need to do a LOT more work to explain how that would be constitutional!
1
A state's power to enforce its criminal laws for conduct within its jurisdiction constituting a violation of state law does not depend on the name of the public office the indicted defendant currently holds. A perfect example is the oft-quoted "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue" scenario, where the Manhattan D.A. would ask a state grand jury to return an indictment in a New York minute.
Trump's alleged violations of New York State criminal law before he became president, including NYS tax evasion, stand on the identical footing to that hypothetical murder charge.
And yes, a criminal indictment by a state grand jury would indeed be followed by an arrest warrant -- a warrant which under the full faith and credit clause would be executed by the District of Columbia the moment Trump left the White House.
~ S.R. Simon, Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
@GLN
Michael Avenatti is right that there is no Constitutional prohibition to indicting a sitting president for crimes committed before the president was elected to office.
Avenatti is also right that were there to be such an indictment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – assuming the Senate makes the terrible mistake of confirming Judge Kavanaugh – would need to recuse himself from participating in a review of any lower court decision allowing the indictment.
That being said, it is more important to the nation right now for the Mueller investigation to proceed without the distraction to the nation of the Stephanie Clifford case and for the midterm elections to go forward.
Note that any claimed distraction to President Trump is groundless, because of his self-inflicted distractions intended to deflect criticism on a wide range of subjects having nothing to do with Ms. Clifford or Michael Cohen.
The distraction to a nation readying itself for important midterm elections is important, because we are or should be a nation already worried about an ongoing Russian conspiracy to interfere with yet another American election.
9
The very idea that Judge Kavanaugh would not recuse himself if a case involving criminal activities by the man who appointed him flies in the face of what Americans have every right to expect from Justices of the highest court. Common sense and notions of fair play demands that this man remove himself from such an outrageous conflict of interest and ethical conundrum.
One can only wonder why this would even be an issue.
42
@Doc
This is an issue because President Trump, who has raged and fumed at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself in the Russia investigation, and who has stated that he wouldn't have picked Sessions to be Attorney General if he had known that Sessions would recuse himself, has undoubtedly made it a requirement for Kavanaugh to be the nominee, that Kavanaugh promise Trump that he would not recuse himself.
6
@SeenItAll
This certainly raises the question of whether Trump was intentionally corrupting Kavanaugh's future duties on the Supreme Court, per se, via such a request to his nominee
@Doc
"One can only wonder why this would be an issue."
It's an issue because republicans are currently in charge.
I heartily agree with Mr. Avenatti! I simply don't understand why a sitting President should not be subject to an indictment, if sufficient demonstrable reason for one exists, the same as any other citizen. The rule of law and the bedrock principle that no one is above the law demand it. That an indictment could hamper a President's ability to discharge his/her duties is a poor argument for the extraordinary proposition that we should simply set aside the rule of law when it comes to the President. Indeed, a President who is indictable for provable offenses may hardly be one that we want to be discharging any duties! Surely, there are accommodations available to ensure the Executive Branch can remain functional, even with an indicted President - there is, after all, a Vice President and a Cabinet. A high administrative cost perhaps, but that should be a price worth paying in order to uphold the rule of law and ensure no one is indeed above the law.
39
The Constitution states that a President can be impeached for"....high crimes and misdemeanors..." That tells me that there needs to be a finding of a high crime or misdemeanor before impeachment can be invoked. How do we reach that point without 1) a criminal investigation of the President; and 2) a finding that he/she committed the crime that has been investigated? As I understand it, the finding of a crime can only occur through one of two ways - following a criminal investigation or by the issuance of an indictment by a grand jury - and the creators of the Constitution fully expected that could happen. I have never understood the argument that a sitting President cannot be indicted - that seems to be directly contradictory to the actual language and meaning of the Constitution itself.
67
@gk
No to mention the fact that a president who cannot be indicted would be, essentially a "King:. Was there anything further from the intentions of those who created our Constitution?
2
@gk, you misunderstood "high crimes and misdemeanors". These are political crimes, such as colluding with a hostile power, imprisoning critics of his (or her) administration, or failing to perform the duties of the office. They have nothing intrinsically to do with legal crimes, for which indictment is a proper remedy.
1
"I have never understood the argument that a sitting President cannot be indicted - that seems to be directly contradictory to the actual language and meaning of the Constitution itself."
