The New Hampshire primary is in less than 14 months, but Democrats are stuck in 2016 still banging the drum for Hilary Clinton.
1
If the influence of Russia affected the outcome of the election in Trump's favor then he is not really the president, but essentially a man posing as president through fake voting results. Indict him. His orange jumpsuit would go well with his fake orange tan.
8
I am not a lawyer. I highly respect the knowledge of Constitutional lawyers to offer the various options such as criminal charges, indictments, whether he conspired with Russia to alter the outcome of the election. For me, that buck stops here.
In my observation of the president, I see an insecurity I have never seen before. I also see fear. He lacks experience in politics, as Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi demonstrated. He has an obsessive fear of immigrants seeking asylum. Terrorists? Most of the professional terrorists are on the other side of the Atlantic. He lies. Lies are a self protection mechanism. They allow him to take a snooze on the park bench. Trump greatest enemy is himself, and it is this enemy's day to day actions we must keep watch on. Let the expects do what they have to do. Let the American people and, for God's sake, Congress keep an eye on Mr. Trump.
3
i'd settle for someone sitting him down and telling him to shut up while they read the charges against him. Every time he opens his mouth, another demerit.
Then, when all his family's crimes have been detailed, he can choose to resign and go away -- and pay back taxes -- or the whole lot of them could be prosecuted,
Just get rid of him before he becomes the norm.
5
It may be constitutional but it would also be idiotic.
Khuzami is playing fast and loose with terms and legal theory, and his interpretation of what is a violation of campaign finance law is just plain Orwellian. Some might suggest prosecutorial abuse is afoot.
Trump has been paying off bimbos for decades and an established pattern of behavior is a legitimate basis fo claiming that the paymant(s) are unrelated to the election and would have been made regardless of candidacy.
Uncomfortably for Khuzami, FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
So Khuzami's campaign finance violation claim is just a lot of hooey. I'm surprised that Cohen fell for it. Ttrump won't and Khuzami can't win.
It is just too much to imagine that those renegade British subjects who decided to shuck the bonds between them and an intolerable king would, in crafting a document to describe a more perfect union, decide that two and a half centuries later we should sit on our hands as a something or other moron tears our government apart for his own benefit. If they did, shame on them. If they didn't, shame on us for even wondering what to do next!
5
"What Do You Have To Lose?"
" Is Mr. Trump beholden to Russian officials in some way?"
That is as obvious and clear as daylight.
Of course they have him in the bag. That became blatantly obvious when Trump made a show of snubbing Putin in Argentina about the latest aggression against Ukraine (already forgotten again now anyway due to Brexit, Cohen, and all other sorts of Trumpeting). Why else would the Russians nonchalantly drop the random remark that - oh yes - there were negotiations going on with Trump building a hotel in Moskau while he was already running for President?
Surely, they knew THAT all along, they didn't just innocently find out about only recently! If that was not a clear shot across the bow to tell Trump that they do indeed have him in the bag, then I don't know what else is.
What amazes me is how stupid Putin and Trump think we are. Actually, they only need to know that the sizeable fraction is indeed that stupid. As long as that minority can't be ignored, they are safe to play their nefarious games where Putin's goal is to weaken the West and Trump's is merely to survive and not go to prison - nevermind what happens to the country.
High treason and crimes! Forget the misdemeanours.
4
The assessment that the head of the Executive Branch can't be indicted was made by, wait for it, a lawyer employed by the Executive Branch. I'm thinking about filing a conflict of interest complaint withe DC Bar.
As for the claim that "the costs to the nation would exceed the benefits of bringing charges during the president's term," what of the costs to the nation of having a criminal run it and the benefits we'd enjoy with him gone?
If, as the writer claims, this is all about protecting the future, I can think of no better protection against another charlatan capturing the presidency than sending this one to prison before his term is over. Lock him up.
6
Im really happy that Trump is the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency, so he will be able to enjoy any sentence, however long, to its fullest, and so will i.
2
The DOJ memorandum written during the Nixon fiasco is not even similar to the problem we have today.
The DOJ memorandum is not the law in the US. It is neither found in federal statutory law or case law, which would make it a precedent. Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual event. As morally corrupt it was, it was never a threat to the nation. Republicans being Republicans allowed a cicil prpoceeding to continue in another case and impeached him for lying. The action against Nixon was a bit more serious because it involved his complicity in arranging a theft of documents that belonged to the democratic party. Even though this theft was impeachable, it did not involve other nations. Now, in the Trump case, after thorough investigations by the CIA, it was determined that Russia (Putin) interfered in an American election, enabling Trump to win and Ms. Clinton to lose. The Trump case is much more serious because it involves another nation, one that is adversarial to American interests. Trump stated publicly that he believed Putin's denial of election tampering, rather than the American CIA's, which was publicly stated differently.
My question is: Does Russia have something on Trump, forcing him to take Russia's position on the question of interference in our election?
It is Trump's duty as president to defend this nation against all adversaries, which he seems reluctant to do in the Russia matter.
I think either indictment or impeachment is necessary.
1
Okay, I don't get why this "investigation" has gone on 2 years after the supposed meddling. We've now just had another big election (mid-term), and wouldn't they have been able to find connections by now? I don't trust all this, this has been going on for far too long. Either he talked to the government about putting up hotels there (likely given his love for his name), or he talked to their President about rigging the US election- an election where Hillary won the popular vote mind you. None of this seems to be making sense, it seems like if he colluded with Russia we'd have had solid proof, and that there would have been an ousting by now, especially since his own party didn't seem to like him. This is why it seems to be mostly hot air, a way to distract the nation from the real issues of boarder security (love Islamic people all you want, but no denying that there are Middle Eastern people who hate America and want to do harm to it), as well as taxes and jobs, those should be the main issues to focus on, not all this did he or didn't he stuff, and I wish as a nation we'd focus on this, because there are millions and millions of people everyday with degrees looking for work, I know, I'm one of them! So much for this "better" economy!! Most of this isn't even related to Trump, it's related to Congress who can't pass any true helpful stuff!
It's just amazing that when it comes to the President, it's "clear" to anyone that justice should be delayed.
What about "common" Americans? For example. The mother who made a mistake selling drugs and is separated from her children because justice shouldn't be delayed.
Should she be allowed to raise her children, and serve time at a later date? Why is that not "clear" to everyone? Why is that any less valid than what's discussed for the President?
Sorry, I don't buy that the President is more important than us "ordinary" citizens, and requires a pass on felonies.
7
By any measure, for whatever reasons, Trump is tougher by far on Russia than his predecessor. Not to mention the the talking big Europeans.
Watching the Google CEO testify yesterday under oath that Russians spent $4,700 on political ads prior to election is hard to reconcile with articles like this. One starts to wonder if there is there there. Maybe the Russia gambit was a mistake and people invested in it are riding a tiger by the tail. Or maybe it is just in our political DNA. Tonkin Resolution, WMD’s in Iraq, Russia wrongdoings bigger than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
A "sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad.”"
What respect and stature? Hasn't Trump already undermined that all by himself?
1
First things first. The question at hand is not whether Trump's Russian connections impair "his ability to protect and defend the nation." It's whether he'll be motivated to assault and destroy our democracy in a last ditch effort to stay out of jail. He has already warned that impeachment would result in a "revolt." Americans would be wise to believe him. What will our leaders do if Trump calls for a million man march on Washington--each hate-filled man armed with an AR-15 and a backpack full of ammo clips? More to the point--what will our military do? Secretary of Defense Mattis has already diminished himself by doing Trump's bidding and lying to the Senate about the Khashoggi murder. Will he choose to defend our constitution or obey his traitor-in-chief? If a military coup is coming, I suspect it will happen within the next two weeks. God help us.
Indicting Trump isn't a distraction-- it's a necessity, and the quickest way to get him to resign so a semi-competent President Pence can govern and try to repair the tremendous damage done by the Russian Conspirator-in-Chief.
The founders put no man above the law, like the deeply hated King George of England. Only two Justice Dept memos, written by the Executive branch agency rum by the President and therefore highly biased, opine that sitting Presidents should not be indicted whle in office. The dubious reasoning justifying this blatant double standard protecting sitting Presidents is that defending criminal charges would take too much time away from pressing official duties. But Trump has proved this wrong by being the laziest Resident in history, with all-morning-long "executive time" almost every day, few events, no study of briefing books every night like Presidents Obama and Clinton, and copious television cable news and tweeting addictions.
Indict him, Southern District of New York, and let the Supremely Corrupt Court, led by two arch right-wing ideologues appointed illegally by this illegal, unfit Resident, decide his fate.
Meanwhile, House Democrats should prepare for open, televised hearings through the Judiciary Committee, exposing Trump's many Russian contacts, the conspiracy to exchange massive Russian help getting him elected and possible massive financial gain through the secret Trump Tower Moscow for his commitment to reverse US sanctions and keep Ukraine.
2
Yes. No where in the Constitution does it say the President of the United States is above the law. The Constitution also has succession and the 25th Amendment, should anything prevent the president from performing his duties. Leaving office for committing a crime is very good reason.
My question is who has standing to force the succession plan for the AG's departure, as it is the law. Also, due to its specificity of the AG Succession Act, it takes precedence over the act cited by the White House Office of Legal Tomfoolery.
1
We all took civics in high school. What was the Founders greatest fear in establishing an office of president, especially one who is commander in chief of the military?
That he would become like a king and refuse to follow the law.
Hypothetical:
Trump goes out on Fifth Avenue and literally shoots someone. The police arrive and disarm him. He's handed over to the federal police and returned to the White house.
An outraged House impeaches him 435-0 the next day followed by a 100-0 senate vote to remove him from office.
As he is about to board the plane as a private citizen to fly back to Trump Tower or to Mar a Lago, the police come to arrest him but they cannot.
Mike Pence pardoned him.
Donald Trump has, literally, gotten away with murder.
Now, common sense; how could the Founders, so fearful of a president acting like a king, constitute a government that would allow exactly that as demonstrated in this hypothetical example.
How could the Founders create a system where the president/king is the ONLY person in America by design who is above the law?
The only answer must be that the Founders intended a sitting president not only could be indicted, but put on trial, while in office, just like anyone else, and THAT is why the constitution is silent on this matter.
It is so obviously necessary as to not be worthy of the ink required to write it.
4
The current president undermines and disrespects the stature both here and abroad of the office of president, he thus impacts his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
1
Look, if Trump conspired to influence the election through pay-offs to his flings and to the National Enquirer, then Trump's presidency is illegitimate. Hence, he and Pence should be removed from office by whatever means available (impeachment and conviction) and Speaker of the House, presumably, Representative Pelosi, would become President, and none too soon.
1
I don't get this whole, "The President is too important to be indicted" thing. Tell any mother that she is not important enough to be disqualified from indictment. There are a lot of indispensable people in the country and they all can be indicted and stand trial. What makes the president so special? If he or she is unable to perform his or her duties because of legal problems then he or she should step down and let the Vice President assume the duties of the president. You want to avoid indictment? Don't commit a crime. As long as we allow this nonsense than we have to recognize that in America, the President is above the law.
1
The main objective of the Russia investigation by Mueller is to determine whether Trump conspired with a foreign adversary Russia to tilt the election in his favor . That is a criminal offense and if enough evidence is uncovered that shows this , he SHOULD be indicted .
As far as what the author contends that an indictment would cause “ stigma and opprobrium “ for the president around the world, thereby diminishing his ability to lead , he does that all by himself , to himself every single day. That line in the article is just a pure joke . Trump is already a laughing stock by his own accord . Don’t blame it on any possible indictment, that’s for sure.
And what if the president murdered someone? He shouldn’t be indicted ?
It’s all ridiculous . A crime is a crime .
2
Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen have replied in great detail to the arguments run in this opinion, as Lederman very probably knows but ignores.
It would be a travesty of justice if trump were not held accountable for his crimes - No one is above the law, no matter how much they think they are.
4
"Although the fixation on Mr. Trump’s possible criminal culpability is understandable, it obscures the principal objective of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system."
Question: Taking this quote at face value, what's the difference?
IF (again, taking the quote at face value) Russia managed to get its hooks into the Trump campaign, it was able to do because those involved made a calculation that they would be able to get away with it. They weren't tricked into doing anything.
While things like hacking and social media bots might require more tech savvy solutions, one thing that would go a long way towards making it harder for hostile/rival foreign powers to gain influence over candidates would be to make it clear to would be co-conspirators that they will face personally ruinous consequences if they go along with it.
Next time a campaign gets a timely offer of "dirt" on their rivals from a foreign power while people are being hacked left and right, perhaps they will call the FBI instead of scheduling a meeting to get the goods. This risk-reward calculation that people like Trump and friends conduct is clearly in need of calculation and maybe their questionable staff of grifters, "fixers," and "coffee boys" will think twice before going along with it too.
4
If indicted while still president, could he then pardon himself? Perhaps on the eve of the Senate vote in which he expects to be removed from office? Until removal he is still President and no where does it say that he can not pardon himself The same as anyone else.
If no man is above the law and if all men are created equal then all men should be called before the courts under indictment to answer for charged criminal allegations, period.
Mueller should bring the issue to the Supreme court to have the question once and for all definitively settled. I actually believe it is settled when the Court let Clinton face civil charges. Any imposition on the President's duties are the same when facing civil or criminal charges.
2
The President is above the law in one respect. He has the pardon power which by precedent has even been used in a general way where charges have not been made. Clinton did not have the authority to dissolve civil cases but he did have the power to dissolve criminal cases, including presumably against himself, by pardon.
I feel that this issue goes beyond the Constitution to the whole basis of the Common Law - literally no one is above the law. No one. I find it hard to believe that anything in the Constitution should override this bedrock principle. Certainly England was not afraid to execute a reigning monarch in Charles I.
2
@David Dyte
Common law is under, not above the written constitution in the US. Common Law is law in the US because the constitution says it is. The constitution is supreme law.
Considering that half his time is spent on the golf course, or Mar a Lago, that he doesn't read briefs, that he spends hours of every day watching coverage of him on TV, I think we have to get serious about how much an indictment would hinder his "running the country" -- if indeed that's how anyone can characterize his time in office. It's laughable to think an indictment would change his routine one iota. At best, a few GOP senators might be less sycophantic. But probably not that many.
5
@Andy
The indictment might indeed hinder him running the country...
....into the ground.
"because ... it obscures the principal objective of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system:"
Ok if you say so. This is like saying the purpose of criminal punishment is solely to protect the public from further abuses without acknowledging the other two equally important imperatives: deterrence and retribution.
1
I do not understand the implicit need to prioritize Trump's offenses. Obstruction of justice, conspiring against the national interests of the United States with an adversarial state power, and violating campaign finance laws are all serious crimes. If any case has sufficient evidence to proceed, then each such case should proceed.
No person is above the law, in particular the President. Why should justice be reserved for the powerless? Shouldn't the President, of all citizens and residents, be subject to justice?
1
Right on the law. Wrong on the policy implications.
The author fails to acknowledge that this time the presidential crime is noteworthy because it relates directly to Trump's election. Few people would disagree that if the McDougal and Daniels scandals (and the payoff to hush them up) had become public during the last month of the election when Trump was already reeling from the Acess Hollywood tape, that could easily have made the difference in what turned out to be a very close election (a few thousand votes in a couple of key states).
So in this case, it would not be proper to use prosecutorial discretion to defer indicting the president on the crimes involved and having him face trial before an impartial jury. The outcome of that trial would undoubtedly influence the course of any impeachment and removal from office, which would be appropriate in the event of a conviction, and could remove that issue in the event of an acquittal. Postpoing any criminal proceedings until after Trump leaves office only serves to give him a powerful motivation to use any means to steal another election, and sets up the possibility that he ultimately may never be brought to justice as a result of a pardon or political irrelevance. This is the perfect time to test the proposition that no man is above the law, and demonstrate that American justice is fair, but sure and swift for the guilty. If Trump is not indicted, it will be hard to make that claim.
1
"Mr. Mueller and the attorney general overseeing him would almost surely calculate that the costs to the nation would exceed the benefits of bringing charges during the president’s term, and therefore urge the grand jury to hold off on taking the final step until Mr. Trump’s presidential tenure has ended."
No doubt William Barr would agree, which may be one of the reasons for his nomination, but is it really better to maintain a disloyal, conflicted president in office than to prosecute him?
Particularly under the present circumstances, where the president's alleged conduct establishes a violation at the core of his oath, quite the opposite of the position suggested by the author is required. The threat to the nation is the continuation in office of a person who cannot be relied upon to adhere to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and who has been disloyal, either for his own personal financial gain or because he is being extorted by a foreign government. Such a president, as is Trump, presents a ongoing danger to our democracy. If a grand jury decides he committed federal felony offenses--and it is obvious he is subject to indictment as an both aider and abettor and a conspirator for at least two--the country would be better served if he is indicted sooner rather than later and tried in due course.
2
It is clear that Trump is not "protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It is hard to find a single word in that oath that he is respecting. He is just protecting and defending his own interests. nothing more
2
The DOJ opinion is an interpretation of federal law and federal interests only. If state prosecutors obtained an indictment for alleged violations of state law, it is unlikely that the courts of that state would find any compelling reason, under state law, why that prosecution should not go forward. If an argument is made that defending oneself detracts from doing done's job as president, the state courts can say that Trump is perfectly free to step aside, temporarily or permanently. It is not as if any state (say, New York) has any compelling interest in whether Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or anyone else is the one performing the duties of the U.S. president.
It is possible that the federal courts could articulate a compelling federal interest that prevents state prosecution of a sitting president, but I would pose the same question: the nation needs someone to function as president at all time, but why does that person have to be Donald Trump?
1
"The office nevertheless concluded that an indictment would be unconstitutional in light of a powerful functional consideration: Because a trial during the president’s term would be precluded, an indictment would subject the president to the “stigma and opprobrium” of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law - a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
An "originalist/strict constructionist" would never accept this rationalization to decide that an indictment would be unconstitutional. It would render the Constitution intrinsically flawed and inconsistent, for the same rationalization could be used to argue that impeachment, although expressly delineated within the text, for it would undermine the President's ability to be a president.
Indictment of a sitting president is not a legal decision but a political and moral decision, a statement of the values of our society.
4
This is a very important and startling article.
Lederman, a constitutional expert and seasoned DOJ legal expert indicates Mueller is NOT achieving his "PRIMARY mandate which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to IDENTIFY CONTINUING THREATS to our electoral system."
Please read that again.
Lederman suggests that Mueller has focused TOO MUCH ON TRUMP and not enough on continuing threats to our electoral system. Obviously Russia is one. But what about:
-China
-Iran
-North Korea
-Hacking vulnerability of electronic election system
-Social media influence
etc.
I don't believe Bob Mueller has devoted any of his considerable resources on this. If so, he is NEGLECTING his primary mandate.
Rather than chasing the more sensational indictments of Trump associates, and many think now TRUMP himself.
This could be a huge uncovered national scandal!
Yes, the point of the investigation is to isolate Russian interference in our democracy and counter any such efforts effectively. To expect the best from Trump might be deemed naive. His failure to acknowledge and immediately devote considerable resources to protect our democracy from foreign interference is very disconcerting. What could his motivation possibly be? Chances are that our guesses may well be even more disconcerting.
I'm starting to see the president, not as protected from prosecution, but as more vulnerable than an ordinary citizen. Not only is there nothing in the Constitution against indictment of a president while in office, but there is the extra possibility of impeachment, which we are learning applies to faults other than actual indictable crimes. Those "high crimes and misdemeanors" apparently refer to actions specifically related to high office, such as dereliction of duty. So it seems that the writers of the Constitution envisioned a president liable to ordinary civil and criminal prosecution, but also to being thrown out of office for failures that mightnot be crimes at all. I guess this would be analogous to how the rest of us are vulnerable to being fired from our jobs for various reasons, whether related or not to criminal behavior.
4
I'd personally be OK with Trump being indicted. And of course his defense would be indicting him while President is unconstitutional. But he is so exceptional in his apparent flagrant violation of everything moral, ethical, or legal, and so complicit in the Russian attack on our Democracy, that the honor of the American People itself should be satisfied by formal prosecution.