Quote the US Constitution. You can find it here:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
And be sure you understand that after a President has been removed from office, the now-former President can be tried "according to Law":
"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." (Article I, Section 3)
"American public’s view of impartiality of the rule of law"
Sadly, I have been learning that a large part of the population of the USA - and a substantial portion of the "Electoral Vote" is happy to say "Life Isn't Fair" - as long as life is more fair them, and less fair others.
I would like to see a place that tries "Veil of Ignorance" in making laws and enforcing laws.
3
I think the bigger picture isn't just can a sitting president be indicted for a crime, but can a president go on trial while in office.
Thinking that a president can be indicted, I would argue the process should be 1, indict. 2, impeach and remove. 3, prosecute.
Waiting for impeachment prior to any indictment could mean leaving a criminal in office.
We are seeing what happens when that is the case...
24
@KEM Wouldn't the impeachment need the conviction first, to establish a "high crimes or misdemeanor" basis for said impeachment?
All are equal under the law, but some of us are more equal than others with respect to those laws. What many don't understand is that we have laws designed to treat us differently. Yep, you might be surprised that we're not equals.
Here's an example, California has really lovely labor laws protecting workers, but these very laws do not apply to the state of California. California governments behave very badly because they are above the law that was written for others. Makes no sense, but we're living in a society that could care less.
2
@Ron Bannon. You need to be way more specific and cite the law you are discussing. Otherwise, it just sounds made up.
1
@Sharon Here's a direct response from [email protected] (CA DOL) to a serious wage violation, "When California labor laws were enacted, with a few exceptions, they excluded government employees including those who work for cities, counties, and school districts."
Even more frightening, the US DOL acknowledges wrongdoing, but is unwilling to enforce the US labor laws. Yea, I have evidence, and I would be more than happy to share it with the NYT.
Do Americans believe a sitting president is above the rule of law, and cannot be indicted no matter what he or she does? If the president were a Democrat, would each of us come to the same conclusion? In short, do Americans agree with Mr. Trump when he said that his base would stand by him even if he murdered somebody in broad daylight on 5th Avenue?
Should Mr. Kavanaugh be permitted to rule on a case involving the very president who granted him the priceless gift of a nomination to the Supreme Court? In other words, do they feel there would be no appearance of impropriety were that to happen, whether or not it is what they want to happen from a partisan or tribal perspective?
Preventing the seating of an unfit president was the principal purpose of the electoral college. The original intent of the 25th Amendment was the removal of an unfit president. The oversight duties of Congress are among their most important Constitutional requirements. These institutions have utterly failed to do what they were originally intended to do. In light of that, should the president be permitted to place himself like a king above the rule of law?
70
@Robert, you're reminding us that the Electoral College died 200 years ago when it was turned into a body of puppets, and it's time to bury the corpse.
Mr. Avenatti is correct: if the acts of a President go so far beyond his official responsibilities *and* are serious actual statutory crimes (not just the undefined "high crimes and misdemeanors"), the Justice Department should seek a grand jury indictment which can then be challenged (or not) by the accused. The question of whether a President can be criminally indicted while in office is one that has not yet been definitively answered, and it needs to be, to guide any future such situations should they arise.
It's also likely that, if the question were put to the Supreme Court, we would also get the opportunity to answer the related question of whether a sitting President can pardon himself.
7
Well written and well argued, and much appreciated. All that said, I would never vote for Mr. Avenatti for president as I've had my fill of TV lawyers with even the most remote ties to Trump.
12
The Founders must have had a naive assessment of human nature to assume that a country—any country—would/could never throw up a man without any pretense to decency, a man who would never work to undermine the nation’s principles and its principles for governing.
We are now stuck with the possibility that the sitting president may escape indictment for crimes that an independent prosecutor may find reason to bring.
The Founders, fleeing from what they perceived as an oppressive monarchy—and determined that the same should not be duplicated here—nonetheless wrote protections for the executive to prevent his (or) removal from office for frivolous or mean-spirited partisanship. They could not conceive of an idea where a future president would seek assiduously to trample upon the very papers that they thought would establish checks and balances from an attack from one or the other legs of the tri-partite system they had established.
Looking down upon us, they must be in hurried and panicked (and useless) discussions centering upon this:
“Where did we go wrong? How did we not anticipate that a complete scoundrel might attain to this high office? We gave ‘the people’ a modicum of credit for intelligence and civic attentiveness but how, with the advances in everything imaginable, did we miss the possibility that this young country of ours would be taken over by those cherishing an ignorance beyond imagining?”
The photograph accompanying this piece—could it actually happen here?
37
Those on the side that an indictment of a sitting president would impair his/her ability to perform his/her weighty duties seem to be forgetting one thing. That's why we have vice presidents (not that I approve of the current one). They can constitutionally fulfill the presidential duties during the period the president is preoccupied with his/her defense.
28
Kavanaugh should recuse himself? Of course he should .. its what an honorable man who truly respects the legal process would do. But, this is not Mr. Kavanaugh. That's why Trump nominated him .. plain and simple.
154
@JH
I've met Kavanaugh in person. I would say he does have a clear sense of honor, but that point is meaningless. He is a stooge for the Federalist Society and his "honor" leans him towards what the majority of Americans would consider fringe interpretations of the law.
People need to come to grips with what SCOTUS is, it is a political apparatus no different than the Executive and Legislative branches. Constitutional Law classes in Law School are mainly a semester long running joke of how the SCOTUS majority manages to take whatever analytical steps are necessary to reach the conclusion held from the start.
Kavanaugh is exactly who you think he is, that doesn't mean he is a bad jurist, but he will rule exactly as you should expect.
Isn't impeachment essentially equivalent to indictment? Both are followed by a trial - 100 jurors in one case, fewer in the other.
5
@Paladin No. If he is convicted in the Senate after impeachment by the House, he loses his office. If he is convicted by a court after indictment by a grand jury, he goes to jail.
1
"Isn't impeachment essentially equivalent to indictment?"
No. Grand jury proceedings are SECRET, and there is no judge during the impeachment proceedings in the House.
"Both are followed by a trial - 100 jurors in one case, fewer in the other."
Again, you are making a false analogy. Jurors are chosen from the community and interviewed by the parties during voir dire.
In particular, jurors can be dismissed for *bias* during voir dire. If voir dire were used in the Senate during a trial of the President, EVERY Senator would have to be dismissed.
1
Kavanaugh's refusal to commit to recusal should be disqualifying. Period.
850
@Maryse Elena Kagan hasn’t recused herself from issues she handled as solicitor general. Also, Obama appointed her - so she and Sotomayor should have recused themselves on issues related to the Obama administration or where the Obama team filed amicus briefs?
1
@Maryse
Excellent Point!
2
@Me
Both Kagan and Sotomayor have recused many times. However, even had they not, it wouldn't change the fact that each new nominee with old baggage faces the same test.
What's especially troubling with Kavanaugh is his partisanship: the convenient volte face on U.S. v. Nixon in the immediate aftermath of the Clinton impeachment suggests fear of a potential political backlash.
Then again, his perjury concerning Roe is quite worrisome, too.
N'ah, it's time to vote the bums out. Bringing the question of whether a president can be indicted before this Supreme Court is a political suicide mission. Maybe it gets Michael Avenatti publicity ahead of 2020 - nothing wrong with that - it might also give Donald Trump more ideas about autocracy if the justices were to rule that sitting presidents cannot be indicted.
4
History repeats itself.
Avenatti is another narcissist pushing himself in front of every camera available in order to promote one thing: Michael Avenatti. After aiding and abetting Trump in promoting himself, the media is aiding and abetting Avenatti in promoting himself.
It was no surprise when Avenatti started taking steps that made him look like he was pursuing a run for office, nor when he came out and said he was seriously considering that. Oh, perchance, it just happens to be a run for president (potentially against Trump).
At this point, the media needs to view Avenatti as a presidential candidate and stop giving him free advertising, rather than repeating themselves and doing what they did with and for Trump.
His essay here is a pedestrian analysis and commentary on the issue of indicting a sitting president. It’s all been said before, and recently, and better by others. This Op-ed from Avenatti is not needed from him.
Unless Avenatti's speaking about his client's case, all other commentary from him needs to be viewed as part of an advertising campaign for president. Please stop giving him platforms to campaign for office.
As a progressive, I oppose Trump, his views, and his administration whole-heartedly, but it is sad to see liberal media sources like MSNBC and the Times giving Avenatti his own media reality show.
The enemy of your enemy is exploiting you to promote himself and his career, political or other.