America is supposed to be a nation based upon secular laws Not a Monarchy Not a Theocracy and certainly not one where an authoritarian can manipulate the political process where he or she is above the law
The question of whether or not president can be indicted is absurd in a democracy To claim that the only remedy for a POTUS who commits a crime is a political issue via impeachment in my opinion puts a serving president above the laws that the rest citizens are subject to
The problem is that sitting presidents are rarely held accountable Reagan committed treason by selling arms to Iran in exchange for their delaying the release of US hostages until after the '80 election He then used that money to illegally fund the CONTRAS in Nicaragua
Nixon committed treason by subverting the Paris peace talks between Johnson and North Vietnam by telling them they'd get a better deal with him as POTUS resulting in his prolonging the war five years at the cost of 30,000 more US soldiers lives
Bush and Cheney got away with lying America into the Iraq war and Cheney got away with ordering the outing a CIA covert operative with Scooter Libby taking the fall like a "soldier" would do for a mob boss
Trump is so vulgar greed obsessed overtly authoritarian sociopathic megalomaniacal and a compulsive liar that he might be toxic enough to become the first POTUS to be criminally indicted
He's that obnoxious and harmful to the image of USA worldwide
Of course, a sitting president can be indicted. Actually if you think through the process as thought through by the founding fathers, the idea that a sitting president not being subject to indictment and prosecution is absurd. Just look what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. Nixon guilty of criminal offenses was given a pardon immediately after resigning. Let's take the current situation, Trump resigns, and immediately Pence gives Trump pardon, and Trump takes a walk from the federal crimes for which he may be impeached and convicted. The only way to keep Pence from giving Trump the pass that Ford gave Nixon is to indict him and prosecute him for the crimes he may have committed. Once done he could be pardoned by Pence but as a convicted felon. He couldn't slip out the back door, but would be held accountable for his crimes as any other citizen would be.
I have four reasons for supporting the idea of indicting Trump:
1. He wasn't president when he committed crimes of tax fraud, election fraud, etc. Unlike Johnson, Nixon and Clinton who committed offenses as acting executives, Trump did so as a citizen.
2. The Constitution never says a president cannot be indicted while in office. Our tradition makes it so. However, US .vs. Nixon (1974) establishes that the president cannot use his position to deflect crimes he commits in office; nor can he use his executive privilege to avoid prosecution. Only when a situation arises that threatens the Republican can he be prosecuted for doing his job badly.
3. We need to take down the office of president a few notches: we did not vote a president a king for 4 years.
4. Practically speaking, impeachment is broken. McConnell and his henchmen are partisans unsuitable for the honor of their offices. Trump should be removed from power but the GOP won't do their duty or allow the Constitution, embodied by the House, to do their duty.
2
I have listened to Lawrence Tribe speak on this subject several times. I haven't read his new book yet, but I want to. His opinion is yes, a sitting President can be indicted. I agree with him. Basically, there is no statue that says a POTUS cannot be indicted. Secondly there is no statement in the Constitution that says a President cannot be indi5. It is clear the framers recognized a corrupt individual could attain to office. That is clear from the protections that were includeD such as the Emollients clause. In recognition of this, it is also clear that if they thought a President should not be subject to indictment, they would plainly have said that. They did not. They included articles for impeachment and one of those is "high crimes and misdemeanors". By so stating it is indicative that it was fully understood this might well be needed in the future, given flawed human nature. It is imho utterly ridiculous to state that a President cannot be indicted. A corrupt President could be robbing the treasury blind. Selling arms on the black market, selling intelligence to rogue nations for top dollar. A corrupt President could be using the Judiciary to punish their enemies, or hiring the mob to murder their political foes or anyone they are cross with. What has been adhered to up to now is a Justice Department " "policy", not a law. With rampant corruption rife these days, perhaps it's time for firmer, clear cut statues.
1
I seriously doubt the prime directive of the Mueller investigation is academic research. More likely, it is to reveal weaknesses in our election security and weaknesses in our candidate and his operatives.
I also object to the characterization that "the costs to the nation" of proceeding against the president in any way trump the costs of having a crook in the oval office.
Suppose the House develops conclusive evidence of criminal behavior or a national security threat and they impeach Donald, but the senate can't muster the spine to convict.
What then? Our only recourse is the courts.
2
The Constitution is silent on indicting a President for a reason. Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate is the method to prematurely remove a President from his or her office and send him or her packing to become a regular citizen. As such, he or she should be indicted for murder in the jurisdiction involved. If he or she cannot be convicted by the Senate on the evidence it is very doubtful that he or she would be convicted of murder upon leaving office regularly and being indicted for murder.
If that is the case, then, I believe, the Founders made a huge mistake. The entire notion of being convicted by a legislative body that is, by its very nature, political, is unworkable. Given this situation, only the Justice Department and the courts can be depended upon to address crimes that may have been committed by a sitting President.
1
While I would love to see Trump indicted for crimes he has committed it is so unlikely that he could be convicted by a jury that the thought of indicting him, to me, is laughable and a waste of time.
First, how will the prosecution find twelve jurors who know nothing about him or have not formed any opinion? No matter what change of venue the defense is capable of obtaining.
Even if by some strange chance there are twelve (fourteen or so including alterates) who are clueless, once they learn the defendant was the President of the United States what chance is there that they would vote to convict? I would predict jury nullification and would bet a month's income on that outcome.
Better, let civil courts in the jurisdictions where he conducts business strip him of all his wealth using evidence collected by Mueller's office.
Let him try to start a new empire now that his daddy is not around to give him millions. Let him try to start a new empire when no bank will be willing to lend him a penny.
Indict his children.
2
We don't need Russia's help to "undermine our democracy." We're doing fine all by ourselves, with gerrymandering, court packing, vote suppression, injecting vast sums of money into the political process, and passing lame-duck legislation to clip the wings of political opponents who have been duly elected. The Russians have absolutely nothing to compete with that kind of corruption.
5
The notion that indicting a sitting president would interfere with his Constitutional duties is preposterous. If you break the law, do the police wait to arrest you until such a time as it's convenient for you? Of course not.
And there is nothing in the Constitution, anywhere, that says a sitting president cannot be indicted. And let's not forget that in this particular case, we're dealing with a president who has yet to even attempt to honor the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution to begin with.
If you break the law, you're a criminal. Doesn't matter if you're a ditch digger or President of the United states, no one is above the law.
No one.
2
Pollyanna opinion from NYT writer. This country can certainly stomach trump indictments. Of course the Atty General will sit on them. However, the Nixon effect awareness will follow the indictments and GOP will be forced to trek to the WH again to tell a corrupt president he lacks the votes in the Senate.
Indite him have a trial and if found guilty put him in prison. Enough stalling by the Congress. They are just another bunch of wishy washy enablers. Do we really care what his base believes?
1
It is truly sad to know the President of the United States is likely a felon, however, it is downright frightening to suspect he is involved in a conspiring with a foreign government particularly with Putin who is so far out of Trump's league. Is Trump so egotistical he naively fell into his predicament or is he just plain stupid to think he would hold his own with Putin.
Constitutional? Really? Just who cares anymore? Put him up against a wall for un American activities like the sell out traitor that he is. Problem solved.
1
Just because the lazy bones at the OLC didn't want to go through the hassle of indicting a President, doesn't mean that he can't be indicted. BTW, Trump is such a horrendous exemplar that it would probably fly. Every real Republican actually hates Donald Trump, so the fix would be 'in'. By all means Mr. Mueller, indict the criminal and count on the Nation's sense of fairness to drive him out of office.
Although I agree with the writer's hypotheses, I absolutely disagree with his conclusions. No matter how the Special Counsel's investigation began, the issue of "No Man is Above the Law" or its converse, "The King Can Do No Wrong" rises far above the other legal and counterintelligence matters because it cannot be acceptable under our constitution not to be able in any manner possible to remove a criminal from the office of President. That would be the greatest evil of all.
1
The constitution is at best vague, and at worst a flawed document, in that it makes it extremely difficult to get rid a sitting president who may have committed a most egregious crime.
Mr. Trump has said during the campaign that he can shoot a person on 5th Avenue in NY in broad day light, and can still get elected. That seems to be the case, even after he is elected, fortunately without shooting someone on 5th Avenue.
True, impeachment is the prescribed course. But the politicians and the citizens of this country have been indoctrinated with such a fear of this process, that it is rarely resorted to, and never successfully completed.
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but not convicted. Richard Nixon, looking at the House Committee's recommendation to the full house to impeach him, quit before that took place. So, contrary to popular belief, he was never impeached.
It is as difficult (if not impossible) to amend the constitution to remedy this situation, as it is to impeach a president. We have to suffer through this flaw for the foreseeable future.
The same applies to the unfettered power of a president to pardon people, including a self-pardon.
Sadly, I think the answer to all of the points raised will be “yes.” Yes, he did act criminally. Yes, he is compromised by Russia. Yes, he is unable to fulfil the duties of the office.
It’s not either/or. It’s and.
1
I read these comments and most of those call for the President to be indicted, convicted and toss away the key. However, what about the original purpose of this special counsel? I thought this was all about "Russian Collusion" to steal the election. So far (and we don't know what Mueller has) only speaks to two payments made to two women who had sexual relations with Donald Trump (not President Trump). Cohen pleaded guilty to making these payments on behalf of Donald Trump, candidate. Not Donald Trump, President.
I say let's all just calm down, stop salivating at the thought of Trump being led out of The White House in cuffs and wait for the investigation to be completed.
Some people just need to stop slobbering all over themselves.
2
Will the new House impeach Trump? Can he be indicted as President? Experts are hand-wringing until the are sore. Knowing Trump he may try to hide from prison time behind the White House walls again in 2020. Therefore, why not simply disbar him from running in 2020? After all can a man who has broken campaign finance laws and has great conflicts of interests besides Russian Collusion ( if proved conclusively )allowed to run another term for the highest office? A felon cannot be President! Period.
1
Surely the question of whether a President can be indicted while in office must be answered in the affirmative.
As a thought experiment consider the following scenario, a recognisable figment of a crazed mind, if you will:
Imagine the president shot a randomly selected innocent person in the street for no reason other than he could.
Then the President would have committed murder and should be arrested and prosecuted without delay.
Supporting principles include:
(1) We are all equal before the law.
(2) Once discovered, a crime must not be allowed to languish un-prosecuted for that undermines the righteous authority of the legal process.
(3) If a convicted criminal loses the feeble power implicit in their right to vote whilst in prison because they are deemed unfit, then a person elected President who stands accused of a crime should have their guilt tested promptly so their fitness to continue to serve can be assessed.
The Constitution states:
“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."
Some interpret it as implying that impeachment must precede prosecution.
However it means that impeachment is not the punishment for a crime.
This is an assertion of the power of the rule of law.
Let it rule.
1
Why not? As a well. known lawyer said many years ago, something like, if you commit the crime, do the time. "t" is like a third rate actor who never studied his lines and is ad libbing his way through the play. He has created chaos and distractions because he has no clue about the job he took an oath to uphold.
Let us stop analyzing this man who is not worth it or trying to find excuses why he should or should not be indicted. The illegitimate President who sits in the Oval Office right now is inept, corrupt and dangerous. He does not belong in the highest office of the land. If I am not above the law, neither is he. We have seen enough Republicans and pundits of all sorts trying to think this dilemma a little too carefully. There is nothing to think about, analyze, write about and debate about except for the fact that this man is guilty. He needs to be indicted and jailed. If he is let free, pardoned by Pence his sycophant or does not make it to 2020, he and his little family of Kens and Barbie Dolls will find a way to gain fame and money on our back through the Fox News channel and any other reality tv show you can think about. Now is not the time to let this guy loose. Now is the time to Impeach, Indict and or Imprison, take your pick.
1
He wont be indicted because there is no crime...those who believe in the witch hunt need to have their head examined.
It doesn't matter at this point what the principal objective was. Prosecutors go where the trail leads. If it leads to a conniving, lying, traitorous, fraud that used a foreign adversary to steal an election, it doesn't matter one whit what the principal objective "was".
1
SDNY will bring state charges; jail time; no pardon. Impeachment; unlikely; GOP is Donald's lap dog. Ray Sipe
Remind me again, what is the actual penalty for treason ?
LOCK him up!
1
Being charged with felonies would also seriously impact my ability to effectively do my marketing job. I can almost hear the swirling legal debate around the constitutionality of indicting me if I commit a crime.
1
Lederman is deeply and fundamentally wrong in his assertion that the Mueller investigation is primarily "forward-looking". It is impossible to believe that we will have ANOTHER presidential candidate colluding with a hostile foreign power with the intention of influencing an election in the future. It doesn't require any detailed understanding of what happened with Trump and Putin in the 2016 election in order for the responsible law enforcement and security agencies and Congress to put in place laws and practices which make such collusion impossible in future.
The primary objective of the Mueller investigation must be to determine whether or not the current president is a criminal who only came to power through a criminal conspiracy to subvert the American national election process. If there is prima facie evidence that this is the case - and it is, as has been absolutely obvious since the Trump Tower meeting became public - then the objective must be to remove Trump from power without delay through criminal prosecution and impeachment.
If Trump won the presidency through a criminal conspiracy, then there is nothing more urgent in American national government in all three branches than that he be removed without any delay. He must be indicted as soon as possible and I would argue that this indictment should trigger immediate action under the 25th Amendment to remove him from office pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Trump is not a legitimate president. Get him out!
4
If Mueller's investigation does indeed find that Trump and his campaign cooperated/colluded with the Russians to affect the outcome of the election, wouldn't the remedy for this be a new election to replace the illegitimately-elected president?
1
If the President believes that an indictment of him would prevent him from adequately executing the duties of his office, can anyone tell me why he can not invoke the 25th Amendment until such time as he feels he can refocus on the job? While the amendment was not originally designed for that possibility, there is nothing in the wording of the amendment that precludes it from being invoked by the President voluntarily
"...the constitutional debate is an unfortunate distraction from a more important question... Let's address the constitutional issue first."
Huh? If it's an unfortunate distraction in the opinion of the author, why does he take it up at all, much less spend the majority of the piece effectively joining the debate? Is he trying to further distract us then?
Well, in paragraph 12 (of 15), Mr. Lederman finally gets to the "more important" question. His reasoning is hardly convincing (perhaps explaining the long delay): Mueller's task, he announces, "is forward-looking and preventative, not punitive," a conclusion not at all backed up by the quote provided as support for it.
Besides, what does this distinction even mean? If Trump in fact conspired with a hostile foreign government to manipulate the American public in order to win the presidency for himself, he needs to be removed from office as soon as possible, by whatever legal means prove most expedient. The question as to whether the point of that (or criminal prosecution) is to punish him for extremely damaging criminal behavior or to restore legitimacy to our federal government going forward is the irrelevant distraction. Are the two motives even entirely separable?
While many here argue about whether a sitting president can be endicted while in office, they apparently miss the central point of Mr. Lederman's article.
For almost two years we have vigorously focused exclusively on whether the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with the Russians to affect the 2016 election. And any other crimes that might arise out of that effort. But determining "the nature and potential threats to our entire election process" has only been studied by the Intelligence Community and only relative to Russia. They concluded that indeed Russia did interfere. There were a few Congressional queries and the President has some misgivings about those. But missing the central objective of the Special Counsel's mandate?
I believe this suprises most Americans. How could this been ignored by everyone following the investigation? Why has Congress not held more hearings on it? Has Mueller devoted prosecutorial resources to answering this question? There have been no leaks about this "central" mission. Could Mr. Lederman, a legal and constitutional expert and teacher, and DOJ Office of Legal Counsel expert be wrong? If not, is Muller negligent in carrying out his charter which I find difficult to believe. But if so, the press has been either uninformed, intentionally silent and almost criminally irresponsible by only chasing the prosecution of President Donald John Trump.
And this in itself would be a huge and shocking national scandal!
While many here argue about whether a sitting president can be endicted while in office, they apparently miss the central point of Mr. Lederman's article.
For almost two years we have vigorously focused exclusively on whether the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with the Russians to affect the 2016 election. And any other crimes that might arise out of that effort. But determining "the nature and potential threats to our entire election process" has only been studied by the Intelligence Community and only relative to Russia. They concluded that indeed Russia did interfere. There were a few Congressional queries and the President has some misgivings about those. But missing the central objective of the Special Counsel's mandate?
I believe this suprises most Americans. How could this have been ignored by everyone following the investigation? Why has Congress not held more hearings on it? Has Mueller devoted prosecutorial resources to answering this question? There have been no leaks. Could Mr. Lederman, a legal and constitutional expert and teacher and DOJ Office of Legal Counsel expert be wrong? If not, is Muller negligent in carrying out his charter. I find this difficult to believe.But if so, the press has been either uninformed or intentionally silent and almost criminally irresponsible by only chasing the prosecution of President Donald John Trump.
And this in itself would be a huge national scandal!
The "terrible burden" of telling the "free world" what to do cannot possibly justify immunity from indictment and prosecution of a president. That would be the establishment of (elective, and at present term-limited) monarchy. It would free the president to do anything, such as selling weapons to an enemy and using the proceeds illegally to finance a revolution in a foreign country. (Some will recognize the names involved.)
Most posters aren't facing reality. The reality is that there are now five conservative justices on the Supreme Court. If a prosecutor tried to indict Trump, the case would wind up in the Supreme Court, which would quash the indictment. This would happen not just with a Federal indictment, but also with a New York indictment. The US Supreme Court is genuinely supreme: it can overrule anything a state court does. The conservatives would refuse to follow the Paula Jones case, probably "distinguishing" it rather than outright overruling it.
If you want to get rid of Trump (and get Mike Pence), impeachment is the only possible route. Other ideas are wishful thinking.
While many here argue about whether a sitting president can be endicted while in office, they all miss the central point of Mr. Lederman's article.
For almost two years we have vigorously and passionately focused exclusively on whether the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with the Russians to affect the 2016 election. And any other crimes that might arise out of that effort. But determining "the nature and potential threats to our election process" has only been studied by the Intelligence Community and only relative to Russia. They concluded that indeed Russia did interfere. There were a few Congressional queries and the President has some misgivings about this conclusion. But missing the central objective of the Special Counsel?
I believe this suprises most Americans. How could this have been ignored by everyone following this investigation? Why has Congress not held more hearings on it? Has Mueller devoted prosecutorial resources to answering this question? There have been no leaks. We know the American intelligence Community has concluded Russia did interfere in the election. Although the President has some misgivings about it. Could Mr. Lederman, a legal DOJ expert be wrong? If not, could Muller be negligent in carrying out his charter. If so, the press has been either uninformed or intentionally silent and almost criminally irresponsible by only chasing the prosecution of President Donald John Trump.
And this in itself would be a huge scandal!
I do not see why a sitting president cannot be indicted for "High crimes and misdemeanors" as noted in the Constitution. Don't we elect a Vice President to step in if the President is not able to discharge his duties? We have no definition of " High Crimes". I assume they would be the Felonies and Misdemeanors of our current Law Codes? We have impeached and removed Judges, Policemen, Congressmen, etc. Why is the President above the law? And when did it become the Right of the Justice Department to decide whether a sitting president can or can't be indicted. Where is the Judicial ruling on this?
1
The argument against indicting president Trump seems to be that he should not be distracted from pretending to function as a competent president. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, this is not a "reality" show where he can pretend to be a self-made, multi-billionaire. Welcome to the real world, Donald Trump.
So how does this work with the statute of limitations? My research, albeit brief, came up with that congress increased the SOL from 3 years to 5 years in 2002.
If Trump survives his first term and is not re-elected, then he leaves office in 2021, and his prosecution for campaign violations would need to happen almost immediately or the SOL is blown.
If Trump is re-elected, then can he not be prosecuted?
And of course, as with the Kenneth Starr investigation, accusations of criminal misconduct-in that case perjury-could form the basis, or part of the basis, for impeachment. But given Republican control of the Senate that would ultimately fail. So the question becomes whether such a move would be politically advantageous for Trump's opponents or not.
The most interesting question is not the one being asked but another that makes it moot. Namely, is Donald Trump actually US President at all? If he achieved the presidency by defrauding American voters via today-certified illegal campaign contributions to silence "Stormy Daniels" and Karen Mcdougal (as is now attested to by a plea deal recorded today by the American NewsCorp), then *neither* Donald Trump nor Mike Pence is President and Vice President, respectively. (Since the election was carried out under criminal fraud by the Trump campaign, it wouldn't even seem an operational question whether absenting such activity, the overall election results would have been altered.) Just by the way, there is video proof the in addition to Trump, Pence has directly lied publicly about his knowledge concerning Michael Flynn's contact with multiple Russians.