17
@AnotherCitizen
Not in defense of Avenatti but being in any role in government these days is a "reality" show. Not sure how a private citizen using the media to promote him/herself is any different than a senator, congressman, governor, etc, where self- promotion is a requirement for holding office.
5
@Joe Yes, Avenatti can try to get attention as much as he wants, but the media doesn't have to provide him the platforms to do that. He's campaigning for president, or to get more clients, just as Trump was campaigning, and the media should treat those efforts as campaigning, not as neutral news stories. They don't have to give him the coverage for those efforts, just as they don't give every candidate attention for all of their campaign efforts.
@AnotherCitizen
Could not agree more. It’s astonishing to see people lionize him and giving him a platform like this OpEd.
2
Avenatti seems in quite the overwrought, self-serving tizzy about Trump's ostensible "guilt" vis-à-vis his client when both Bush and Cheney--and the Congress that supported them--should be facing the International Criminal Court for war crimes against humanity.
When that happens, we'll know Mueller (and fellows Avenatti, Woodward, and "Anonymous") isn't on a protect-the-deep-swamp-DNC-RNC Politburos snipe hunt, for he should be investigating the CIA and its cohorts Bush and Cheney for war crimes, no question.
Where's that ham-sandwich indicting Grand Jury when you really need them, munching lunch with Strzok's FBI?
4
@Alice's Restaurant: We're not discussing indictments for war crimes in international courts here, but indictments for crimes that are punishable under American law. Nice try to change the subject, and Strzok was targeted by Trump because he specializes in money laundering. The fact that Strzok knew Steele, a well informed and credible Brit on Russian shady financial dealings (gee, how would Steele have dirt about Trump?) worked like a red rag on Trump, who still has not shown us his tax returns. The fact that Strzok's wife worked for the same company as Steele is not a conflict of interest at all. If anything, their interests aligned in finding the facts. Tell me more about Justice Kennedy's sudden resignation when it came out his son was involved with Deutsche Bank's real estate businesses including Trump's and Russians'. That would be a conflict of interest, if his son were to be subpoenaed in a case that could well come before the SC.
1
@Alice's Restaurant you fail to recall that when Bush/Cheney decided to torture they did not ask Congress for permission! And yes, Bush/Cheney should have been tried in The Hague!
4
@Anna
This is about a deep-swamp attack on Trump who stands in the shadow of two warmongers who walk free.
Seems the crime isn't just international but both were guilty at the time they committed the crime based on a CIA lie--Brennan and Clapper should be in prison too.
Very self-serving and righteous your thinking, but propaganda hate-Trump spin in the end.
Thousands of innocent death is Iraq not even close to what Trump is accused of--Why the deep-swamp silence on the warmongers, then and now?
Any time Kenneth Starr's name is mentioned there should be a footnote that he was forced to resign as the President of Baylor for failing to protect students from sexual predators no less.
(CNN) — Ken Starr resigned as Baylor University's chancellor on Wednesday, less than a week after being removed as its president in the wake of sex assault controversy involving the school's football team.
Baylor, a Christian (Baptist) university, removed Starr as its president last Thursday after unveiling the results of an independent investigation that showed a "fundamental failure" to respond adequately to student sex assault allegations, including some involving players for the Texas school's rising football program. "The chickens came home to roost"
50
I want Trump out of there as bad as the next person, but the idea of Pence taking over is an even more miserable thought.
I could live two more years with a lame duck Trump and Democratically controlled Senate and House. He’d in essence be on a pretty short lease, but a Pence presidency would almost be a major Republican coup. That can’t happen.
85
@Ted Siebert
So we don't pursue legitimate criminal charges because you don't like the alternative? Sorry, but presidents who break the law pay the price regardless of who is next in line.
1
@Ted Siebert
I agree. I don't want Pence. I also want Trump and the GOP to bleed out slowly over the next two years. If Trump is gone in a year, the electorate may forget (and God knows the Dems struggle with messaging) the absolute nightmare the GOP brought us. If this train wreck smolders for the next two years, I'm hoping the stench is on the GOP for years.
I want the GOP neutralized more than I want Trump gone. They own this debacle lock stock and barrel.
1
@Ted Siebert - what is it you fear about a Pence presidency - the end of abortion rights? of LGBT rights? Regulations (or lack of them) instituted purely for the benefit of business, without regard for ordinary people? The end of unions and any protection for the worker? If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump will have delivered all that, and more, and will continue to deliver it for decades - to a far greater extent than a President Pence ever could.