2
I have read in the vicinity of 10-15 op-ed pieces concerning this subject, in various publications, over the past 6 months or so. No doubt there were many more.
We should see the president subpoenaed, if Mueller has reason, whatever the mess it creates. What is new about a legal mess? It should be fought out in court and head to SCOTUS. The same should be true of a possible future criminal indictment. After all the arguments back and forth, let the court system fight it out. Is this really more chaotic than what we already see? Maybe not.
1
Putin himself has argued that the Russian efforts were just their exercise of freedom of speech in the US system. And if we don't like governments directly to the US public, it is simple for them to hire US Citizens to make whatever argument that government wants.
The US is not China or Russia. Pretty much everyone gets access here to the marketplace of ideas.
In high school we had about 10 weeks during English class one year on all the forms of propaganda, from advertising to politics. Immunization is a better strategy than prohibition.
Now suppose Russia and other governments politicked for Trump. The challenge is... why did people still elect Trump? Maybe his voters just love Russia and political assassination by polonium and nerve agent. If so, well, that's democracy. And darned scary.
"As president, Mr. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he won’t, or can’t, deal forcefully with what Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has described as Russia’s “ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.” Is Mr. Trump beholden to Russian officials in some way?"
Hardly, Mr. Lederman. His administration's actions against Russia - much stronger than Obama's - would substantiate that he is NOT beholden to Russia. Moreover, wasn't it Obama who whispered off-mic in Putin's ear in 2012 "After My Election, I’ll Have More Flexibility". Collusion?
2
@MCH My correction.
Obama whispered into Foreign Minister Medvedev's ear. Medvedev went on to say: “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
As always, I await the results of the Mueller investigation. In the mean time, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to present the President with a Sword of Damocles complication. He has earned it. After all, he could play a reasonable facsimile of Dionysius.
Comitting or abetting a crime while serving in the nation's highest office deserves no pass.
3
What is worse, allowing a sitting President to be criminally indicted or to let a criminal stay in White House for two more years.
No one in America is above the law, we are not a monarchy and the crimes Trump is likely guilty of took place in his efforts to become President. He engaged in criminal acts to sway the election that put him in office. Indict him now.
1
No man is above the law. The president of the United States is a man. Therefore, the president of the United States is not above the law. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
Donald Trump is as indictable as he is mortal. Those who resort to words to get around elementary notions of fair play owe to (we) the people a one-word answer: if indeed Mr. Trump shoots a journalist dead on 5th Avenue on January 31, 2021, will he continue to remain above the law to carry on unfettered as POTUS for four more years?
1
President Trump does not need to be dragged through a legal jungle to bring opprobrium and vilification down upon his head, nor to weight his valuable time with legal concerns at the expense of his precious moments spent upholding his oath of office. Trump does a fine job of those things all by himself, perhaps the one and only thig he is any good at.
"What the nation most needs to know — and ideally what Mr. Mueller might explain — is why the president appears unwilling or unable to deal seriously with those threats, regardless of whether he also happens to have violated the law before he took office."
So, regardless of whether or not the president can be indicted for his crimes, his lack of an action to protect the nation is an impeachable offense. Tomayto, tomahto, it doesn't matter. We need to be rid of him.
1
"For one thing, a grand jury would be well within its rights to examine the evidence while it’s fresh in order to determine whether to bring charges against Mr. Trump after he leaves office (or perhaps to issue an indictment that would remain sealed until then)."
Isn't this, in essence, the same thing as trying to cover up payments to a porn star until after the election? The American people deserve better than this - it seems there is a DOJ/media conspiracy to prevent justice from being served by hiding things from us and/or delaying proceedings until Trump has finished destroying our democracy.
1
It's absolutely constitutional. It's just that Congress is afraid to do it. If they weren't, they would have indicted Reagan for Iran-Contra, and George W. Bush for lying us into a fake pre-emptive war over non-existent WMD that he knew about beforehand and chose to ignore. Trump is a corrupt traitor and should be impeached, indicted, and then once found guilty, incarcerated for the rest of his miserable life.
1
What boggles the mind is this flawed line of logic embodied in Justice Department "policy" that establishes that indicting a sitting president in in appropriate. The question begged is "why"?
Would we feel differently if the felonies in question were of a non-political variety, or shocking/graphic in nature? If video capture emerged of a sitting president having committed aggravated assault (or even murder) while on the campaign trail (imagining the most extreme hypothetical here), this logic would preclude Justice from acting on the hypothetical evidence, at best until the individual leaves office.
Are we as a nation comfortable with that?
2
I’m not sure the constitution protects a President who has fraudulently obtained office. The idea that you can obtain immunity by deceiving those who elect you is adverse to common sense and the idea of a representative democracy.
4
I guess I could pretend to be surprised that the forces lining up against impeachment are so strong and vociferous, but it's just more of the same inability to do triage that brought us this criminal man in the first place.
When historians get their hands on this mess (if we survive him, not at all a given when a demonstrably ill man has the codes) what they will most marvel at is how everyone, including the pundits and journalists--especially the pundits and journalists--over-complicated everything to the point of making noise.
If this man committed even 1/10 of what appears evident, it is imperative that he be impeached. To not impeach for "political reasons" would be the crime. It's hard? Tough. It's divisive? Like he isn't? The excuses for not impeaching are absurd and dangerous.
Why, exactly, do people think the founders created the safeguard of impeachment if it was not intended to be used? There should be zero hesitation here. After all, this man did not hesitate to lie, cheat, collude, bully, break the Emoluments Clause, cover-up, and lie some more.
It's time we moved past getting stuck on "high crimes and misdemeanors." The lies this man tells hourly are as dangerous (more dangerous) than a single act of treason (and he's guilty of that too).
From the onset, this man has been accorded too many chances. There is no learning curve. He bankrupted five businesses. We are the sixth. At one point does someone finally say, "Enough. You're fired."?
2
Of course it is "Constitutional". Whether the courts will permit the trial is up to the court system. It has really never been ruled on although the Justice Department has made statements including the one from recently appointed Attorney General for Nixon that the VP can be indicted but not the President. Ridiculous on its surface and there was no legal foundation stated. Considering that a Republican Senate will seemingly only convict Trump if he really did "shoot someone of Fifth Avenue", I am hoping the Mueller has already submitted numerous sealed indictments.
If by the logic of some people he could commit any crime and not be charged until he leaves office that is putting him above the laws of this country, no one is above the law.
1
When I read of legal scholars arguing whether or not a sitting president can be indicted I am reminded of the arguments of economists; if there are two in the room there's an argument.
Having said that, surely there are crimes that a president might commit that would call for an immediate trial. What, for example, would happen if Trump as he once bragged he could get away with, shot someone on Fifth Ave?
There's really nothing subtle in this matter of whether to indict or not indict. A president is a citizen after all and expected to obey the law - just like the rest of us. While I grant that misdemeanors might not fall into a category of concern, surely the law should be upheld regardless the position of the individual.
2
The fallacy in your argument lies in the idea that investigation of the national security threat and punishing those who perpetrated or ignored or knowingly benefited from it are two separate things. In fact, they are inextricably linked. The investigation is meaningless if the nation fails to act on its findings. That will involve a number of reforms and policies, but even more fundamentally, it must start with holding those who betrayed the country and the voters FULLY liable and accountable.
1
I'm stymied at the reasoning of how an indictment during the so-called president's term could cost the nation and the benefits of doing it now must be weighed. Weighed against what? Aren't we already paying the cost?
3
The pragmatic approach here is to forego any indictment. Two years is too small a time to get a conviction. The Consitution proves the remedy: impeachment. But this Senate will never impeach Trump. The best pactical remedy: get the facts and let the public decide in 2020 and. of course, get a candidate better suited than Trump.
Indictment is necessary because a trial is necessary. The voters need to see all of the evidence, in open court, and know for sure one way or the other whether the president is guilty.
The trial must be completed before the next election.
1
I agree with the priorities stated in this article. Consideration of the interests and safety of our nation takes precedence over any punitive action directed at Trump. The two priorities are not mutually exclusive, however. As of the moment of this writing, Congress has sufficient evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to act swiftly to impeach our president. That it is not doing so as of today (Cohen's testimony and conviction provide sufficient evidence for Congress to act) is astounding to me. This president has already shown himself -- in not putting at the top of HIS priorities an investigation of Russia's attempts to undermine our democratic processes, principally our election system -- unfit to be president. His standing next to Putin in Helsinki and contradicting the evidence gathered by our nation's intelligence services was, and continues to be, shocking. I hope and trust there is some legal jeopardy for members of Congress who fail this nation by not voting for, or by otherwise obstructing, action based on the overwhelming evidence in favor of impeachment.
What about the "stigma and opprobrium" of being branded a country that allows it's rulers to get away with gross corruption?
Forget about Trump's "brand" --- we need to protect the integrity and reputation of the United States---we are already the laughing stock of the world.
3
The idea that indicting the president would interfere with the execution of his responsibilities as president seems pretty ludicrous for Donald Trump, who doesn't read anything, doesn't take briefings, spends the day Tweeting and watching Fox News, and spends virtually every weekend playing golf. The courts could hear his case during his golfing times, when it wouldn't interfere with the execution of his duties.
2
It would certainly be fun. Convicting and locking him up for a long term, even more so.
Mr. Lederman is simply wrong: One of the major purposes of the investigation is to discourage future wrongdoing. Trump knew he was engaged in wrongdoing. Without punishment, that wrongdoing will recur. Trump is doing everything in his power (which is substantial) to avoid punishment. Trump MUST be punished to avoid a future of criminal Presidents.
If this country wants to remain a real country of laws, and not a banana republic, then stop being ridiculous, and seriously deal with the criminal entity that is presently squatting, and sullying the White House, Donald Trump. Trump is our serious challenge as a country, and if we cower before the white supremacist, immoral Republican party, the changes that will land on top of us will be worse than imagined. Donald Trump, and the power grabs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Florida, are just the beginning . The Republicans are flirting with installing themselves in perpetual power. And we must truthfully ask ourselves : is this really for the betterment of our country?
As tempting as it is the bring charges vs Trump or to impeach him it would be best to vote him out of office in 2020. THere should be more shady details about Trump in the next two years,. The Mueller report will come out ,the democratic House will look into all his shady dealings from Trump Moscow Tower ,his family businesses , tax returns. There is enough info out there to show Trump and his family are corrupt liars cashing in on the presidency. Even his lawyer Rudy is busy in Bahrain signing a lucrative contract saying it has nothing to do with being Trump's lawyer,Rudy said he was very honest and has more contracts coming with foreign governments in Africa. Corruption in plain sight.
This hate-Trump from both RNC-DNC Politburos and the deep-swamp behind the Langley wall has become a farce with no end in sight.
What is it about him that drives them to such madness? His unwillingness to submit to Washington's ooze? His unabashed contempt for the New York City-based Sovietized mass-media that attacks him as daily ritual? His arrogance to call out Pelosi and Schumer for what they are--both from the East Coast, both dogmatic in their cultural Marxist stomping?
Incredible Mueller will come up with nothing impeachable so now it's time to indict the President for after-hours and pre-2015 liaisons? Or is it just about the deep-swamp turning the screws till 2020?
2
I'm not going to assume that any of those questions are serious.
@Dubious
Why Hillary lost the White House--ignoring the obvious. DNC Politburo problem to be revisited in 2020?
What about equality before the law? The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection at state level and SCOTUS has ruled that the 5th by implication does so at federal level (arising from its due process wording).
If a certain thing is de facto not a crime as long as someone is a sitting president, is that not a violation of equal protection? Cohen goes to jail. Trump, apparently a co-conspirator, does not.
Hello? Whatever happened to the Vice President? There is all this concern that a president who is charged with a crime will somehow be prevented from fulfilling his duties. That's why we HAVE A VICE PRESIDENT! There is no need for worry if a president is charged with a crime while in office. If he or she can't fulfill his or her duties then the VP can. I don't even understand why this does 't even come up in conversation every time there is concern that trump can't be prosecuted while in office. Well, aside from the fact that the Constitution does need some serious additions, like being able to prosecute a sitting president, we do have the VP. As bad as Pence is, Trump MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE before he completes his first term.
Even if Trump is telling the truth that he made the payments to spare his wife humiliation, he also defrauded the American people in the process. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, one is a felony and goes to the very legitimacy of the 2016 election results. How can we continue to exist as a Constitutional Republic if we no longer have legitimate elections? Its like, the number one thing... right?
1
I think Trump should be indicted while in office. The precise reason why an individual like Trump runs and tries to win the most important office of our country at all cost, committing crimes along the way, is because they KNOW once they win, they will not be charged while in office, and once their term expires, they CAN easily manipulate, while in office, their successor to pardon them-- just look at Nixon and Ford. Trump learned from them and figured he will never go to prison. No one is above the law. No one is above our country. What the author is stressing so hard to emphasize is precisely the reason why we currently have a criminal occupying our country's top office. Ironically, what the author said proved why Trump should be indicted while in office, loud and clear.
Dude clearly puts no more than an hour a day into presidenting, the rest of his time is tweeting and watching TV. He's got all the time in the world for dealing with civil and criminal litigation w/ no impact on his professional attention span, such as it is.
I think it's called "mounting evidence".
What if the president is a threat to the national security of the country because of the potential to be blackmailed by a hostile foreign adversary who may have helped put him in office?
We are in extraordinary, uncharted waters.
It seems to me the argument is that impeachment, as prescribed by the constitution, is the only remedy available for alleged wrong-doing committed by a sitting president, and displaces all other remedies as long as he/she remains in office. This rule prevents disruption of the president's duties while in office, it also preserves the concept that an individual elected by the people to be their president should be answerable only to other elected representatives while in office, in a political process (possibly initiated by a prosecutor with ulterior motives) which will lead to a political decision, not in a judicial process which will lead to a finding of guilt or innocence by a judge or jury and then a sentencing. These matters are not suited to the justice system.
To those readers who critique Mr. Lederman's comment about the "sword of Damocles," you're missing the point. This isn't his opinion, he is citing the Year 2000 position of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department.
The Constitution itself does not specifically limit actions against a sitting President to impeachment. Despite the position of the Office of Legal Counsel, in the end only the Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of alternative legal actions.
1
As a nation, we cannot afford to be short sighted. Trump is only going to be President for a short time, but whatever precedent we set for the office of President will last. We must maintain the separation of powers and our constitutional procedures or we risk the effectiveness of future Presidents who aren’t named Trump.
People seem to be missing the point, here. Indictment and Impeachment are two different things. Only the Congress (or, per the 25th amendment, the cabinet temporarily) can remove the president from office through impeachment or a finding of impairment. Without removal from office, the President is still the commander in chief of the military and chief executive of the federal government. A trial judge can't change that. Given the duties of the office, a trial judge is going to either defer the trial or defer the punishment until the president is no longer in office. You can't run the country from a jail cell, and trial judges don't get to decide who is president.
1
Raymond Patriarca ran the New Englnd mafia from a jail cell for years. how is Trump any different?
1
Indicting Trump would be the MOST Constitutional thing this country could do. This should not even be a question. No human being, no matter what status or position in society, is above the law.
One of the issues I have with our current lawmakers, scholars and professionals of law is that they have gone too far down the rabbit hole and can no longer see clear skies. They create twisted semantic arguments using fragments upon fractals within the minutiae of a strand of thought and they lose sight of the big picture, of what should be pragmatic and common sense.
On a related note, no president should be allowed to use the power of pardon for ANYONE in his circle (or family or near-circle or administration or affiliation) who committed crimes with or on behalf of that president. And a president's vice president or immediate successor should not be allowed to pardon him either.
2
you make the fundamental mistake of confusing Donald Trump with a human being. he is as much like a person as Mitt Romney's corporations, my friend.
1
Donald Trump needs to start thinking about a plea bargain to avoid punishment for his crimes. Yes, Congress and the Department of Justice will bend over backwards not to indict him during his term in office. That is primarily because of their respect for his office, not for him. At the same time, Robert Mueller's investigations have led to the indictment and convictions of many of his associates during the presidential campaign and afterwards. That same respect for the office of the presidency allows political leaders to avoid the inexorable logic of Trump's involvement in these crimes. Would an experienced businessman, for example, allow his personal lawyer to pay off women with whom he has had affairs, without his knowledge? Would important meetings with Russian spies occur in Trump's office building and residence without his knowledge? As Steve Bannon remarked, the chances are zero.
We will have to wait until Robert Mueller's report for confirmation. But let's go forward a bit further. During the Democratic Party presidential nominee selection, I I expect that any serious candidate will have to vow not to pardon Trump. The election will then be largely about his crimes and punishment. He should weigh those chances and consider a plea bargain and resignation.
6
@graham Hodges
You are getting ahead of yourself. Mueller still has a few more indictments to issue before he gets to the head of the fish: Pence, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared, Eric,... Once these have been issued, THEN Chump will begin to feel his days in the WH are numbered and he needs to cop a plea with Mueller.
I've been through the Constitution many times in my 66 years. NOWHERE does it say a sitting President cannot be indicted or convicted.
184
@Bob Woods
Yes. It is just DOJ policy. It is not in the Constitution. It does not have the standing of legal precedent. The present situation is unprecedented.
16
@Robert@Bob Woods
Indeed it is a DOJ policy predicated on the fact that a President can't be distracted from doing the nations business to fight an indictment.
Although President Clinton was sued in the Lewinski affair.
4
@Bob Woods There's nothing in the Constitution about abortion or gay marriage, either. Do you think the Supreme Court was wrong to find a right to abortion and right to gay marriage in the Constitution?
5
Mr Lederman suggests that Mr Mueller's charge is forward looking, but doesn't address the fact that Mr Trump began his 2020 re-election campaign the day he was inaugurated.
If Mr Mueller, the grand jury, or the DOJ becomes convinced of crimes committed by Mr. Trump, it is essential that information be given to the voting public. To do otherwise is to withhold information that could impact voters' 2020 decisions.
8
Cohen's law office is in New York State, and the means by which Trump repaid Cohen for the payment to Cliffords is tax fraud.
Further, because the hidden payment to Cliffords violates FECA the transfer of funds to Cohen constitutes money laundering under NY State Penal Code Article 470:
"Promote the carrying on of criminal conduct or engage in conduct constituting a felony (under tax law); or
Knowing that the transaction or transactions in whole or in part are designed to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the proceeds of criminal conduct; or avoid any transaction reporting requirement imposed by law"
As a citizen of New York State I expect the Attorney General's Office to take this up. Under state law and due process they must investigate and do not have arbitrary discretion to avoid indictment.
The question of whether Trump can then be tried in New York state while he is in office is another matter that the Supreme Court might take up.
2
We’d be wise to shift our attention from the unlikely possibility of a trial to the much more important matter of what the Mueller investigation might tell us about Mr. Trump’s relationships with Russia and whether they compromise his ability to protect and defend the nation.
We already know that he is compromised with regard to protecting the United States against threats of Russian aggression based on his actions. The open question is why.
4
Maybe not the president, but there is precedent for a VP to be indicted. Aaron Burr was the sitting Vice President when he shot and killed Alexander Hamilton. He was indicted on charges of murder and fled to Europe for 12 years until he could get the charges dropped. The constitutional protections for the president and vice president are identical.
What also puzzles me is the rationale for waiting until after his term is over to prosecute the President. So if he violated the law to become president, we will let him finish the term, that is to fully benefit from the ill gotten gain, until we punish him?? That makes no sense. That is like waiting until a bank robber finishes spending all of the money he stole before arresting him.
4
The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the President's conduct; the Public is.
If the Special Counsel lays out the facts of criminal misconduct in an indictment, the revulsion of the majority of the Country would emasculate Trump and end this nightmare by driving him and his enablers out of office.
1
Not a lawyer, so I need clarification: If a sitting president can go through the impeachment process, why can't he go through the criminal trial process? Why makes the criminal process so more onerous to him discharging his duties?
1
Indictment isn't the answer, impeachment is. If Trump is guilty of a serious crime - and I don't see paying off women to keep a tryst secret is serious - then he should be impeached and convicted. Once out of office, he can then be prosecuted for the crime, if anyone cares at that point.
1
the slimy payoffs are among the many distractions orbiting Trump like an asteroid belt. the big questions are: was he indebted to the Russians, or anyone else, even before being elected? is he subjet to blackmail by foreign powers? is his election even partly the result of conspiracy, including financial conspiracy such as illegal money contributions, with foreigners? is he really the legitimate president, and if not, are any of his presidential actions, such as appointments, valid?
The President, any President, should be subject to indictment because it is the most effective way to get him out of office. No President has ever been convicted in an impeachment trial.
@Jason Galbraith These are separate issues. Impeachment can only be carried out by Congress and criminal proceedings occur in court. A jury can convict someone but they cannot remove a President from office norcan a judge.
@Jason Galbraith He could--and should--be impeached and removed by Congress and then indicted and tried in Federal Court.
1
What's worrisome about indicting Trump isn't that it would be right or wrong, constitutionally. It's whether or not it's the best strategy for killing the Hydra. Trump, like other extreme right wing authoritarians has to be neutralized with his own poison, as was his heroes like McCarthy, Nixon, and the corrupt liars he hired and appointed and were subsequently dishonored. Nixon tried to destroy the peace process in Vietnam and McCarthy wanted to destroy our civil rights. Trump is destroying discourse so people who don't agree can't even listen to each other. Do Fox News fans even read the Times? And I look at Fox News the way a spy tries to look out for the next attack. Trump is a Hydra and we need a Herculean strategy to save our country and stop it from harming the rest of the world and the future.
3
So as long as 45 is in office the feeling is that he is defacto above the law and can continue being a criminal at the country's expense.
Not very sound reasoning. If there is enough evidence to charge him he should be charged. No waiting for another 2-6 years.
2
What most of these arguments seem to share is the assumption that we are dealing with a rogue president who has broken the law. What we are actually dealing with is a rogue party that cares more about hanging onto power than about the rule of law. How else can we interpret a senior Senator who has been around since Nixon (Hatch) declaring that he doesn't care if Trump broke the law? A law-breaking president backed by a law-breaking political party in control of one house of Congress renders impeachment moot, and the only way to stop their blatant attempt at a takeover is an immediate indictment, trial, and conviction.
11
@John What does that do? Without impeachment, Trump would still be President.
Sad. Legal scholars debating if crimes (past and/or present) of a sitting president can be brought to trial. Crimes. Let me ask my six year old about that.
3
The Office of Legal Counsel opinion is flawed for several reasons. First of all, Trump is doing more damage to not only his own reputation but that of our nation as is. He's made too many of us ashamed to be Americans. How can one reasonably suggest indicting the apparent traitor would make us more ashamed than we already are? The United States already is the laughing stock of the planet!
In addition, it appears Trump gained office by illegal means and is using the office as a tool to further his illegal profits. His senseless ranting and raving is also bring us closer to the brink of an all out nuclear war. That in itself is cause for indictment as soon as possible.
The Office of Special Counsel needs to wake up and smell the roses. The roses are rotting from systemic infestation and neglect and need immediate attention. Our nation may well be gone if we wait to potentially indict the criminal in chief, assuming we have the results of the Mueller investigation in hand.
3
"an accommodation to his singular constitutional responsibilities"?
For a hard-working, engaged, informed president, this would be appropriate. But Trump spends a third of his time at his golf clubs, and clearly neither understands nor upholds the constitution as he swore to do.
All such an accommodation would accomplish would be to allow this rogue regime to continue its assault on the rule of law, damaging alliances and America's standing in the world.
1
Laurence Tribe explained cogently and calmly why a sitting president can be indicted.He was on MSNBC,also a celebrated Harvard law professor, and I urge anyone wanting to get to the truth of this conundrum to look it up.I think it was Monday 12/10.
You sure as shootin' ain't gonna find it on Fox.
1
DOJ policy was made 50 years ago that it was wrong to indict a sitting president.
This can be done once the president leaves office.
Otherwise no president could ever get anything done with a swarm of indictments paralyzing his administration.
@Doug Brockman A sitting president is not above the law and can be indicted. Especially with this electoral college president, we can't afford to let him get anything done, since what he is doing is damaging the country. We can survive a paralysis of this administration much more than the destruction of the Federal Government and the laws that govern it.
1
The fact that these considerations are even being aired speak to the actions and demeanor of this despicable president. Putting off action until after he leaves office merely means our country will continue to suffer through his terrible leadership.
It is fair to say time is of the essence.
3
Constitutionality aside, the Democrats should be in no rush to impeach Trump. We're about to start another presidential campaign cycle, and damaging information about our president is coming out almost weekly; in addition, the economy shows signs of slowing, the trade war is not going well, and Trump's support for the murderous Saudi prince is drawing negative attention. In short: if you're a Democrat planning to run for president, Trump is the ideal incumbent.
1
The President is the elected executive officer of the federal government; he is not a sovereign immune from punishment for his four-year term. Every other officer of government -- congressmen, judges, etc. -- can be indicted and tried while in office.
The argument that a President cannot be indicted while in office rests on opinions by justice department lawyers (in both cases serving under presidents facing possible indictment). The short version is that the office is too consequential, etc., and that any prosecution can be postponed.
The Constitution is silent on the matter, but surely the guiding principle ought to be that no one is above the law, even temporarily. And precisely because the office is so consequential what the Mueller investigation discovers "about Mr. Trump’s relationships with Russia and whether they compromise his ability to protect and defend the nation" may suggest an immediacy of response that the rest of this op-ed does not.
4
I believe that a presidency should be viewed in more specific terms than that we used in everyday speech. A person occupies the Office of the Presidency, but no one person is the Presidency. The person occupies the office and wields its powers as specified by the Constitution. It seems to me that the person who occupies the office can then be indicted in a court of law. If the charges are then serious enough, he should stand trial, and to do so he should be temporarily removed from office according to the 25th Amendment. If he is acquitted, he then reoccupies the office. If he is convicted, he should then go through impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate to remove him from office. To view the person and the office as the same, I believe is a legal error and not consistent with the actual situation.
1
As if hush money to a former mistress or financial shenanigans made three years earlier by someone who worked for Trump for three months before he was fired are not distractions from the principal objective of the Russia investigation?
What happened to Trump and Putin? Where's the carefully planned treason between Trump and Putin to steal the election from poor hapless Hillary I've been hearing Dems shill for two years now? After all the surveillance such as questionable FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page as being a suspected linchpin in the conspiracy theory, all the leaks, Bob Woodward, still not a single charge? Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation still seems more a striptease than a catharsis. Where's the proof of the principal objective? I'm still waiting.
Meanwhile, Dems seem to be developing as much selective amnesia over what the principal reason for Mueller was in the first place as they have over the totally sordid Chinagate collusion scandal during Bill Clinton's presidency which resulted in scores of people indicted and convicted --
with one difference: despite the pleadings of the FBI to open a special counsel investigation into possible collusion among the Clinton's, the Chinese government and various high-powered crooks, the Clinton AG Janet Reno refused. Nor did the NY Times or Democrats rend their garments in righteous rage over it as they do now over Trump. Hmm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
Case 1: Man has consensual affairs with two different women. The women blackmail the man, and he reluctantly pays them.
Case 2: Congress members sexually assault more than 250 women. Women are paid off by US taxpayers.
For Case 2, it should be noted that members of Congress are perpetually campaigning.
Man in Case 1 is evil and needs to be charged criminally.
Men in Case 2 do not even have their names revealed to the American people, nor the amounts paid to their victims, let alone ever being charged with anything.
Democrat justice.
1
Ah, whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.
Issue with case #1 isn't about the affairs, but the actions to hush them up.
Issue with case #2 - no one said that case #2 was okay at all. (And I don't recall that being just about "Democrats.") So not sure of the point of adding that.
You forgot case #3: the use of "Democrat" for "Democratic" is meant as an epithet (and isn't grammatical). Guess I'm old enough to remember when Republicans in general didn't feel a need to do that.
@dg
What is Democratic about one set of rules for Trump and a different set of rules for all other politicians?
You assume too much when you call me a Republican.
We have a criminal residing in the White House that no one can touch until he leaves office. His stature is already diminished on a daily basis due to his constant lying, grandstanding antics, and inept behavior.
1
What law has he broken? This is a joke. I know that many of you do not like him but you can’t indict him for not being a Leftist like you. It’s fascinating watching all the children throw fits because they didn’t get their way in 2016. Just bite your lip and take it like we did when Mr. Obama won. Get a better candidate and try harder next time.
1
President Trump seems intent on destroying the North Atlantic alliance, dismantling the expansion of healthcare to 20,000,000 Americans under his predecessor and reversing all environmental regulations aimed at curbing pollution and CO2 emissions. He has deployed our military within the borders of the US for use as a theatrical prop and daily attempts to obstruct justice on his unsecured cell phone(GRU listening device). He has lied in public over 6000 times since taking office. His family continues to trade on his name and that of the United States in its business dealings with foreign states and actors. He excuses murderers to whom his family owes vast sums and sides with brownshirts marching with torches in our cities.
If legitimate indictments for crimes committed distract this president and interrupt his agenda of self-enrichment and criminality and debasement of the office he was elected to.... what exactly is the downside?
5
Oh, don't we long for the times when the President regretted remarking about a case under investigation and brought the different parties together to talk in a "beer summit," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy ?
We don't need a criminal indictment to realize we have a criminally corrupt clown in the Oval Office.
1
Lock em up and the kids too !
1
More legalistic tripe - Trump must be indicted, impeached and declared unfit under the 25th amendment simultaneously and immediately. He is destroying America, democracy and the entire planet!
1
Isn't the security of maintaining a democratic state more constitutionally important than interfering with the execution of Trump's duties?
The Russians are not going to stop trying to violate America's rights to free and open elections, and with the President's continued tacit support of those treasonous efforts how can any legal scholar place a higher priority on Trump's ability to do his job?
Should't the constitutional integrity of the United States take precedence over Trump's duties as President?
If you do the crime, you do the time. No one is above the law.
1
Lederman asks "is there another explanation" for Trump's failure to fulfill his Constitutuional duty to protect the American people.
Interesting question but trivial in the face of the ongoing disaster of this incompetent and corrupt man who may have stolen the election.
Our situation is especially perilous since the GOP in Congress has decided that even if Trump is compromised by Russian, he is a wonderfully useful idiot for their agenda of cutting taxes for the rich and upending Democracy in North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Lederman just doesn't get it: we're in deep, deep trouble here. He should be exercising his little grey cells figuring out out how to save the nation.
1
Insane! Idiotic! Stupid! Dumb! Nonsensical! If a person who broke the law to gain an office that insulates him from being charged, why shouldn’t we expect a race to the bottom from future law breakers? Our Oval office will become a rogues gallery of substitute booking photos.
But the real “stupid” is upon us in the argument that we don’t want to bother a sitting leader of the free world if he owes everything to a hostile foreign power who helped him break the law to gain the office to help the foreign power imperil the US. Wouldn’t we WANT to “interfere?”
I’m just a dumb, former DOJ lawyer. What do I know?
2
From the op-ed:
". . . the fixation on Mr. Trump’s possible criminal culpability . . . obscures the principal objective of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system."
That makes no sense. The Justice Department doesn't do "general research," it investigates possible criminal wrongdoing. That this is the purpose and focus of the Mueller investigation is made perfectly clear by the fact that Mueller's team is *indicting* defendants, not merely preparing reports.
It is the job of Congress and the states, perhaps with the *assistance* of law enforcement authorities, to conduct the sort of work Mr. Lederman ascribes to Mueller.
2
To me, the fundamental distinction is this, though this may not be the law. A president should not be subject to lawsuits related to policy. For example, if the president decides to stop funding a federal program, the president shouldn't be able to be personally sued by the people who lost their jobs, etc. Policy matters will inevitably harm some people and help others. As much as I hate his policy of jailing immigrant children, I understand why we can't allow those kids to sue him, because those kinds of lawsuits would never end.
But if a president has behaved illegally behind the scenes, in a consistent manner showing total disregard for the constitution and the law, that is not just a policy issue. He should be subject to the rule of law, just like the rest of us. Otherwise, corruption seeps into the core of our nation, and we stop being a democracy and go back to the monarchy we fought to eliminate 250 years ago.
3
I think that if the framers thought that the president would be subject to criminal prosecution while in office, there should be some evidence of that thinking in the records kept during the drafting of the constitution or in the federalist papers. As to the latter, there is considerable discussion about impeachments, especially by Madison in Federalist 38. He argues that impeachment maintains the separation of powers and that Congress, being representatives of the people, is the appropriate branch to remove the president (and other officers) from office but only that.
Hamilton writes in Federalist 84: “We find the following: Article 1, section 3, clause 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.'’”
Although that’s a little ambiguous, all things considered, I think the intent is to remove the president from office first via impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate and then commence the judicial process. It’s one of those checks and balances that the framers thought so important because of the possibility of corruption and other bad acts committed by the president.
By that logic, it seems evident that the president cannot be indicted while in office but only after removal from office.
1
I moved to the United States when I was six years old. My family left citizenship my sister and I were both 18 so we could make the decision for myself. One of the questions asked on citizenship test is "What is the 'Rule of Law'?". The correct answer is, "No-one is above the law, not even the President."
1
I could not disagree more.
First, if in fact this President has committed felonies or if he is compromised by the Russians, this MUST be known before he runs for a second term. Impeachment, with a compliant Republican majority in the Senate would not result in a fair trial nor be guided by facts. The Republican party has shown it is not to be trusted to do the right thing (see Garland, Wisconsin defanging the new Democratic Governor, voter suppression, extreme gerrymandering, etc.).
Second, if in fact, the Trump campaign actively sought or even passively accepted Russian interference or money in the 2016 campaign, then his election was fraudulent and the American people should know that. What action we could take is unclear, but the facts would be vital, if for no other reason that they would be voting in a Presidential election in 2020.
Perhaps Mr. Lederman has no interest in knowing what occurred in the past, but I do and I don't think I am alone in wanting to know.
2
YOU STATE:
The Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department acknowledged in 2000 that nothing in the text of the Constitution or evidence of the framers’ intent would preclude a grand jury indictment of a sitting president.
The office nevertheless concluded that an indictment would be unconstitutional in light of a powerful functional consideration: Because a trial during the president’s term would be precluded, an indictment would subject the president to the “stigma and opprobrium” of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law — a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
-----------------------
But this argument has been rendered meaningless.
Is it not clear that that the "respect and stature" of Trump, "both here and abroad," has already been tarnished to such an extent through his own lies and repeated ethical lapses that "his ability to act as the nation's leader in both domestic and foreign spheres" could hardly be further diminished.
1
Consider:" if a president committed a heinous crime."
Would a president whose crime was "heinous" be free from indictment -- and prosecution? If "yes," then the president would be free to commit even more "heinous" crimes while in office.
Then must there be a constitutional definition of "heinous"?
Perhaps a crime is a crime.
How would the government stop a president intent on breaking laws, engaging in criminal activity if the president is truly "above the law"?
Somehow the old fashioned notion that the President of the United States is not an untouchable king resonates in this debate.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
2
Not being a lawyer, I guess I fail to appreciate the legal nuances of the Trump problem. But it does seem clear to me that if Mueller finds that Trump committed acts of treason by colluding with Putin and his henchmen, then the machinery of government must act swiftly to remove Donald Trump from office. Preservation of our democracy is the first order of business, how the legal process would play out for Trump in the end is much less important.
264
@Kevin Cummins
Sir, although I completely agree with your sentiments, what should happen are worlds away from what is going to happen, so much so that I choose to not subject myself to the self inflicted stress of imagining that nirvana or a Utopia is going to happen in this country at this time. FORGETABOUTIT!!!!!!!
@Kevin Cummin
The constitution states “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
I am not so sure that the kind of collusion that has been alleged would constitute treason as defined. We are not at war with Russia. We are adversaries but we also cooperate a great deal. Are they an “enemy”. If they are, would getting their help to win an election be “adhering to them” and giving them “aid and confort”. Treason was defined in the constitution in order to keep it narrow that it might not be used as a political weapon. Of course the impeachment process may proceed regardless of any criminal treason.
Trump swore and oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If he is violating various aspects of Constitution how can he be considered to be protecting and defending it? He is using this country like it's his playground. He considers every cabinet member to be part of his personal retinue. He turns on qualified people the second they disagree with him and, even worse, has them fired.
Trump is not a president. He is a bringer of chaos. If he has done something that is an impeachable offense he should be impeached. He certainly should not be re-elected.
261
@hen3ry
Donald Trump swore to protect and defend a Constitution that is beyond his depth of comprehension.
12
@hen3ry@Petras@James Lee@Alan@Demosthenes
Obviously this is the mandate of the Mueller investigation.
@Petras There was some good news yesterday.China lowered tariffs on American cars from 25% to 15%.@James Lee. A trial in Senate could result in an indictment. That's the difference. N o, if 2/3 of Senate voted against impeachment it doesn't occur. This happened to Clinton.@Demosthenes. You are right about state law. But it would only become effective after the President is out of office. I'm not aware of a case similar to this fact pattern.
@hen3ry
Pretty much every congressman has voted for bills that they know are unconstitutional. They violate that oath routinely. Some in their dotage or a weak moment admit it. Obama violates the constitution as defined by himself with DACA. If every government official that took that oath woke up tomorrow and started following it, chaos would erupt.
2
While legal scholars are debating these issues Trump is working with the speed of lightning to further set the US back. Yesterday we heard about the catastrophic turn of events as regards the clean water act. Tomorrow it will be something equally damaging.
The country is being decimated by its own president. Trump came to be president very possibly because of broken laws.
This seems to an outsider to be an extremely urgent situation that cannot wait to be dealt with until he is gone.
212
The notion that a sitting president cannot or should not be subject to indictment and trial for criminal behavior makes no sense. All the arguments cited in favor of such a proposition (distraction from his official duties) would apply equally to impeachment and trial in the senate. Two such trials have already occurred, and the executive branch did not implode.
Secondly, Lederman argues that the purpose of the Mueller investigation is to discover if the Russians have a hold over Trump that prevents him from responding aggressively to their intervention in our elections. Suppose Mueller finds solid evidence of blackmail but the senate still refuses to act. Must we still wait two years before we can remove a man who has committed treason under the constitutional definition of that crime?
The president, because of his powers and responsibilities, should be the last person to enjoy even temporary immunity from the consequences of his behavior.
273
@James Lee
What the constitution has to say on that is that the House is the prosecutor and the Senate the judge of what constitutes treason or other impeachable crimes. The author's point is that until he is removed from the office by the Congress or his term ends, there's no good way in practice to indict and prosecute the head of the executive. If for no other reason, the trial judge would postpone the trial until after the man is no longer president. Without impeachment, he'd still be president even if convicted, and you can't put the commander in chief of the world's largest military or the head of the world's largest bureaucracy in jail. You need somebody exercising the office of the President. Only the Congress can remove the President from office.
5
@James Lee
The reason that Presidents can not be indicted is so that partisan political hacks can not attempt to use the legal system to harass a President that is a political opponent.
Sound familiar?
Impeachment is the remedy to remove a President.
6
@Tom When trump goes to prison, the vice president would be the one exercising the office of the president.
11
It's not only constitutional it's necessary. Impeachment only works if Congress has the will.
Madison and the framers wrote a specific clause about indictment so as to not give a loophole to a corrupt president, especially one who obtained the office through corruption.
136
This article ignores the elephant in the room. A president can be charged, tried, and convicted under state law. New York and other states are investigating Trump’s potentially criminal activities and nothing stops them from proceeding.
148
@Demosthenes
It didn't. It specifically mentioned it but said it would almost certainly be blocked at the federal level.
10
@Demosthenes
Amazing. 11 people as of now have recommended a statement that is erroneous.
@John -- "almost certainly blocked" could be no more than the trial. There is nothing at all that stops a state from indicting a sitting president.
And the fact that the Supreme Court allowed the Clinton v. Jones civil suit to proceed suggests that "almost certainly" is exaggerated, as to trial.
Cohen's plea provides New York State with a slam-dunk indictment of Trump on tax fraud and money-laundering charges.
I will be astounded if Letitia James (incoming AG of New York State) does not press this case once in office.
14
It's astounding to me that DJT, his presidency, his family, his cronies, and the "best" people that have been hired - and indicted - has given legal scholars, Congress, the Intelligence community, and the American public so many High Crimes and Misdemeanors to choose from. Indictments are assuredly pending from both New York state and SCO, and perhaps other entities. His own DOJ may in fact be the first to indict. How this man, and his criminal enterprise, can continue to be our President is mind boggling. He has betrayed everything that we stand for.