I can see why there is the sentiment not to indict a president. if you follow the counter-argument to its logical conclusion, I could see the out of power party coming up with indictments for unpaid parking tickets from 1956.
On the other hand.....Trump. If there was ever a walking, (barely) talking poster for allowing the indictment of a president, he is it.
Because the overarching concept of our democracy is the rule of law, with no individual above it, the president should be able to be indicted, with a higher bar than for the average citizen as far as level of crime and evidence presented.
Now please, Mr. Avenatti, get him out of there, and quickly, before it's too late for all of us.
14
Love the headline photo!
12
well said. all of it. I would even argue that, if anything, the vigor with which prosecutors pursue indictments should be biased proportionately to the "stature and station" of the accused. in other words, to remain a nation of laws, we need to hold those in power should actually a stricter standard; giving them blanket immunity is insane.
political parties, in turn, need to do a better job of vetting their candidates. many in the republican party predicted this sort of end for trump but seemed powerless to stop the populist wave that stamped out any resembling integrity to their nomination process. bringing an actual indictment might spur parties to, for example, insist on more transparency from candidates' campaigns and past business dealings. (mandatory tax return release!) all to the good.
18
@Joseph well said. I keep hoping that a patriot at the iRS will leak Donald’s tax returns!
Forget all this legal gibberish, Trump should be impeached for the criminal acts he has committed in office. His heartless treatment of hundreds of children, his rotten oversight and lies concerning 3000 deaths in Puerto Rico and his continual lying to congress and the American people. Add to this his self enrichment by his continual ownership and involvement in the Trump Organization and there is more than enough impeach this brazen imposter.
157
@Karn Griffen: I think he should be indicted for ALL of this, not impeached. What he did to these immigrants and their children constitutes crimes against humanity, and this calls for an indictment. Nothing else would be acceptable. Some of these kids will never see their parents again! WHO, IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, DOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS????? Lying to the American people CONSTANTLY should be considered criminal. Self-enrichment violating the emoluments clause of our Constitution IS A CRIME. Anyone who has aided and abetted him in these crimes should also be indicted, particularly miller, sessions, and nielsen.
2
It may be the case that indicting a sitting president for relatively inconsequential violations would engulf the office in distractions that are detrimental to the common good, but shouldn't the scope and nature of the charges be considered?
If Trump finally gets around to shooting a man on Fifth Avenue, would there still be hesitation to indict? What about treason?
22
Mr. Avenatti is an imperfect messenger, but that shouldn't obscure the importance of this message.
The people who are currently in power today are reluctant to go down this path, for reasons having more to do with self-interest than national interest. But, if you were to ask the average American whether any President of either party should be considered to be above the law, the answer would be an unequivocable "no." A President should not be able to shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. It should not be subject to the whims of politics, or a secondary consideration after the all-important need to confirm a Supreme Court justice whose mission will be to cement power in one party alone. No American citizen would give a different answer. The law should apply to everybody.
This is a point of national pride. It's what makes us better than Russia. It's what "American exceptionalism" really means to us. We hold our public figures to a higher standard because it makes us stronger as a country.
168
@Kathleen L.
Yes, yes, YES.
@Kathleen L. - no, we don't hold our public figures to a higher standard any longer. If we had, the country would not be dealing with the current nightmare in the WH.
@Kathleen L. In your opinion, how is Mr. Avenatti an imperfect messenger? Just wondering.
I though the War of Independence was to remove the United States from being under the rule and jurisdiction of a King?
If "all men are created equal" then the law MUST apply to all--- regardless of social status or standing.
The alternative is dictatorship.
432
Avabatu for President.
IS MICHAEL AVENATTI RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? ATTORNEY HAS BECOME A FIXTURE AT DEMOCRATIC EVENTS
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-avenatti-running-president-1079418
1
@R. R.
So what - argue the point, not who made it!
There's no way to force recusal of a Supreme Court justice. Mr Avenatti should have done better by referencing the NY state judge presiding over the Summer Zervos defamation case.
In the first sentence in the justification in her ruling to depose Trump, the judge wrote "No one is above the law". She followed up with two pages of ways to accommodate a sitting president's duties.