246
@Michael Gilbert
The "high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold is very high including intent.
1
Listening to constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe assert that there is no provision in the Constitution that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted, I do not understand the DOJ's claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Really? No matter what the malfeasance? The president can commit serious felonies and avoid indictment? If that's the case, the Constitution is a seriously flawed document. Wasn't it written to move away from the tyranny of a monarchy by establishing three equal branches?
295
@nzierler
If he actually did "shoot someone on 5th Ave.", would we still be having this bizarre debate?
Perhaps the Fox Ministry would try to justify it, and some fraction of the "base" would go along, but would the principle be established that the Prez could blatantly kill someone and not be charged, and remain in office?
I don't think the founders envisioned such Emperor-like prerogative for the Chief Executive.
If no citizen is above the law, and he is a citizen, then he is indictable. As to the distraction argument, how would this be any different from a political indictment, i.e., impeachment, and a subsequent Senate trial?
It's not.
36
@nzierler
Let's see, in 2000, when this position was taken by the DOJ, wasn't under the same Administration that approve waterboarding and other torture in Iraq?
Maybe the current Office of Legal Counsel might take a different position, if asked.
10
@Tom
Thank you for bringing this "OBVIOUS to some of us" EXAMPLE!
4
This article strikes me as highly confused. We have a situation where there is mounting evidence that the president was part of a criminal conspiracy to commit cyber, intelligence, and campaign finance crimes. That conspiracy is intertwined with multiple other conspiracies predating the campaign to commit financial crimes and violate sanctions against Russian entities.
These conspiracies have morphed into ongoing, plain-sight treachery, obstruction, and financial crime by the president. And the president's political party has joined these conspiracies and actively blocked congressional investigation of them.
If the central purpose of the Special Counsel's investigation is to address the ongoing threats posed by the conspiracies that spawned the election interference, then indictment of the president has to be on the table. The OLC argument against indictment is essentially practical, not constitutional. It only makes sense when there's a functional legislative branch and when the president's crimes are not an immediate threat to the country. Those are not the present conditions.
236
"We have a situation where there is mounting evidence that the president was part of a criminal conspiracy to commit cyber, intelligence, and campaign finance crimes. That conspiracy is intertwined with multiple other conspiracies predating the campaign to commit financial crimes and violate sanctions against Russian entities."
We do? Must still be missing it. Please cite one hard proven piece of evidence of any of this.
3
@John A.
By any legal definition, the legislative branch is functioning; it is their prerogative to remove the president from office. Faced with the problem of how to try a sitting president, any trial judge is going to defer the trial or the sentence. The judge lacks the power to remove the president from office, and the country needs a functioning president.
2
@JW, "Russia, if you have Hillary's emails..."; his refusal to admit he had a signed letter of intent to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, his pattern of always favoring Putin and Russia and taking their word over American intelligence findings; the fact many Russian oligarchs have paid inflated prices for his real estate (money laundering); his refusal to show his tax returns; his writing of a response to Don Jr. being implicated in the meeting with Russians; his firing Comey followed by his statement in the Oval Office to Kislyak that "he has taken care of the nutcase"....
20
"...an indictment would subject the president to the “stigma and opprobrium” of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law — a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
All I can say to the above is that President Trump has brought this upon himself. Neither he, nor his many enablers, can plead otherwise. And even if they could, does not the final decision rest with the president (or the then-candidate)? In any case, if a president is in office because he has won his election by criminal means, then he has forfeited any right to the "respect and stature" that his office entails.
This is his problem. Not ours.
405
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18,
I look at it from the perspective of the "stigma and approbrium" OUR NATION is suffering from his histrionics, and OUR " respect and stature both here and abroad" from his policies... we the people are more important than any president.
39
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18, Reading this paragraph, the first thing that occurred to me is that it simply doesn't apply to Trump. The "stigma and opprobrium" of being branded an accused criminal is already there (hence his new nickname, "Individual 1"). And he has no "respect or stature" abroad - on the contary, he is an object of contempt and derision throughout the world.
21
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18,
"In any case, if a president is in office because he has won his election by criminal means, then he has forfeited any right to the "respect and stature" that his office entails. "
If it is established in a court of law (either during or after his term in office) that his election was indeed won by criminal means, doesn't that make his presidency illegitmate? Consequently, don't all the bills he has signed into law, the judges he has nominated and gotten through the Senate (including Gorusch and Kavanaugh) all illegitimate and need to be reversed ?
I understand this is possibly unchartered territory, but how should his (illegitimate) actions as president be dealt with?
26
This idea that the President, and President, cannot be indicted is wrong in my opinion. Why do we have an elected Vice President that can take over?
If the President went out and murdered some one we would see how wrong this is. Why do white collar crimes always go on the back burner?
2
We already have a solution to this unserious claim that a criminal trial distracts from a President's duties: the 25th Amendment.
Literally, this is why we bother to have a Vice President.
Get on with it.
2
According to the Federalist Papers, the framers of our Constitution created the Senate with the idea that it would be filled with the rich and the powerful, much like the framers themselves and the House would be filled with rational representatives because they didn't trust the passions of the masses. It is a rigged system, designed to give greater influence to the rich and the powerful and token power to the electorate. Such a system cannot be trusted to impeach one of its own, and this is why indicting a sitting President should not only be allowed, it should be done if he/she has taken office by perpetrating fraud on the American people.
2
Lederman's opinion gets to the nub of the matter. Mueller was hired to investigate Russian efforts to undermine our democratic electoral process. Trump has repeatedly shown that he won't or can't deal forcefully with Russian interference in our electoral process. I haven't seen a plausible innocent reason for Trump's doubts and inaction.
Mueller needs to get to the bottom of this -- and make his findings public. Democrats and everyone who cares about our electoral process should remain focused on this message. I'm betting that Trump personally directed the conspiracy to get Wikileaks to release the emails the Russians hacked. Also, betting that Russia has other kompromat: information about the Trump organization's involvement in money laundering through real estate deals. Hopefully, time and Mueller will tell.
1
"Mr. Mueller and the attorney general overseeing him would almost surely calculate that the costs to the nation would exceed the benefits of bringing charges during the president’s term, and therefore urge the grand jury to hold off on taking the final step until Mr. Trump’s presidential tenure has ended."
That is a horrible argument.
We could potentially be looking at a president who has not only committed felonies but is personally and politically compromised and thus unable to fulfill his oath of office.
Yes, yes, but impeachment.
Just because something has never been done does not mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
If it's not "unconstitutional", which it fairly clearly is not, he should be indicted if he has committed significant enough crimes, which these clearly would be.
1
"What the nation most needs to know — and ideally what Mr. Mueller might explain — is why the president appears unwilling or unable to deal seriously with those threats, regardless of whether he also happens to have violated the law before he took office."
I believe you are exactly wrong.
Given the violent self-serving attitude, the heinous disregard for tradition, precedent, morality of this administration, the boastful claims of immunity from all consequence, what the nation most needs to know is that no one person, no deeply corrupted institution, no single ideas or idiosyncratic 'truth' is beyond the reach of our law.
More than that, the nation needs to know and to see that its ability to insist upon and enforce a standard of behavior is a run-of-the-mill, daily occurrence, not an occasion for a political rodeo with the accompanying political vitriol, name-calling, aspersion-casting.
What America needs most right now, pro-Trump,anti-Trump, centrist, is to see the normal order prevail as a matter of course, reliably.
This is not about content. This is all about process.
Anything else at this fraught moment is political hoo-hah designed to call out winners and losers, sure to divide us further.
1
There is little doubt that Russia, China and Israel are active in covert attempts to influence the U.S. government on a daily basis. Why would elections, with their cumulative biennial impact on U.S. foreign policy, be any different?
The important question is not to what degree did Trump "collude", as he no doubt did in his own inimical inane manner. The question is how social media, corporate media, election technology, campaign finance and old-school political chicanery can be prevented from impacting future elections.
"Because a trial during the president’s term would be precluded, an indictment would subject the president to the “stigma and opprobrium” of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law — a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
Isn't that one of the reasons we have a Vice President - to carry out the duties of the President if the latter is incapacitated or otherwise unable to function as leader?
I suppose one could quibble that when trump stands for office in 2020 as a candidate for the presidency, he is not a sitting president.
1
Let me see if I understand:
A DOJ memo that declares a sitting President can't be indicted/prosecute because of the distraction it would mean to his "Constitutional duties", and a federal court then used that notion to declare that it would then be "un-Constitutional" to indict a sitting President because any trial would "necessarily have to be delayed until they left office", therefore it infringes on his Constitutional right to a speedy trial? Therefore a DOJ memo trumps the Constitution?Nonsense!
I'm not a lawyer, nor a Constitutional scholar, just an ordinary American citizen who would be prosecuted in an instant if I committed a crime, and I sit here wondering where in the Constitution, or any of our Founder's writings did they declare a President above the law? Hint: NOWHERE!
As to why Mueller was appointed to investigate, it wasn't to find out what MIGHT happen, but what DID happen, and did the man we elected President break the law or conspire with our enemies to win? Yes, we need to also find out the level of continuing threat we face, but a prosecutor's job by definition is to determine if punishment should be meted out for PAST crimes.
And the answer to why Trump isn't doing anything about Russian attacks on our democracy? Simple: He's as guilty as they are.
2
"Although the fixation on Mr. Trump’s possible criminal culpability is understandable, it obscures the principal objective of the Russia investigation ... which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system."
Mr. Lederman's assertions as to the principal objective of the Mueller investigation are incorrect, and these flawed assertions are the premise for his editorial. Mr. Mueller's letter of authorization (appended below here) says nothing about identifying continuing threats. I agree that identifying continuing threats is important. I myself find it bizarre and deeply troubling that Mr. Trump has done nothing to protect us from those threats. But Mueller's mandate has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Mueller's letter of authorization:
"(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."
5
Blah, blah, blah.
Why are we even having this discussion. Are we next going to explore the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Based on the Mueller and SDNY filings so far, it certainly appears that Trump may have committed campaign finance felonies before he took office. Given Mueller's explorations into Trump's businesses, Trump and family may have committed numerous criminal offenses over the past 30 or more years. And this is even before the issue of and reason for Trump's pro-Russia policies since he assumed office.
In short, if the evidence is there, of course he should be indicted. We are still a nation of laws (well, except in Wisconsin and North Carolina, but that's another can of worms). If I violated those laws, I would be indicted. If Trump violated those laws, he should be indicted.
This is not a distraction. This is the core of what we are as a nation. The distraction would be having the evidence of crimes having been committed and doing nothing about it. If Trump is not able to carry out his duties with indictments, tough. Then resign.
5
@Despair
" If Trump is not able to carry out his duties with indictments, tough. Then resign."
Or invoke the 25th amendment.
" ...a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
And do you not think this is already the case...and getting worse by the day?
3
If you can't indict a criminal treasonous president, what is the point of a Vice President, or more likely in this case leader of the House given how corruptly intertwined everyone in the trump administration is. The joyful irony is that Rep. Nancy Pelosi will be second in line to succeed trump as POTUS next year.
1
There’s another argument in this case that may apply to indicting a sitting president, which I have not seen expressed. Specifically, if a person obtains this so-called “protected“ status of being president as a result of their crime, shouldn’t that protection not apply? In other words, it seems more and more evident that Trump only became president through criminal manipulation (Breaking election finance laws, paying off porn stars, etc.). (It’s the old joke about killing your parents and telling the court you cannot be punished because you are an orphan. ) . For a potential crime such as this, he should therefore not be entitled to immunity from indictment.
3
It appears Mr. Trump is a crook. Maybe for election violations, maybe for tax evasion, maybe for using his office for profit, maybe for "collusion" or conspiracy. Who knows? But it's doubtful, as Mr. Trump maintains, that EVERY accuser is a liar and EVERY news report is a fake. A president often works beneath a cloud of scandal, but Mr. Trump works beneath a monsoon. Something's gotta stick. However, if the incoming House spends an inordinate amount of time investigating Mr. Trump's alleged crimes--while he is still in office--the American people will see this litigation as politically motivated and, therefore, without much merit. I hope the House will restrain itself and investigate Mr. Trump with moderation. They should concentrate on public service projects, and leave the prosecution of Mr. Trump's crimes for post-presidential courtrooms.
1
Is not indicting Trump unconstitutional?
If President Donald Trump is a threat to our nation's sovereignty then he is a clear and present danger to Americans right now. He needs to be removed from office and the rule of law should be enacted. No one is above the law at any point in time. The idea that a "memo" can loosely string up the entire USA for two more years of Russian oversight is wrong. Time for articles to stop the hand-wringing and flip flop reporting and -and just tell it like it is.
1
The idea that a sitting president can't, or shouldn't, be indicted is nonsense.
.
If he shot somebody, the police would hesitate to arrest and charge the man?
.
Of course not. He would be arrested and tried.
.
The pint of the "sitting president" quasi-immunity is to prevent the presidency from being distracted by nuisance complaints.
.
But that isn't the situation here.
.
Here, the activities go directly to the heart of (a) the integrity of the electoral process; (b) evidence that public official has been compromised by a hostile foreign power; and (c) evidence that the office is being used for personal gain; and (d) the national security of the state.
.
Is someone suggesting that the police couldn't have arrested Benedict Arnold if he had been elected president?
.
Ridiculous.
.
Indict the man, now, and bring on whatever constitutional litigation it causes. The damage being done to the US every day is crippling.
.
China is not sleeping, or postponing its efforts, just because the US has a leadership vacuum, (or, maybe more accurately, a leadership black hole).
.
This guy should not be in office for another day.
.
The police have the ability to deal with that, even if Republicans in Congress refuse to defend the Constitution of the United States.
2
@Richard Blaine
All too true. If trump can be indicted for impeachment, then so, too, should the republican Congress, as it's their lack of doing their own jobs as defined in our constitution that has allowed trump to run riot over our country and ignore its laws.
lol "...an indictment would subject the president to the “stigma and opprobrium” of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law — a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad” and thus impact his ability “to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.”
That shipped sailed some time ago... Our POTUS enjoys no respect and has no remaining stature for most here and almost all of those abroad (that even includes Russia and SA for whom he is just a tool).
2
If the President can't be indicted while he is in office, shouldn't the statute of limitations toll as it during certain other situations such as being a fugitive? The statute shouldn't run during the time that a person cannot be prosecuted. To do otherwise, allows the President to use his presidency as a shield from prosecution which it should not be. Tolling addresses all of the pertinent issues.
3
For me, this statement on its face is absurd: "Although the fixation on Mr. Trump’s possible criminal culpability is understandable, it obscures the principal objective of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system." Past wrongdoing or threats to our electoral system? Really? No, the principal objective I believe as perceived by most Americans is to answer the question as well as possible, "do we have an illegitimate administration in power now?" given the theft of the rights of the American people to have a free and fair election by the actions of a foreign government and inside criminal actions of those now in the administration. Where I live in the Triangle of North Carolina, most educated folks think it is an illegitimate administration in power now and they must be removed and pay for their crimes.
1
Here's Alexander Hamilton's take:
"The two greatest securities [the People] can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power: First, the restraints of public opinion...and, secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office, or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it."
1
@Eric
And here is Abraham Lincoln's:
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
The constitution itself does not say a president cannot be indicted and tried for crimes. It leaves it to congress to remove a president, but is mum on criminal indictment by law enforcement. The presidential shield came out of a long custom of not doing so, with the reason being that they didn't want law enforcement using criminal charges to blackmail a sitting president. If you allow this, a president can be tied up by his enemies by criminal charges, no matter how trumped up the charges (no pun intended).
In practical reality, Trump won't be indicted, you have a Supreme Court now with a conservative majority that is not going to allow indicting Trump, no matter what (if a Democrat gets to be president and a prosecutor decides to indict him/her, will be really interesting to see what the Scotus GOP judges come up with to override their own precedent).
Personally I don't think indicting Trump is all that important, Trump nation will howl it is political...but rather I hold more hope that revelations of the Mueller commission make it so Trump is nullified, where GOP congress members realize they were attached to a sinking ship, and other than Trumps rabid base people would finally cut ties with supporting Trump, with the goal of him being removed in 2020.
2
Within this piece, Mr. Lederman has focused in on the single most important element with Trump -- his unwillingness or inability even to acknowledge, let alone act against malign Russian interference in our democracy places him in violation of his solemn oath of office to defend the country against all enemies, etc.
The oaths of the members of both houses of congress (and every other sworn federal official in a position to act, if you want to actually hold people to what they swore to...) require that they act to impeach and remove him from office.
No need to wait for Mueller and his report.
5
I very much appreciate Professor Lederman's nuanced view of the situation. It's already clear that President Trump has engaged in criminal conduct, but the only way to address that legally is via a political process. Whether anything the President did is tied to the Russia investigation remains to be seen. It's important to be reminded that the whole point of Robert Mueller's investigation is to help us understand to what extent the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.
Another thing this essay reminds us is that our legal system is built on a pyramid structure of power, money, and connections (not to mention race and gender). Those at the bottom without political connections are at the mercy of our legal system. And the person at the very top, the President, is effectively immune from legal prosecution, at least as long as that person remains in office. It is the point where law and politics merge.
Given that President Trump is only interested in himself and in public perceptions of him, I can think of no greater motivating factor for him to want to win re-election in 2020.
The House Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees will have the opportunity to open full investigations into the broader question of foreign influence in US elections and the specific question of Trump's complicity. The facts we already know prove that Russia assisted the Trump campaign; that Trump's campaign officials and business associates interacted with Russian operatives on multiple occasions before the election to promote his business interests and to coordinate campaign strategy; and that after the election but before assuming office Trump, through his transition team, offered assurances to Russia that he would undo US sanctions against it for its murderous activities in the Ukraine and in the United Kingdom. It is only a matter of time before additional information will establish Trump's personal involvement in these actions.
Next to that, making payments to mistresses is trivial. Next to that, lying about and obstructing the investigation, which every Republican in Congress abetted, are trivial. Next to that, using his office for personal profit is trivial.
Supporting the interests of a foreign power in exchange for surreptitious and nefarious assistance in undermining the US election is treason. The Constitution does have something to say about that. Impeachment would be mandatory. And, assuming Trump would be found guilty, full prosecution under the laws of the US would subject Trump to the death penalty. Trump is a fan of the death penalty.
4
@MEM Actually, Russia is not technically at war with the US and isn’t legally our enemy which precludes any charge of treason.
@MEM - excellent and insightful, thank you for this
I'm sorry, but the issue of "election tampering" is nothing compared to the issue of whether or not we truly have "equality under the law".
The real question here should be, "Are we going to continue to allow those in power to warp, distort, and pervert justice in order to serve their own political and financial ends?"
Are we a nation of laws, or not?
Should laws only apply to one political party, but not the other?
Should those with the greatest amount of power have the least responsibility to it?
Should those that write and administer the laws have the greatest immunity from them?
How do we extract ourselves from our current state of unending, state sponsored, lies and hypocrisy?
For me, those questions are a lot more essential, and far more important to know the answers to, then any questions about some "influence campaign".
After all, "influence", is a lot less effective on those who truly know exactly who, and what they are.
Russian influence would be useless against a nation united in it's understanding of itself, and what it values.
Without cracks in the surface, it becomes extremely difficult for corrosion to get a foothold.
Food for thought.
3
The Justice Department allowed a civil case to proceed against Bill Clinton. The idea that a criminal case couldn't be pursued brings recollections of Pete in the Movie O Brother..., "That don't make no sense." As Trump famously likes to say, the DOJ was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, it is also wrong to follow a policy that a sitting president can't be indicted.
3
Russia and every other country in the world has an interest in the outcome of the elections in other countries. It seems silly to suppose that Russia or any other country would refrain from trying to influence the outcome. Is there a law against this? Can one even define "trying to influence the outcome of an election" with any precision? Anything Russia does could have an influence.
Is it a violation of the law to establish social media accounts and publish things that are not factually true? There are millions of such accounts! Aliens, miracle cures, extremist politics of all shades a hues. If it is not illegal, Russia has not violated any law by doing so.
Conclusion...the whole issue of Russian influence by use of social media is silly and stupid. The answer is: "Of course they did it. Of course they will continue to do so. So will we and everybody else. Grow up and manage the situation."