28
@Joel Ii
A Supreme Court Justice can be impeached by Congress. In fact, there is talk to the effect that Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to Congress when he was appointed to the federal bench as DC Circuit appellate judge, relating to his employment in the baby Bush administration.
1
If campaign finance laws were broken before election day, as they were based on testimony by Trump's former lawyer, then this is before Trump was President and the indictment should be allowed.
On the topic of Brett Kavanaugh, he certainly should recuse himself since he was clearly picked by Trump as a defense against this issue. There is adequate precedent based on Bill Clinton. Despite having a media strategy, Avenatti is clear on his reasoning here and it is compelling. This reasoning is what we should consider.
243
@Will Hogan-Perhaps Mr. Avenatti will cast his investigative skills and laser light focus on Mr. Kavanaugh, who has already accepted money to cover his baseball debts. Who paid?
Mr. Avenatti may be correct that, if confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh SHOULD recuse himself. But Mr. Avenatti is playing with fire when he assumes that Kavanaugh WILL do so. Just as Antonin Scalia SHOULD have recused himself in Bush v. Gore (since his son was on the Bush legal team), the reality is that nothing can force Kavanaugh to do so - not the other Justices, and certainly not the "will" of the American people. Thus, "testing" this indictment idea on the next SCOTUS may well backfire.
15
@Maani Rantel And should testing this indictment backfire, what will that say about the current state of the American experiment?
Well, thank God!
7
To JMM who states, "As a remedy for actions taken while president a president should not be indicted." What about a president who is president in name only and not duly elected? Is this not an important distinction b/w Clinton and Trump in Mr. Avenatti's piece?
20
By Mr. Avenatti's logic, shouldn't any Justice appointed by Trump recuse, including Gorsuch?
57
@Kenneth Bachmann
Gorsuch was one of the choices presented by Trump prior to concerns about the possibility of illegal actions being made public. Kavanaugh was not on that list. He became Trump's pick only after the special counsel's investigation started hitting pay dirt. Recusal is necessary when there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. The appearance of conflict of interest is obvious in Trump picking Kavanaugh. Gorsuch, not so much.
@Kenneth Bachmann Yes, Gursuch too. His seat was stolen from Merrick Garland, and he is every bit as compromised as Kavanaugh.
1
Thank you for turning over column space to this constitutional expert.
6
Thank you Mr. Avenatti, for passionately pursuing justice against this President, and keeping us informed.
Your efforts are shedding light on the dark corners of Mr. Trump's campaign and presidency. We all stand to gain from more transparency into what is really going on here.
It seems utterly unfair that a person can use illegal means of acquiring a position, and then that position enables him to be untouchable for those crimes.
582
The constitution provides for indictments of individuals - where does it say the president can NOT be indicted? Sure, there's the political process that is impeachment, but nowhere does it distinguish the president from anyone else when it comes to indictment.
183
@Mike
Yes. I don't know why people are even wondering whether the president can be excepted from the law.
I totally agree. It's time this theory be rigorously tested. Sans Kavanaugh.
101
I have said this since the wretched day he got elected and I still believe that I could happen.
The man is a full-throated coward.
As soon as he realizes that he is cooked re: money laundering, bank and wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct, et. al. he will take advice from Mattis or Kelly and grab all his marbles and go home to his gilded bordellos.
There the moron will think he is safe, daily calling into Fox and Friends and Hannity, railing on how he was dissed and furiously posting twits.
Then he will face criminal indictments just like any of us would.
If he committed crimes, indict him, subpoena him and get this lowlife loser and corrupt, congenital liar out of here.
880
@Futbolistaviva Yes. A cowardly bully. "Our" cowardly bully in chief.
@Futbolistaviva
"Liar?" You forget his opponent in 2016. Many believe she was a much better liar. Just a reminder. Have a day.
@Futbolistaviva-I hope you are right but I worry that Trump's consistent record of lying is a strategy to claim that he can't distinguish between lying and the truth--so how can he be convicted?
Why wouldn't the NYT have someone with more knowledge or authority write this. This guy is a hired pit-bull...who I'm happy to see is suing the Pres. That does not make him an authority on constitutional law.
13
@gmor Perhaps the discussion of constitutional law, in the face of such apparent disregard for the law in Trump's case, does not necessarily need to be addressed by the best authority on the subject.
Given the volume of evidence already available, the subject could probably be discussed rationally by anyone with some common sense and some background in law, which Mr. Avenatti surely possesses.