Can a president be indicted for a crime? The constitution supplied a procedure: impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate. By specifying this procedure, it made reasonably clear that other procedures were unconstitutional. Why? To prevent the danger of police or judges or investigators usurping the power vested in the president by the process of a democratic election. No matter how bad Trump may be, do we really want every president to be subject to unending "investigations" to try to get him out of office? Would that really aid democracy?
@Michael If unending investigations and threatened investigations into emails and Benghazi can occur, why not unending investigations into the issue of treason in the oval office? I can't think about "every president" while the trump travesty continues.
Has Trump expressed any doubt about the conclusion drawn by the US intelligence community that China was behind the Marriot data hack? This is the same intelligence community that concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, which he still won't admit happened. I guess Chinese oligarchs didn't buy enough Trump Tower condos.
1
It seems that the presidency benefits from a sort of legal "catch-22" set up: the president, if not indictable while in office, is free to be like a bull in a china shop, rampaging and breaking the law with impunity as long as he is in office. There is right now a possibility of the statute of limitations running out if he is reelected in 2020 for events of the 2016 election--a bona fide "get out of jail" card. I think there is the possibility of a truly craven president suspending elections to avoid being forced out of office and hence facing justice as he walks away from the White House. Wars can be started, "some people" might whisper about terrorist strikes; many excuses could be invoked and we are stupid if we think it cannot happen here.
This president believes he is above (or at least outside) the law. If we are a nation of laws, they must apply to all. As the author stated, the Paul Jones case showed that a president can be sued while in office. The argument that charging a sitting president would 'undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad”' is ridiculous; he's already done that! He cannot be diminished more with a criminal charge but he can wreck more damage, domestically and internationally, with his self-serving back room business maneuvers (as well as those of his family) in conflict with the nation's interests. Hold this man accountable!
The writers of the Constitution created a wonderful document; let's protect it. No king!
2
This president has an attention span of around 30 seconds. The nation and the world will be a safer place when he's gone and the sooner the better. He spends his time dividing the country and enriching himself and his family so a criminal indictment during his presidency would have little impact on the nation's business. This guy needs to go.
2
Your argument is that it doesn't matter, at least for now, whether the President violated campaign finance laws because he is also under investigation for what is essentially espionage. Let's simplify that argument: it doesn't matter whether the President violated the law because he's under investigation for violating a different law.
Anyone else see how idiotic that argument is?
Also, please show to me where in the Constitution it says that a person's job responsibilities can preclude them from criminal investigation.
And then tell me why a President's lawyers working on a defense case means the President can't do his job.
And then tell me why a President who stands accused of violating the law to obtain his position should be allowed to continue in his role until they decide the issue *after* he no longer has the position.
And then tell me why this doesn't create an alarming precedent where a President is above the law so long as he has political support in the Senate.
And then tell me how the concept of justice isn't being completely obliterated by making the office immune to criminal persecution.
If the President doesn't have to follow the law because his job is important, neither do any of the rest of us.
19
The concept of indicting anyone based on a plea deal of a habitual liar is ridiculous.
A crime needs to be identified with evidence.
Some people in the DOJ, FBI and former Obama administration have taken law enforcement to the depths of the sewer. They are not elected officials and should stop acting that way. They were and are here to serve the public not themselves or some goofy agenda. These people have embarrassed the people they left behind and disgraced themselves and destroyed any goodwill capital accrued by their former departments and divisions.
Opinions of former political hacks should be clearly identified as hacks and leave ti there.
The allegation that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to “make illegal campaign contributions” is absurd. No one imagines that Trump said to Cohen, “I direct you to make illegal campaign contributions.” Trump would have no authority to do that. Cohen was his lawyer, not his subordinate.
Trump apparently asked Cohen to persuade the American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Inquirer, to buy but not publish Karen McDougal’s account of her affair with Trump. He also asked Cohen to pay hush money to silence Stormy Daniels. Whether these transactions constitute illegal campaign contributions is a matter of dispute.
Hush money payments made by candidates to influence elections are only illegal if they are made out of campaign contributions. None of the money that went to pay Karen McDougal or Stormy Daniels came form campaign contributions. Cohen billed the Trump Organization—not the Trump campaign—for reimbursement plus a fee for handling the non-dicsclusre agreement. It was not a contribution.
The Federal Election Commission, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance violations, apparently agrees with Trump’s lawyers that transactions were not illegal campaign contributions. It has known about the transactions since November 2016, when the Wall Street Journal broke the story, but hasn’t filed any charges in connection with the transactions.
One rule for them, one rule for us.
I am a former prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney for 30 years. If this President or any President commits a crime, they could and should be arrested. What if trump killed someone? Are you saying he wouldn’t be arrested and indicted? Ridiculous. Our most fundamental tenant of criminal law is that “nobody is above the law”. Nobody!
11
Wow, the 'Originalists' are in trouble now. No the Constitution does not say anything about not indicting a President. So go ahead and indict him, and let's just have fun with that.
The task of the investigation is to expose the problems and issues concerning free elections. When the President becomes a side show is distrative to that purpose. It does not eliminate his potential exposure to actions of a questionable or legal nature. He seems well on his way to avoid reelection all alone by his big mouth. The whole big show of an impeachment would last almost as long as it would take to vote him out office and file charges. It would be a cleaner process and less of a big distraction to a 2020 election cycle that begins next month. It’s really what we want.
Honing the finer points of the constitution's intent in lieu of saving the democracy would be a foolish choice. Donald Trump, his senators, and his band of white-collar crooks pose a serious and imminent threat to the country. His influence should be curtailed in whatever manner necessary to preserve the United States.
3
Would Indicting Trump Be Constitutional? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opinion/mueller-dict-trump.html
Is anybody perfect? One can google presidents acting unlawfully and pages upon pages will flood your computer screen. The constitutional issue at hand is that there is no debate that a former president can certainly be subject to a criminal trial. But, actually witnessing the Justice Department going out of their way to prosecute the commander in chief of the United States of America, this may be a stretch.
The federal courts and Justice Departments would likely postpone any indictment until after president Trump’s terms. In my opinion, these are the proper steps that should be taken. Having the sitting president of the United States of America being indicted, would be a huge distraction.
The article’s final point of whether Trump’s relationships with Russia will affect his ability to protect and keep the country safe is what the people should be most concerned about.
Michael O’Leary
Boston
December 12, 2018
I appreciate the attempts to be measured, but want to counter. During the campaign,I wrote that this country had better have a back up plan which included impeachment if this man was elected. I have watched for three years in disbelief as journalists and pundits have maintained the myth that somehow impeachment is off the table or ancillary.
When he ran, I researched the man. He was guilty and fined for five serious crimes including stealing from a charity. During the campaign, I reached out to various editors to ask why we were hearing about Clinton's emails for the millionth time when no one had addressed the fact that he had 169 federal lawsuits pending and that he was named in 3,500 civil ones. It was so abundantly clear to me that electing a man with this record would create a Constitutional crisis that I couldn't grasp why no one was taking the threat seriously.
We have this fatally flawed, incompetent, dangerous man in office precisely because, throughout his entire life, when he could have been held accountable, he was not. The issue of accountability IS the issue. We should not separate the crimes from the sentence.
Much of what is leaking isn't even coming from Mueller. The crimes are so craven they lie in plain sight.The NY court, Yahoo, The WP, the NYT...leaks and breaks are coming in at such a furious pace that the end is near.
This dam is broken. "To protect and defend," we must impeach. If we don't, DJT will be the first of many aspirational despots.
11
These are not incidental crimes he committed - these are felonies helped him attain office. Post-election Trump contacts with the Russians continued - remember Kislyak and Lavrov yucking it up with Trump in the Oval Office? And Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak during the transition? And the Trump Putin tryst in Helsinki? There is every reason to believe the Trump-Russia conspiracy against the US continues. In formulating his quaint idea of not-indicting the President, officials never imagined someone as treasonous and corrupt as the current WH occupant. If Trump really did shoot someone on 5th Avenue - would Lederman still invoke this inane rule?
3
As Trump does not read and essentially is nothing but a marketing charade, the people have nothing to fear if he were to be indicted.
1
Mr. Lederman's column is the real distraction here. He wants to distract public attention away from the criminal behavior of Trump and his minions.
There is nothing in Mueller's job description about reforming our political system. There IS a mandate for Mueller to investigate criminal behavior. That is why he was appointed as a Special Counsel by Rod Rosenstein.
Here is what the appointment letter says (excerpted):
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html)
Lederman wants to frame the argument as if it were about something else. But Mueller is not a lawmaker, he is a law enforcement agent. And he's doing very well at it.
I guess that makes some people nervous...
5
If it is determined that Trump and/or persons connected wih his campaign conspired with a foreign government to win the election, indictment would seem to be not only possible but mandatory. First, I see nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the indictment and trial of a sitting president. Secondly. criminal indictment and trial would be no more disruptive than impeachment and trial. Indeed, the latter would probably be more disruptive because of the political forces unleashd by an impeachment proceeding. A criminal proceeding would also be no more disruptive than The Paula Jones type civil proceeding that has been nearly unanimously approved by the Supreme Court.
Most importantly, a candidate who wins office by illegality and treachery cannot be allowed to use that very same office to shield himself from the laws that would otherwise apply. To argue otherwise would be like permitting a bank robber to use the stolen money to buy his freedom.
3
@Carl Vaccaro I would think that there is in fact some fault to this logic. First, an impeachment and trial which results in removal from office would allow for the proper transition of executive duties. A criminal trial and conviction on the other hand does not actually remove the President from office or allow for transition of power. An impeachment would still be required for this process to take place. What happens if the President is convicted of a crime and the Senate fails to remove the President from office. The problem then becomes that if you are unable to get the senate to remove the President as an impeachment then you are not likely to get congress to sustain a 25th amendment challenge.
@John The things you state seem to have more to do with preference than logic. If Trump committed serious crimes to win office, we have a criminal sitting in the White House. You apparently prefer that criminal to remain unindicted. I prefer, and I think the law demands, that criminal to be indicted.
You seem to agree that a criminal president should be removed from office. It would seem that given the disgraceful inaction of Congress vis a vis this criminal president, an indictment or the threat thereof, might finally spur the cowardly lawmakers to action.
1
While it's almost inevitable that Donald Trump is involved in, or at least knowledgeable of many of the activities several of his associates are now coming forth with, the primary focus of the Robert Mueller Russia investigation should remain just that -- an investigation, but complete with whatever punishment fits the crime regardless of if it involves a sitting president or not.
The possibility of defrauding the American public during an election is no laughing matter and a clear message should be sent that this is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, because it flies in the very face of what free and democratic elections, and yes, this country is supposed to stand for.
How could making America great again ever come to allow otherwise?
10
So, we shouldn't indict Trump because it might inhibit his ability to protect and defend the nation. Instead, we allow him to remain in office so he can provide aid and comfort to our Russian enemies in undermining our democracy.
21
Again, I don't get it - I thought Jones v. Clinton established that a sitting prez can be indicted.
2
@Grace Thorsen
If a POTUS is committing crimes while in office (and prior to taking the Oath of Office) and evidence confirms this issue...then perhaps this should be considered in determining whether or not an indictment should be issued. If the POTUS's party is in control of one of the houses of congress and continues to support the POTUS and will not take action to impeach the POTUS, well then......what...(Question): do nothing for the months or years left of the POTUS's 1st term and hope that the Electoral College makes the final determination as to whether the POTUS continues in office for another 4 years of criminal activity??? Just a thought...
@Grace Thorsen
Jones V Clinton was not a criminal indictment, it was a civil case. Criminal law is different tha civil law.
It should be obvious that there can be no more important issue of law and justice not to have have someone who committed a felony, let alone multiple ones, occupying the office of the President. Not a distraction! The objective is to get at the truth and, if criminal activities are discovered, to hold all parties involved accountable for them--including the Russians if it comes to that. The attack on your election by the Russians was a act of war! We would be justified in responding by whatever means we deem the best to assure justice is done. A military option is not in the cards, not only because nuclear weapons might be used in response. But all those persons in our country for whom there is evidence of aiding the Russians in their crimes against us must be charged and tried. If this includes the current sitting President, so be it.
207
@V Nagarajan
And include as part of that amendment, the requirement for all candidates to fully disclose all business dealings including tax returns.
71
@Skeptic That’s not what I got out of this opinion. The author states that the President can be indicted and tried, but most likely will wait until the end of his term for any trial.
2
@John
And then he has time to pardon himself and cause more outgoing damage including extreme grabs of destruction against the USA and its people while he wants us to all go down with him.
3
Another 1,000 word essay by a legal scholar which concludes the foundational principle of our democracy that "no man is above the law" is a sham because a president would not face trial if indicted and held accountable for breaking a law, ANY law.
The 99.9999 percent of us who are not lawyers are tired of all the legal opinions of why this should be so - affecting a president's performance here or on the world stage, etc., etc. and etc.
We want to know one thing: Does a politician face the same consequences for breaking our laws as we do?
And to make us feel better about the country we live in, Congress should pass a bill specifically saying a sitting president can - and should be - brought to trial if indicted.
357
@shelbym
I agree. If we have a president who cannot be reined in by the legal system of this country, then he can do incalculable damage.
This president is implicated in one felony thus far (illegal campaign contribution); he has clearly violated the Emoluments Clause since day one in office so another charge is pending; and that doesn't even touch on Mueller's possible offerings of Trump's criminality: obstruction of justice, conspiracy...and possibly treason. Felonies. And he can skate along with no consequences? This is NOT what those who constructed our government had in mind; they'd seen it all and would never have given king-like impunity as this president seem to feel he has.
83
@shelbym I am a lawyer, and I agree. I believe the President may be indicted and tried during his term, and his duties turned over to the VP pursuant to the 25th Amendment.
40
@shelbym what I like about this article is it takes some of the emotion out of the arguments. There's some good stuff here to help with the conversations with those trump fans, over the holidays. (With a small hope they'll see the light of day.)
7
There's already an abundance of evidence that Trump acted illegally, far more than the mere "speculation" that Lederman states, including direct allegations by Federal prosecutors in the Cohen sentencing memo. Thus, the “stigma and opprobrium of being branded an accused criminal without a timely opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law — a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s 'respect and stature both here and abroad'" that impacts his ability "to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres." are ever-present factors that will stain Trump for as long as he remains president.
Our nation needs to move past these serious concerns that our president was elected with significant (and potentially decisive) assistance from one or more hostile foreign adversaries and that he might have committed many other crimes including tax evasion, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Delaying an indictment and trial will only perpetuate this situation.
If Mueller decides to stick with the tradition of not indicting and trying the sitting president, he should at least bring a sealed indictment or get the court to "toll" the statute of limitations so that the fact that Trump is currently president doesn't make him above the law and doesn't preclude him from being charged for his crimes.
276
@Richard Robbins
How can I like your comment a thousand times?
10
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a sitting president can’t be indicted; however, what if, as Lawrence Tribe has pointed out, Individual-1, in this case, attained the position by defrauding, conspiring against, the American public—in other words, disingenuously, under false pretenses? Aren’t all bets off if the President in question obtained “indictable immunity” through Ill-gotten means? Besides, maintaining that the “stigma and opprobrium” that attends a criminal charge and trial would preclude, prevent and interfere with the president doing his job overlooks the fact that this particular president had enough accompanying “stigma and opprobrium” before taking office to choke a horse. As a New Yorker told me, “There’s a reason Trump lost his home by more than twenty points. We knew the dude!” Moreover, don’t Individual-1’s principal daily activities, tweeting, golfing, watching Faux News and conducting Nuremburg-style rallies, also interfere with him “doing his job”?
11
Since Trump is continuing to commit treason on a daily basis, no rational person would conclude that the people cannot do whatever is needed to stop him. He and his conspirators will not be allowed to continue their treason.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
2
@tbs I think Trump could be indicted on a number of charges but I doubt any of them would be treason due to the very specific nature of the legal definition.
@John: Having reviewed that language and the attendant law review articles on treason, I would draw the opposite conclusion.
My understanding is that issuing a sealed indictment of the sitting president would halt the statute of limitations from running. It would have been nice if the author had made this point.
3
The issue of foreign and especially hostile influence over the US government is preeminent. When an unscrupulous opportunist with global business interests and a carefully constructed TV celebrity persona first glided down his golden escalator, we were already in trouble.
Such a figure attracts other unprincipled opportunists by the score, as well various hidden agents of autocratic and corrupt governments and those with organized crime connections. This is the essence of the Trump Empire business model, brought to the White House.
The prize of influence over a sitting US President with such awesome powers over international trade, energy production, banking, military alliances and especially enforcement of sanctions is simply too big.
And it should be clear by now just how vulnerable our Federal government agencies are to attack, with their vast budgets, outdated computer systems, revolving doors of contractors granted access and political appointees pledged to serve the interests of campaign donors rather than the people and taxpayers.
The Trump Administration is probably the inevitable consequence of a century of growth in US hegemony that is now being challenged. Russia plays the weaker hand, seeking to undermine institutions of US power and alliances. China surrounds them with a growing military force and Belt and Road project that spans South America, Africa and Eurasia.
Trump has exposed our vulnerabilities. I hope the Mueller Report is a wake up call.
9
The question of indicting a sitting president does not mean trying him while in office. Under federal law indictment would mean that a prosecutor who works for DOJ would bring a bill before a grand jury (6th Amendment), and obtain the indictment. The conflict of interest in bringing secret evidence and testimony against the Attorney General's boss is obvious. But the legal ethics conflict of the prosecutor and/or the AG in NOT bringing charges is also critical. They are as attorneys sworn Officers of the Court, and as DOJ members of the government sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The indictment would likely avoid statutes of limitation from preventing trial after he/she is out of office.
If POTUS were to, in his example, shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue in plain view, and the videos go viral, do DOJ officials have no power? If not them, what about NY state officials? Presidential pardons do not apply to state law, prosecutors for NYC do not report to the US AG. Can NY or DC or CA bring charges against a sitting president for state crimes in the same way they bring and win suits about Executive Orders? As Lederman points out, state charges can also suspend statutes of limitations.
To wait endlessly for the House and Senate would be both wrong and cowardly when evidence is clear and danger to the Republic is present.
6
This article contends that the most important issue beyond a Trump indictment is the improvement of our system against tampering and other problems raised by Trump actions.
First of all, the problem looms that we would have a potential felon in office whose actions would only concern his own protection and not the needs of the country for which he was elected to serve. The ability of a sitting president to do harm to our government and country is potentially catastrophic and almost certain.
Beyond this, no one especially the GOP seems capable or have the will to curb executive power in this situation or protect our democracy from an imperial president who is intent on using our Justice Department as his personal lawyer and tool. Perhaps the new House will do something about this but given the track record of the Senate GOP enablers what will be done?
We are truly in a constitutional crisis and someone must take the ball from Mr. Mueller and do what is necessary to protect us from a presidency out of control.
18
Let’s say, hypothetically, the Vice President shoots and kills the President, thereby succeeding the President in office. Does he remain and serve unindicted? I don’t think so. The issue with Trump and felony campaign law violations is comparable.
16
That we're even having this discussion highlights one of the seemingly baked-in features of our republic that are proving to be inadequate to deal with the perversion of democracy we're experiencing in the Trump administration. We seriously need to reconsider the powers and privileges of the Presidency.
The Founders thought that the Electoral College would keep the worst of the worst from achieving the Presidency, and no doubt had the unstated a priori assumption that should a President misbehave, surely there would be enough members of Congress of sound mind and moral character to stop him via impeachment. They never bargained for a tainted President, a tainted Senate, a tainted House, and a tainted Supreme Court. Our current set of checks and balances is simply unable to deal with this degree of corruption and self-interest.
I do understand the distraction bit RE indicting a President, but the idea that a President cannot be removed by any practical means and cannot be indicted for any crime whatsoever seems to make the President more of a king or emperor than the head of a republic. We seem to be at a point where Donald Trump could conceivably act out one of his famous fantasies: he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, his followers would still cheer him, Congress (at least the one we've had for the last 2 years) would enable him, and there would be no legal consequences during the President's term.