14
If a president cannot be indicted while in office, then the statute of limitations should not apply in Mr. Trump's case. Once he leaves office, criminal charges should be brought against him if he's found guilty of any of the many crimes he's being investigated for, no matter how long ago those crimes were committed.
47
Avenatti is a brilliant self promoter and relentless pit bull. (I mean this in the nicest way) who had clearly gotten under Trump's thin skin. To me, it's just a Trump circus and this is in one of the rings.
Trump maintains his 80+% approval rating among republicans and it's going to take more than Avenatti to displace Trump.
147
@Brad
You are so right. It will take the American voter, this November. A democratic house and Senate will make Trump irrelevant.
VOTE!
1
@Brad
Trump is well on the way to displacing himself....I'm grateful to Avenatti, and anyone else who's helped this deplorable president on his way out the door.
4
@Brad
Let's look at the numbers, from Gallup.
"In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?" (Aug 1-12 2018):
Republicans: 28%
Independents: 43%
Democrats: 27%
"(Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?" (Aug 1-12 2018):
Republicans + Republican leaners: 44%
Democrats + Democratic leaners: 45%
"Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Rating" (Sep 3-9 2018): 40%
Barack Obama (Sep 2010 = also Sep of second year): 45%
[Democrats lost the 2010 midterms]
"Donald Trump Job Approval by Party Identification" (Sep 3-9 2018):
Republicans: 85%
Independents: 36%
Democrats: 8%
> So how does Trump's current 40% approval rating break down by party affiliation among all voters? (By the way, that's 40% approve, 54% disapprove, 5% no opinion):
Republicans: 85% of 28% = 24% (of all voters)
Independents: 36% of 43% = 15%
Democrats: 8% of 27% = 2%
(Total = about 40%)
>> The vast majority of Republicans support Trump; almost no Democrats support Trump; a little over one-third of Independents support Trump (even though Independents are split about 50-50 Republican-Democrat)
Just remember that 85% of Republicans represents only one-quarter of all voters.
4
I wonder if the same legal scholars who insist that a president should be immune from prosecution or investigation would accept the idea that a chancellor of a school system should not be investigated even if there are credible charges of child sexual abuse because such an inquiry would impair the Chancellor's ability to cope with a very challenging job. The head in a working democracy may be the first among many, but he is not the one separate from the many. This question tests what we consider America to be. Michael Avenatti wishes us to be a working democracy. As do I.
196
@Lawrence Zajac
And if, as seems likely, Trump is an agent of Russia, the level of criminality goes beyond the ordinary, and the entire situation, appearing to be a kind of coup, requires more than just indicting the president.
I agree wholeheartedly that, if the charges are serious enough and the evidence compelling enough, a President should be subject to indictment. After all, when Trump said he could shoot a person on Fifth Ave, I didn't assume that our Justice Department and our Criminal Courts were in agreement. If conspiring with a foreign enemy to help you get elected president doesn't rise to high crimes and misdemeanors and if the legislative branch refuses to take action for politic survival, then our only recourse is the courts. There is a reason the lady with the scales is blindfolded. It doesn't mean our legislators and judges should be allowed to follow suit for partisan gain. And that should apply no matter which political party the law breaker belongs to.
38
Thanks Michael! When the full range of money laundering, coordination with the Russians, and obstruction are fully detailed in an indictment, the public will be swayed to support that moving forward. The only defense is a capable Congressional investigation and impeachment trial . . . American's do ultimately want accountability.
On a separate topic, how about supporting a National Mediation Act to have a policy preference for facilitated resolution rather than conflicts remaining unresolved or being litigated. Right thing to do and perfect balance to your wonderful pit bull capacities.
See www.mediate.com
1
Starr's comments probably only apply to Democratic party Presidents.
315
Please do not rush this. Just keep pounding. He may not be legally liable, but ethically and morally and emotionally he most certainly is. Every day just help us keep focused on his inadequacy as a president as well as a person. People with fascist bigot tendencies should be give no rest.
4
An old legal maxim, 'hard cases make bad law,' suggests that wouldn't be a good idea. Trump isn't an ordinary president, and the facts involved in any Trump indictment would be extremely unusual. That's the wrong way to establish guidelines that would apply to future presidents.
1
I say do it, indict his if there's the evidence to do so, why not? It will then be decided and if the man cannot be held accountable while in office, he'll be held accountable afterwards...
either way, I do believe justice will be served. Unfortunately, not before he had defrauded this nation for all he can get his hands on, and debased us beyond recognition.
15
Though the article is a wonderful discussion, I would think the central question is whether a sitting President “can be indicted”, not whether he or she “can be indicted while in office”. The latter is a redundant statement because a “sitting” President is by definition “in office”.
Additionally it seems silly, even to the strictest originalist, to think that the framers of the Constitution would allow for the possibility of a criminal continuing to run the country for several years because he or she could not be indicted as President.
127
The idea that this or any other President can't be indicted seems counter to everything we've been taught and disheartening. Yes, frivolous indictments should be avoided at all costs. But when you have a President allegedly engaging in criminal activity and enriching himself in the process, he, like any other American Citizen should not be above the law.
If he is innocent, so be it. But I am doubtful. We cannot have a potential criminal in the White House.
160
@Zywacz: POTENTIAL criminal?????
3
@Zywacz. He has fulfilled his potential.
2
Pretty good.
But is not going to happen.
Save it for after he leaves office.
@Financier Guru
When Trumpski leaves it will be in a plane to Russia. Pence will fly him out of here just like Bush Jr. did for the Saudi royals after 9/11.
1
Avenatti for President!
23
No more Celebrity Apprentice presidents! I don't care how smart he is. His candidacy is all vanity.
6
Avenatti is NO novice. A Kansas Kid. Top of his Class at a prestigious university. Won multiple Class action Law suits AND lest we Americans who tend to forget our own American history 'Honest' Abe was practicing law up until the day he became president (Lawyers both ) Michael Avanatti is more than up for the much needed fight up ahead AND he's worked on multiple political campaigns, most notably, for the most honorable Senator John Kerry. Good candidate!
An indictment of the president would likely give rise to ccountless legal issues that woud be tied up in the courts for yrars. It would paralyze the government for better or worse. Most of the evidence would be confidential until trial, hidden from the public. Thorny national security issues are likely to be involved. And the fact of indictment, guilty or not guilty, would interfere with countless elections. And if Trump would be convicted he would still be President, perhaps workin from prison. Impeachment is the only reasonable way to go.
1
@michjas - Th reason you are wrong is that impeachment is a political process carried out by politicians. What we are talking about here is a judicial proceeding involving a felony.
12
@Len Charlap - multiple felonies, and above all, treason.
The question you have to ask is would the justice department, let alone the president, and especially this president in particular, hesitate to indict you, the reader, whoever you are, for whatever reason?
If the answer is yes, then the president can and should be indicted.
If a president doesn't want to be indicted, or can't afford to be indicted because he has too many important things to attend to, well then he shouldn't break the law. You and I are also quite busy and can't afford to be indicted.
Don't exaggerate how important the president, and in particular this president. He isn't the leader of the free world anymore. That's been destroyed. No one will miss him, and the rest of the world is already moving on. It won't cause havoc to indict this president, and in fact any president.
We, the United States, aren't that important or essential anymore. Trump himself helped set that ship sailing.
97
@Timbuk
Ah, yeah, but we still have a massively-oversized military and we still got a lots and lots of nuclear weapons and we have the biggest economy. So that throws a little wrench in your theories.
3
@Timbuk, "If a president doesn't want to be indicted, or can't afford to be indicted because he has too many important things to attend to, well then he shouldn't break the law. You and I are also quite busy and can't afford to be indicted. "
I agree and thank you for saying it so succinctly.
There's another way to put it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Wow - Mr. Avenatti makes an excellent point- the Justice Dep't. memoranda are just lawyers' opinions. They opine about all sorts of things. They are not laws (made by Congress) nor are they binding judicial decisions about the constitutionality of laws. And they are never the final word even in the Justice Dep't. - every next Justice Dep't. Office of Legal Counsel may have a different opinion than the previous OLC about the same question. Mr. Mueller - let the indictment roll and like Mr. Avenatti says, have drump argue the constitution doesn't allow it.
11
The founders were trying to create a system that was the opposite of the tyranny of British kings. They cannot possibly have thought that the Constitution made the President immune to indictment - in effect, a king who was above the law. The Originalists on the Supreme Court should bear this in mind if, and when, the question reaches their desks.
26