10
It is very curious that a former member of the Office of Legal Counsel should think that the Attorney General would have to “overrule” the Office of Legal Counsel’s conclusion before he might authorize the indictment of a sitting president. The 1973 and 2000 Memoranda were nothing more than opinions, which had no binding effect on anyone, including the Attorney General. If the Attorney General wished to bind himself and the Department of Justice by the terms of these opinions, he should have promulgated a rule to that effect and published it according to the statutory requirements governing the actions of the Attorney General with respect to “Rules” and “Rule Making.” So far as I have been able to determine, this was never done. The AG’s hands are not tied. The statutory duty of a US Attorney is to prosecute crimes against the United States, and a Special Counsel has all of the authority of a US Attorney. The real issue is prosecutorial discretion, and the Supreme Court held in the Confiscation Cases cited in US v Nixon that the Attorney General cannot be compelled to prosecute a criminal case. As for “urging the grand jury to hold off”, the court in US v Cox (343 F2d 167) dealt extensively with the legal effect of an attempt by a grand jury to indict where the Attorney General did not sign the indictment, and it was pretty well established that whatever presentment or indictment might be filed on behalf of the grand jury without the AG’s signature would be dead on arrival.
5
I have no doubt that, if the State of New York "follows the money" after obtaining Trump's personal and business tax returns, they will find ample evidence of criminal activity.
9
It would take weeks or months to document the degree to which Donald Trump has damaged this democracy. And while it is important to disclose the extent to which he is a Manchurian candidate effectively controlled by the Russian government and mafia- it is also important that he and his family suffer the full consequences of their blatant disregard of the law and crimes against humanity. I believe Trump should be indicted, impeached and eventually imprisoned.
As for the core of his popular support- they have chosen to support lawlessness and a distorted, hateful view of the world- including their fellow citizens- over truth. And while totalitarian leaders and their followers do this to prop up their sense of worth and power- it is imperative that they be held to the full extent of the law- whether they like or not- in fact especially because the DON'T like it.
6
Um - where was the argument against the constitutionality for criminally indicting a sitting President when there is zero, nada, zilch, nothing in the U.S. Constitution speaking to the subject? I've yet to see an argument I consider compelling, let alone rational.
3
@Jan N
Funny, isn't it, how the Republican love of interpreting the Constitution as written just seems to evaporate when it comes to finding penumbrae to protect Trump?
We're treading on Banana Republic logic where politicians run for political office to immune themself from prosecution. Trump will simply follow their lead, and sycophants in the Republican Party will bow to him like a monarch. Patrick Henry turned down James Madison's invitation to the Constitutional Convention writing, "I smelt a rat in Philadelphia tending toward the monarchy."
Our republican government and Bill of Rights are the only true sovereigns of a free people, and House Democrats should start legislation to overturn decisions by magistrates in DoJ about indicting a sitting president. I'm reserve judgement about Trump until Muehler issues his report, but Trump should be indicted for the felonies coming out of New York and any others Muehler may discover.
Americans should hold Trump to the same legal standards for everyone in our great country, because he isn't a monarch Henry warned us of as we're seeing with the debate about prosecuting a sitting president for serious felonies.
3
What happens if we have just seen the tiniest tip of the iceberg and say International money laundering were involved using real estate in Trump Tower involving foreign governments at odds with US democracy? And Felix Satir.
3
Two unreported precedents involving sitting state governors and separation of powers need to be considered.
In 1921, Illinois Governor Lennington Small was indicted for alleged defalcations committed while he was state treasurer, before his election to governor. Small resisted arrest on separation of powers principles. In an unreported decision (reported in the Chicago Tribune), his arguments were rejected. The decision was commented on in a Harvard Law Review note. The oral arguments can be located elsewhere on the internet.
In 2006, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher was indicted for a misdemeanor for violating state merit hiring laws, acts committed while he was governor. An unreported decision found that the governor had an immunity to criminal prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. Law review articles were written criticizing the decision.
The issues raised in both decisions, arguments, and analysis presage many of the arguments made today involving indictment of the president.
The critical issue should be this: will indictment, trial, and/or punishment, constrain the independent exercise of official functions, and hinder foreign relation powers? This must be assessed at each step in a criminal proceeding. When a state indictment is brought against a sitting president, federalism concerns abound.
1
You raise some interesting points about needing to balance the burdens and benefits of proceeding with trial, but I wonder if the Ashcroft-Comey drama may offer a better parallel.
As it happens, even executives take time off, require medical care, or otherwise find themselves incapable of discharging their duties for some period of time. In the usual course, they name an acting official to stand in while they handle their situation.
If I remember correctly, AG Ashcroft had a medical emergency and named an acting official to handle his work during his hospital stay. When Bush Jr and co wanted approval on a program that was likely illegal, they could not get the acting AG to sign it, so they tried to get Ashcroft to sign while he was impaired. I think Comey blocked them from entering his room.
I imagine the burden issue would be vital in court, but as a matter of principle, a president that is indicted has displayed a lack of fitness to serve. How can he serve the constitution if he is facing criminal jeopardy for breaking the law? Maybe it’s like a medical emergency; we can’t ask him to serve.
Like Ashcroft, he should have time off to resolve his personal trouble, and perhaps have a chance to name his acting replacement, or have one named for him among those in the Constitution’s line of succession. If his named successor is also facing jeopardy, (s)he would also be unfit to serve, temporarily or permanently.
We place responders on leave. They save lives. Why not Trump?
1
Everyone is "presumed innocent" and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship until proven guilty in a court of law.
Everyday Americans are arrested, charged with crimes, deprived of their freedoms, and held in custody until their case is decided.
Mr. Mueller's investigation has already led to multiple arrests, indictments, convictions, guilty pleas and evidence of more "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The extensive, unprecedented "relationships" of multiple Trump associates with multiple Russian "contacts," the revision of the Republican Party platform to a more "Russia friendly" position on Ukraine, Trump's secret, unrecorded private meeting with Putin, and his fawning behavior toward Putin and refusal to accept American intelligence agencies assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, all point in the same direction.
Forensic accounting of Trump's income tax returns will show his indebtedness to Russian oligarchs.
Russian "assistance" to other Republicans by selective release of the DNC emails and by "dark money" contributions through the NRA and disinformation on social media might make many Republican officeholders nervous. If the Russian cyber attackers penetrated the RNC emails and communications, we can only guess how many others have been compromised.
"Who knew and when did they know it?"
Pence? McConnell? Ryan? It could be a long list.
Exposure. Indictment. Impeachment. Resignation. Justice.
Courts or Congress? Truth and Justice!
2
The argument of this column boils down to semantic nit-picking.
The author admits that "As president, Mr. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he won’t, or can’t, deal forcefully with what Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has described as Russia’s “ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.” What the nation most needs to know...is why the president appears unwilling or unable to deal seriously with those threats, regardless of whether he also happens to have violated the law."
OK, that's a reasonable first priority. But Lederman skirts a more important issue: It's not just Trump that is unwilling to deal with the threats; the Republicans in Congress are complicit in refusing to do a proper investigation. Why?
In fact, they've been the ones who have been framing the discussion (and their defense of Trump) around: "Shut down Mueller, because he hasn't shown any collusion," and "The bias of the Deep State wants to take down Trump at all costs."
Why did McConnell block Pres Obama from warning the public in 2016? Why have Nunes and Gowdy et al obsessed about the Steele dossier and FISA, rather than the real problem (and preventing it again)?
Yes, the media have hyperventilated about collusion and impeachment. But Lederman is premising his argument as if that's what "the nation" is doing. Wrong! The "nation" is Congress (specifically the Republicans), not the press. Why have they been complicit with Trump?
Their dereliction of duty is criminal!
5
@Paul-A............the politicians complicit with Trump have"dirty closets " of their own ........that can be exposed ........IF they dont protect ,this "comfortable status quo" being maintained for the1% elite !
The real question for me is "Did Trump violate the Constitution since he has been President?" Based on his defense of a sworn enemy of the United States, Putin, in Helsinki and the defense of the Saudi Prince, MSB regarding the torture and murder of a Journalist who was a resident of the U.S. and a Journalist critical of MSB, I would say that Trump has indeed violated the Constitution.
In the case of defending MSB, the First Amendment comes to mind, the Right of Free Speech. Kashoggi was murdered because of his free speech in his criticism of the Saudi Government and MSB. His murder is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
In the case of Putin, coming to the defense of a sworn enemy of the U.S., aiding and abetting Putin instead of defending the Country that Trump is sworn to defend, is an act of Treason in my book
When a soldier in the Army deserts his unit he is Court-martialed and put in jail. Trump has deserted the United States by defending Putin and MSB and should be eligible for the same fate.
3
@Jean
Trump has placed journalists all over the world in danger by repeatedly calling them "Enemies of the People" when they print stories and truths, uncovering deceptions and plots thus giving license for MSB to order the killing of Jamal Kashoggi , and letting other despots (Puitn, Duterte, etc.) around the world know that the USA sanctions such murders. That a President can state this sordid opinion so publically and repeatedly places journalists in peril daily, including our own citizens. He does not act or sound 'Presidential" as he once famously stated. This man is not a true leader and has endangered and defaced the country with his lies. Why is he still in office?
1
At this point the option of indicting a sitting president is largely academic. What we should focus on is a conspiracy on the part of the Republican party which might nullify the entire election as corrupt and fraudulent, which it looks like it was. A very long shot perhaps, but the only real way to roll back the damage of what Noam Chomsky called "the most dangerous political organization in history". (He was referring mostly to climate change denial).
To reverse two Supreme Court picks, as well as a host of other legislation, would be worth any effort. If indicting Trump while he's "sitting", seems difficult, why not try to indict him while he's lying?
2
“...a sword of Damocles that could undermine the president’s ‘respect and stature both here and abroad’ and thus impact his ability ‘to act as the nation’s leader in both the domestic and foreign spheres.’”
That ship sailed 2 years ago.
In its place we have a compromised man, steamrolling our Constitution. No one is above the law, including a president — entrusted with our highest public office and beholden to the people. He is not a king.
2
I’m a bit concerned that there is no mention that Trump’s illegal activities, including possibly coordinating release of the stolen emails to distract the electorate from his infamous tape, very likely handed him the election. If it turns out that cheated, lied and stole his way to the Presidency aided and abetted by the Russians what should the DOJ do? Legitimize an illegitimate election by allowing him to remain office?
2
There seems to be an underlying assumption in this column that the president cannot be indicted while performing his constitutional duties. Well, what if he isn't? And what if, while in office, he continues to commit crimes?
Do we not indict a man if it is found that he lied to the Special Counsel? Do we allow a man to remain in office if he continues to be susceptible to blackmail by an adversarial foreign government? (And I haven't even mentioned the violations of the emoluments clause...)
If the president of the United States is breaking laws while in office, we should not have to wait and see whether feckless GOP senators find the courage to buck their precious political base of support. Justice cannot be blind in this country if, on this serious issue, politics trumps law.
So, by that argument, if Trump were to shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue while he is President, he should escape arrest and trial until he is no longer President. I doubt the DOJ would allow that. Then, why should Trump be given a pass for a lesser crime? According to the US Constitution, no one is above the law.
5
Russia and the United States have been interfering in each other elections and conducting continuous cyberattacks against each other for decades. During the 2016 elections, Russian intelligence agencies allegedly broke the “rules” when they “weaponized” hacked DNC emails by releasing them to WikiLeaks The hacked emails revealed dirty dealing inside the Democratic National Committee, which had been stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders to ensure Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Neither Russia or the United States are going to stop interfering in each other’s elections or cease their cybersecurity operations against one another.
The Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee can guard against a repeat of 2016 by enhancing their cybersecurity. They might also consider refraining from
nefarious activity. What if WikiLeaks had published hacked email that revealed the DNC was operating above board?
That's a poor summary of Russia's 2016 attack on the U.S. election system. And since when is it the job of private organizations to handle the national defense against Kremlin espionage? This is the kind of preemptive minimization you do when you're concerned that Donald Trump really did conspire with Russian agents to defraud the U.S. by influencing the outcome of the election.
I disagree with this erudite opinion. I feel that Trump is already compromised by his likely collusion with Russia, his accused criminal campaign finance violations, and his likely past crimes including tax evasion, money laundering, racketeering fraud and the emoluments clause of the constitution . He works very little and never reads even a government briefing paper and runs a depleted and dysfunctional executive branch. Instead of golfing on one of his many courses he could spend some time in court defending himself from his many presumed crimes and revealing his illegitimacy to the American public including viewers of Fox News and his loyal base. He is an elected citizen and not a monarch above the law. He needs to face justice expediently. His Presidency is already tainted and compromised and ineffective. He is already a national security risk.
2
@IN You hit it on the nose! National Security Risk says it all.
Indicting Trump would have the opposite effect of undermining the president’s “respect and stature." His 63 million qualified voters would see it as an added, not diminished value and as proof positive that he and they are objects of persecution by the liberal media, political correctness, and enemies of the white race. It is unlikely to happen, not because he is innocent, but precisely because he is guilty and his guilt is an asset in his conflict with Democrats. He would play the part of the victim so well that his audiences would weep and his supporters would go to violent lengths to defend him. Russia would side with him and defend him, militarily and in the media (though we wouldn't know it was them), and the news would be flooded with reports of scandal, corruption, and lewdness about Democrats. 63 million Americans made a pact with the Devil and He isn't walking away from that debt unpaid. In anything, an indictment would up the ante and the 66 million who voted against him would fold.
3
Nobody is above the law except for Republican presidents with Mitch McConnell leading the senate.
2
Trump, his actions and the actions of his minions have brought this morass upon themselves and the nation at large.
1
There is absolutely no reason why President Corruption can't be indicted by the Southern District court and the Mueller investigation continue at the same time.
The argument about it's not judiciary "policy" to indict a sitting president is pathetic. Policy is now law, constitutional or otherwise. Policy is meant to guide decisions in normal circumstances. For any policy, exceptions are made when the situation becomes abnormal. This situation is far from normal.
1
Ultimately the US Senate would have to try the President for any high crimes and misdemeanors. The current Senate is beholden to big business and big donors and having gotten everything they want and have wanted for decades in tax cuts, deregulation, and unfettered financing, this once proud body will not vote against the monster in the WH. Listen to the feckless Orin Hatch, who once excoriated Bill Clinton for lying about oral sex, rationalize away the crimes of the current president. That's our jury of peers right now. As long as voters continue to support politicians in the grasp of big business to their economic detriment I'm afraid the soap opera "As Democracy Dwindles" will continue at least until 2020.
1
As a mathematician it is natural for me to test hypothesis, theoretical math, by looking at extreme cases. If Trump in a fury killed Ivanka, Jared, and Melania in the oval office, would it not be necessary for the capital police to arrest him? He would have to be incarcerated for the protection of the community of the White House. The assumptions in this opinion piece is that there are behaviorial limits to a president, that any chargeable offence is not out of bounds of normal white collar type malfeasance, but do such limits exist per force of the office? No.
If anything the litmus test swings the other way. Any impeachable offense must be acted upon. The man is too powerful not to do otherwise. Impeachable offense implies a malfunction; the man (or woman) may not be safe. We have to impeach -- have a trial -- to find out.
Also an impeachment for campaign related malfeasance does not preclude Muellar from continuing his investigations and (here's a shocker) back to back impeachments and subsequent (if impeachments are successful) trials, incarcerations, and (in the event of treason) executions.
The impression one gets from this opinion piece is cowardice. The nation needs to see the obvious: this man is unqualified to be president so any excuse, great or small, needs to be used to get him out of office ASAP. He has exposed a flank with this Cohen and campaign malfeasance, seize it.
2
Let's make this simple
Republicans have an agenda that a large majority of Americans do not want
Republicans feel they have a divine right to govern regardless of the will of the people
In order to gain power to enact that highly unpopular agenda they must lie, cheat, steal, and now commit treason to "win" elections
Because Republicans have done all of the above the very existence of their political party is jeopardized, and many of them face the potential of prison.
Therefore Republicans will do anything they can think of to obstruct justice and maintain a status quo of cheating even using foreign enemies to do so, because their survival compels the to that course of action
5
If a president cannot be indicted while in office, doesn’t that place him above the law? If we are a nation governed by laws, not a king, that doesn’t seem right.
2
"Respect and stature"? America's reputation in the world is poisoned by Trump's disturbing behavior. Convicting him of treason would help return America to a place worthy of respect.
Not the other way around.
1
Talk talk talk, and more talk, get's us NOwhere!
Trump does not hesitate to make an obnoxious antagonist to the rule of law. So why should anybody be concerned about the air of opprobrium that would hang over him while still in office? He is in clear violation of his oath of office to protect the Constitution by attacking the institutions that deliver the freedoms it guarantees. Those who have the power and authority under that Constitution to convince a grand jury to issue indictments against him should stop acting like cowards and proceed with the proceedings. He has asked for it, so let him have it. And then the next steps our officials will prove the strength of this experiment in representative democracy to move forward in the face of a usurper of presidential power using his office to march us all backwards.
Seems like the collusion narrative is sputtering out.. so lets go with the campaign finance violations .. which are unproven and problematic at best.. the hyperbolic double standard here is painful and nauseating to watch ..
Didn't the Obama administration violate campaign finance law and receive a fine ? Didn't the Obama administration use the judicial and intelligence community to spy on the party of a political opponent.. which now clearly appears to include massive FISA abuse.. all of which has yet to be unwrapped.. along with the Uranium One pay to play scandal.. of which the deep ( Obama ) state looked the other way as Bill and Hill lined their pockets..justice we hope eventually gets applied equally - stay tuned I think it is going to be a bumpy two years with the new once the new AG is confirmed..
Food for thought. Keeping perspective, using prudence, and allowing justice to play it's role in due time, are all important. The only problem is the ticking time where Russia (and other potential cyberattackers) may abuse us again, depending on the loose morals and perhaps a 'fifth columnist' attitude, of Trump while in office. That's why this Putin's appeaser must be removed from a position of so much power...to abuse. And compromise the security and well being of the U.S, and it's Allies.
There is a significant possibility that T made a deal with a foreign adversary, Russia, for the purpose of establishing a business arrangement that would net hundreds of millions of dollars, and continue a pattern of business that charitably could be called "shady", while at the same time making "deals" that involve a tit for tat that includes "looking the other way" at sanctions and other responses to meddling with democracy.
Democracy in this country is being threatened by Republicans in Wisconsin, and Michigan and in North Carolina, arrogantly.
The norms of our government are being damaged as we speak. Not only rule of law but democracy itself is being put aside. The motivation of this assault is not entirely clear to me, but the stain of the assault itself is almost entirely on the Republicans' hands.
The response to this should be big alarm bells flashing "Danger" and what we get is parsing legal theories and a threat to close the government because of a "Stupid" wall. Come on Republicans put country ahead of party.
As a mathematician it is natural for me to test hypothesis, theoretical math, by looking at extreme cases. If Trump in a fury killed Ivanka, Jared, and Melania in the oval office, would it not be necessary for the capital police to arrest him? He would have to be incarcerated for the protection of the community of the White House. The assumptions in this opinion piece is that there are behaviorial limits to a president, that any chargeable offence is not out of bounds of normal white collar type malfeasance, but do such limits exist per force of the office? No.
If anything the litmus test swings the other way. Any impeachable offense must be acted upon. The man is too powerful not to do otherwise. Impeachable offense implies a malfunction; the man (or woman) may not be safe. We have to impeach -- have a trial -- to find out.
Also an impeachment for campaign related malfeasance does not preclude Muellar from continuing his investigations and (here's a shocker) back to back impeachments and subsequent (if impeachments are successful) trials, incarcerations, and (in the event of treason) executions.
The impression one gets from this opinion piece is cowardice. The nation needs to see the obvious: this man is unqualified to be president so any excuse, great or small, needs to be used to get him out of office ASAP. He has exposed a flank with this Cohen and campaign malfeasance, seize it, tear him a new one immediately. Whimper waiting for everyone's approval?!
Talk to the Republicans.
They're the ones howling that "no president can be impeach or charged with a crime".
They're wrong.
They elected president Grabb 'em, the "Star of the Steele Dossier", and NOW they are whining?
The death of Koshoggi has revealed the flaw in believing that a man - any man- is above the law. If the Republicans didn't want it to come to this, then why did they vote him in?
If you want your leaders to be Gods or Absolute Rulers, then go elsewhere.
This is America - and no man is above the law.
Impeach now.
2
Just a reminder to all who think that the Office of Legal Counsel should be accorded the same respect as the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution, the OLC wrote 3 decisions legalizing torture in contradiction to the established statutes and to the obvious intent of the Constitution, and the practice of founding father George Washington arguing against it. We accord some lawyers entirely too much credibility to see their work go unchallenged in a real court of law.
3
Actually the founders did weigh in on this question. Both Jefferson and Hamilton wrote: indict a president only after he has left or is removed from office - which has also never happened, and unless the crimes are heinous (e.g., “crimes against humanity”), I believe never will.
We may hate to admit it, but a sitting president, by virtue of being a co-equal branch of government and commander in chief of the military, is indeed above the law. Who exactly is going to come into the White House and arrest a sitting president, absent a violent revolution? The local sheriff?
That is the singular most important reason why the public needs to be extremely cautious when choosing a president, and in a democracy where everyone has the equal right to run for office and vote, reckless, irresponsible people, and even criminals, can ascend to the highest office.
Maybe we need stricter standards.
3
“the much more important matter of [...] Mr. Trump’s relationships with Russia and whether they compromise his ability to protect and defend the nation.”
It’s pretty clear already that “Trump’s ability to protect and defend the nation” is marginal if that. If his ability is compromised further by Russian interference, it’s mainly important if it can remove him from office.
5
The nature of the crime seems to be an allowed subject of the discussion in Mr. Lederman's argument, because he says that "if a president committed a heinous crime that demanded justice and he refused to waive what might otherwise be an effective statute-of-limitations defense" then go ahead.
The nature of this president's crime is that he defrauded the election, and therefore isn't really the winner. That isn't heinous but does indicate that neither he nor Mr. Pence are duly elected in the first place. Removing someone who really isn't the president isn't written up either in the Constitution or the OLC opinion.
3
I have seen nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting president cannot be indicted, although the founders most likely believed that the U.S. Congress would remove a president found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. With a chamber of Congress unwilling to fulfill its Constitutional duties, not because of lack of evidence but because of party loyalty, what is the recourse in a democratic government that holds no person above the law? Is the president free to continue committing high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity until he or she is thrown out of office by voters, no matter how much damage is being done to the country in the meantime? I doubt the founders believed that should be allowed. Time for the Supreme Court to rule on indicting a sitting president.
4
Mr. Lederman's article strikes just the right balance. While theoretically Trump could be indicted and tried, any attempt to do so during his remaining term as President would bring utter chaos and not be resolved in the remaining two years of his presidency. Because Trump has so many political supporters (certainly not me!), the indictment and trial would have a strong political element not found in normal court proceedings. Trump would certainly find numerous grounds to delay any trial and create new constitutional questions and confusion. The correct procedure is indictment and removal by the Senate, but this shows the inherent political nature of actions against Trump and is very likely unlikely to succeed since 20 Republicans Senators would have to be persuaded to vote to remove Trump.
Also expect that if Trump were indicted after his presidency ends, the prosecution and related proceedings would drag on for a lot more than two years.
The best solution is just to repudiate Trump in the next election and to focus now and in the future on all the important issues on which Trump is undermining our country. We'll deal with these issues a lot better if we can escape the emotion and confusion that proceedings against Trump would entail. Trump thrives on confusion. I fear that focus on prosecution, or impeachment for that matter, simply feeds the beast.
1
Opprobrium ought not to deter Justice. The current Executive does more to defame his position by his own performance of it than any commentator, opponent or enabler. The President is not the Country. Congress and the Courts are co-equal and should act like it.
6
"As president, Mr. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he won’t, or can’t, deal forcefully with what Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has described as Russia’s “ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.” Is Mr. Trump beholden to Russian officials in some way? Or is there another explanation?"
What matters is Trump getting removed from the position by which he can support Putin. Getting to the bottom of it all should prove interesting, but must not happen at the expense of waiting for Trump's removal. The minutiae can wait.
2
The Constitutional remedy for a President who has been indicted for criminal conduct is clearly impeachment and conviction. By meeting its Constitutional responsibility, the Congress would therefore remove the President who is under criminal indictment from office, thereby permitting prosecution of the ex President by the courts. A smooth transition to leadership by the Vice President would also refute the Sword of Damocles theory. However, the question then arises whether the new President would pardon the recently removed one, a la Gerry Ford and Nixon. Clearly, Nixon had not been formally indicted or removed from office, yet the scenario would be the same. There is little doubt that a President Pence would pardon an indicted Trump from criminal prosecution, meaning that the best chance for prosecuting Trump would be if he lost re election to a Democrat and were then indicted and prosecuted out of office without the chance of a pardon.
3
@Stu
Workaround: defeated lame duck president resigns and is pardoned by lame duck elevated vice president, presumably even after indictment but before January 20, 2021
@tomP
You got me. But that really smacks of obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Indictment depends on the sequence of events and timing. The chief law enforcement officer of the country should not be tried by members of his own justice department. He must be removed from office first – either by impeachment or expiration of his term. If there is an indictment but no immediate removal from office, the speedy trial principle would be violated by having the indictment hanging over him for an unreasonably long time, hence the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president. It seems likely that Trump conspired with Russia to swing the election. If so, he should be impeached, tried in the Senate (where a “conviction” results in removal from office), indicted and tried in court.
The American system gives far too much power to the President and far too little to the popularly elected part of the legislature (the House). Look at what's happening in Britain today, where the lower house of the legislature may remove the prime minister via a no confidence vote and the upper house won't be able to protect the prime minister if the lower house decides it is time for her to go. In the US, we have an elected king whose ever-expanding power is protected by a too-powerful senate that disproportionately represents the elected king's allies.
21
We either go with the premise that no man is above the law, or we just pack it up and call it a failed experiment in governance and start over.
17
Yes. That there is any doubt about that, that legal scholars can twist themselves into pretzels to cover for a criminal, immoral, pathological liar and tyrant-wannabe will be the end of the noble experiment in self-governance that tried but failed to prevent corrupt, evil men from abusing power for worldly riches and privilege (as they always have done). "These are the times that try men's souls." The outcome is uncertain, but the fight is necessary.
The hypothetical question about a presidential indictment is misdirected. We're confusing the two guilty pleas.
In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to FEC campaign finance violations. He directly implicated Trump in these violations. To date, this is the only known offense for which Trump is explicitly indictable.
However, Cohen pleaded guilty to the United States District Court in Manhattan. The criminal indictment has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. Mueller isn't the one deciding whether or not to indict a sitting president on these charges. That responsibility belongs to New York federal prosecutors.
Cohen's second guilty plea came in November. He confessed knowledge of continuing negotiations with Russian partners over a Trump Tower in Moscow at dates much later than previously known. Cohen also confessed Trump's knowledge about these negotiations.
However, the actual guilty plea was about the lie, not the action. We don't actually know yet whether Trump Tower Moscow constitutes a criminal offense. Neither Cohen nor Trump have been found guilty of a criminal offense.
In the first case, guilty. Trump is therefore presumably guilty as well. He is at least indictable. In the second case, we don't know. Mueller can go on defending democracy as he should. We don't need to debate a presidential indictment on the public's knowledge.
2
"His (Mueller) principal function, in other words, is forward-looking and preventive, not punitive." Wrong. You stated that Mueller should look into Russian threats to our electoral system AND connections between the Russians and Trump and individuals associated with his campaign. That is prospective and retrospective. We need to know all the relationships Trump had with the Russians in the past to understand the present. THe same could be said for Saudi Arabia but that will be left for the House to look into.
6
The only question that has to be asked is did Trump break the law?
If the answer is no then no indictment, however if the answer is yes, then he needs to answer for his misdeed.
Actions that he takes as the president are protected by the constitution but actions that he takes as plain Donald Trump are subject to due process.
2
There's a point of distinction missing here. The President cannot be held criminally liable for actions taken which are within the scope of Constitutional Presidential authorities. So, President Bush can't be held legally liable for the illegality of the Iraq war. But a President can be held criminally liable for actions taken which are outside the scope of the Presidential authorities. Trump, for example, could certainly be prosecuted if he actually did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue as he posited.
Also, the Mueller charge includes following leads which arise from his investigation into Russian interference in our elections and Trump's campaign links to that. If Mueller were to discover illegalities which were not directly part of that charge, he could pass those on to whichever other legal organization has jurisdiction, and they could then prosecute Trump. This is what the SDNY and the NY AG are doing right now for the alleged money laundering and campaign finance activities which are being discussed in the media.
We have to expect that Mueller's final report will detail a complex and wide-ranging web of illegal activities taken by Trump's campaign and by Trump personally. There will be ample opportunity to charge the sitting President with many federal and state crimes which occurred both while he was in office and before that.
Elections have consequences. And the consequences of Trump are truly historic and catastrophic.
6
Trump directed a violation of campaign finance laws. This is a felony. This is why he was effectively an un-indicted co-conspirator in the plea agreement struck by Cohen. So at the very least we have an un-indicted co-conspirator occupying the presidency. Uncharted territory indeed.
14
@John
Few violations of campaign laws are felonies. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty of making a campaign violation in excess of the $2,700 limit for individuals. People who exceed campaign contributions limits normally pay a fine based on a percentage of the contribution amount. Cohen would pay a fraction of $130,00, the amount he paid Stormy Daniels.
@William Case
This was. Suggest you read the published plea deal.
2
@John
I have read the publish plea deal. Cohen pleaded guilty to making a contribution in excess of $2,700 and causing a corporation to make a campaign contribution. These charges would normally be settle by fines. The SDNY charged Cohen with these offenses because they knew he would plea guilty in exchange for a reduce sentence on more serious charges. They know they would not have to prove in court that the transaction were illegal campaign contributions. In other words, they told Cohen he would spend less time in jail if he admitted to making illegal campaign contributions. Who wouldn't take that deal?
I disagree. The issue of indicting Donald Trump may be the only way to save our democracy. The Senate controlled by Republicans under the leadership of Mitch McConnell has aided, abetted, and enabled Trump at every moment. At this moment when Trump is like Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator charged with two felonies dealing with money laundering, bank fraud, and campaign finance violations as well as repeatedly lying about it a attempting to cover it up, the Senate Republicans are shrugging it off. Even if Special Counsel Robert Mueller determines, as seems likely, that Trump consistently sought to obstruct justice and that there was, in fact, conspiracy (not "collusion") with Russia to influence the 2016 election in his favor, Mr. Mueller may decide that the Senate cannot be trusted to convict Trump of such treasonable, impeachable offenses and move to indict. Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have shown themselves on multiple occasions to be quite willing to brush aside their Constitutional responsibilities from ignoring their duty to provide "advice and consent" on the nomination of Merrick Garland to enforcing the emoluments clause that they are not trustworthy defenders of the Constitution.
81
You know, I don't remember anything in the Constitution, in Article II or in the amendments, that stipulate that the President is in a unique position viz a viz The Law and is therefore different than any other citizen.
The idea that the President, any President, IS different should be terrifying to every freedom-loving person. Because the Constitution and the Laws of the nation strictly say what the President can do, must do, and cannot do.
The 9th Amendment tells us, that as citizens, residents, and even visitors to the USA, we have rights that are not necessarily explicitly stated, and that rights don't have to be stated to exist, such as the right to privacy, the right to vote and sit on a jury (if you're an adult citizen). The opponents to the BoR objected that rights explicitly stated would lead leaders to infer that rights NOT stated did not exist, so the 9th Amendment was included to preclude that. It has, however, mostly been ignored.
One of those implicit rights which has been ignored is the RIGHT of the People to leaders who are just as bound by the laws of the United States as everyone else is! And that includes the President of the United States.
There is an answer to the "tying up the President with indictments and court cases". It's called Sections 3 & 4 of the 25th Amendment, when the President cannot carry out his duties, the Vice-President, or Speaker, or President Pro Tem (in that order) assumes them.
15
@Dadof2 It all sounds very nice and principled to say that no one, not even the President, is above the law. The truth is otherwise. Organizationally, constitutionally, politically, legally and even morally, in many respects the President is above the law. We should rememberr that, and choose more carefully next time.
1
@Osama
The only reason the President is above the Law is if we and our elected representatives allow him to be. If we had an honest Congress, Trump would have long ago been impeached and convicted.
He hasn't been indicted because no President has been and therefore testing indicting a President has not been deemed legal or illegal by the Supreme Court at this time.
The notion that Mueller was hired to "lead a counterintelligence investigation" is misleading and does not reflect the reality of the Special Counsel's work. He has a team of experienced federal prosecutors with expertise in obstruction of justice, racketeering, money laundering, appeals and national security. It is a criminal investigation and a counterintelligence investigation. This op-ed suggests that the criminal aspect is almost ancillary. That's just wrong. When you prosecute the mob for corruption, you learn about who has been corrupted.
20
Some Greek, around 600 BCE, made an observation:
Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones.
Money, power, and connections are the arbiters of our Constitution and laws.
6
Yes, it’s important to understand what steps Russia took to influence the election. But I think this specific aggression on Russia’s part is very specific to Trump. So trying to keep the two separate just seems like another backflip someone might do in fear of Donald Trump tweets (thank you again Obama for not mentioning Russia’s interfereance in the elections prior to the 2016 vote out of fear of looking partisan). What’s most impressive about Pelosi and Schumer yesterday is that they stopped acting intimidated or fearful in dealing with the man-child in the Oval Office. They seem to realize that they were the only adults in the conversation and treated Trump like the emotionally six year old that he is.
25
@BC That's the way I see it too. If we get rid of Trump, we greatly decrease the chances of the success of Russian meddling going forward (though I'm sure the Russians will still try). Trump seems to be someone who is uniquely vulnerable to Russian leverage and uniquely willing to cut deals with foreign adversaries for his own gain at the expense of the country.
4
@BC
I recall a Republican House Representative from CA also received "dirt" on his opponent from the Russians. He, too, is now compromised and subject to blackmail by the same Russians.
"could undermine the president’s “respect and stature both here and abroad”" That's already been done & shouldn't be a factor - he did it himself.
34
In ordinary circumstances this would be a cogent analysis.
But these are not such circumstances. While the Mueller probe may be intended to discover the extent of Russian interference in our democracy, I think Trump presents a far greater danger to America than does Russia.
His removal from office is a more urgent priority than unraveling Russian meddling. By any means necessary. Thereafter we may proceed with protecting our democracy from external threat.
17
Since Senate Republicans have ceded their oversight role to sycophancy, they will never vote for impeachment. Indicting Trump is the only alternative. Otherwise, we are left with a president who gained the office by fraud with the help of a hostile foreign power and who now makes foreign and domestic policy decisions not for the good of the country but for his personal enrichment. That is a threat to our national security and cannot be tolerated.
64
Not only constitutional, but necessary to maintain the rule of law.
Impeachment only works when Congress has the will... Madison and the framers included a specific clause about indictment in order to not give a loophole to a corrupt President.
10
One of the most fundamental principles of a modern democracy is that no one is above the law.
If we ignore that truth for a president, what we have instead of a democracy is a corrupt oligarchy where those in power are subject to a privileged set of legal standards.
57
Simply and perfectly stated. But "legal scholars" like the writer can turn logic on its head and convince the gullible that black is white and Truth is nothing but opinion, that law is a quaint, fungible concept. It's called sophistry. And wedded to political, ulterior motives is nothing if not contemptable.
1
The legal system is there to punish those who break the laws, and when one is allowed to strut about "above the law", then that legal system, and lawyers, are seen as just another corrupt part of crony capitalism. So yeah, Trump, if he is guilty, needs to find himself in court, sooner rather than later.
The next two years will most likely be the most illuminating in American history, at least regarding how our political systems work, how the rich control our lives, and how we, like Trump's casinos, found ourselves bankrupted by high expenses and low taxes.
Russia has been at war with the west for years, and quite successfully. They were able to, at least so far, get the UK to divide itself from the EU. They were able to get a stooge sitting in the White House, and worldwide, they have been able to buy off corrupt public officials at an alarming rate.
Sure, we can reform our electoral system, but until we get money out of politics, and toss Citizens United to the curb, we are on a steady downward course to finding ourselves in an oligarchic pretend democracy, with pretend rule of law, just as in Putin's Russia. And more of our journalists will be stifled, or killed.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
25
Indeed, Hugh, this most certainly NOT an exercise in legal theory. It is an immediate and existential reality that a Trump and his enabling party can so quickly destroy a country and a world while scholars dispute the archanities with sophistry and clever academic angel-dancing.
5
@TS
Very soon, we will discover that illegal Russian money infiltrated the coffers of the NRA, which then used that money to (illegally) fund dozens of Republican candidates election campaigns. The one they funded the most, none other than "Individual-1." This revelation will be the final shot "below the water line" that sinks the Republican Party for an entire generation or more. They will have been exposed as the "Fraud" party that they have been sincev Reagan's election.
2
No one is above the law. To not prosecute crimes because they facilitated you gaining the Presidency, which makes you safe from prosecution,would be the ultimate con. As to his respect among foreign leaders, I think we wouldn’t suffer in the eyes of the world. The damage potentially to be done yet weighs against leaving the culprit at large. The Emoluments clause, the alignment with murderous autocrats, the destruction of natural environments, all this and potentially much more await leaving the criminal in charge
16
As members of Congress dance around the question of whether or not making illegal campaign contributions and money laundering to silence women is serious enough to start an impeachment inquiry, I believe we are facing a much larger question:
Did Trump and/or his associates coordinate, collude, and/or conspire with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an American election?
I'm not entirely sure what the legal definition of treason would be in this case, but he and his campaign did (and it sure is looking that way), then Trump and/or his representatives in essence worked to overthrow a duly elected government.
Surely that rises to the category of a "high crime," and a heinous one as well. A president shouldn't have to shoot someone on 5th Avenue to be held legally accountable for such a crime.
8
I agree that it is less important "to punish past wrongdoing" and more important "to identify continuing threats to our electoral system." After all we cannot travel back in time and undo what Trump and his minions (and the Russians and FB and Twitter) did.
Moreover, Trump will become CITIZEN Trump on January 20th 2021. He can then be charged with all the offenses including campaign finance violations and others. He may be able to hire a lawyer; after all he has the money that will lure someone to take on the unenviable task of defending him for the sole purpose of making some money. But, it'll be quite a hoot if no one will defend him and a public prosecutor will have to be assigned!
2
Prof. Lawrence Tribe said on CNN yesterday that an indictment after the president leaves office might be precluded by a statute of limitation, and therefore any indictment should occur while the president is still in office, unless he is ousted by impeachment. He has responded to my inquiry about whether Section 4 of the 25th Amendment would be triggered if the president claimed in court that a trial would prevent his ability to perform his duties as president. Prof. Tribe responded by saying that a court filing wouldn't activate the 25th Amendment, but might induce the Cabinet and Congress to remove him under the 25th Amendment.
2
Contrary to the author's contention, President Trump has taken aggressive action to prevent a repeat of Russian interference in U.S. elections.
Russian intelligence operatives allegedly hacked Democratic National Committee computer servers and released stolen emails to WikiLeaks that revealed the DNC was stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders to ensure Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. President Trump reacted by strengthening sanctions President Obama had imposed on Russia and indicating 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of directing the cyberattack.
The Trump Justice Department also indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for conspiracy to defraud the United States by conducting a disinformation campaign on U.S. social media platforms, placing paid political advertising that promoted a specific candidate and one count of identity theft. The conspiracy to defraud the United States charge is, admittedly, something of a stretch, but without it the crimes attributed are misdemeanor offenses that could be settle by small fines.
Trump also signed the Presidential Executive Order on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, the nation’s first comprehensive cybersecurity strategy.
Trump had nothing to do with any Russian sanctions imposed during his “presidency”. In fact, the Times reported Trump tried to stop any sanctions or indictments against Russia and its citizens.
3
The Trump Administration did those things you're talking about, despite Donald Trump's efforts to the contrary. And Donald Trump, in the mean time, transmitted top secret intelligence information to Russian agents while inside the White House; he also, day by day, is being shown to have lied to Americans about Russia in ways that the Kremlin knew about and could have been using for blackmail all this time. Trump's allegiance to Putin, to the detriment of the U.S. and in violation of his oath of office, is on display almost daily.
2
On the other hand, we may have a president who acquired the office by illegal means making decisions that will affect us all and could be historic in nature. He is propped up and abetted by the Republican Party whose goal is power and control. If he is guilty the whole Republican Senate, which refuses to rein him in, becomes accessories after the fact.
I personally would rather know before we let someone like this run, or ruin, our country.
93
@JKile In the eyes of the majority he has already been both running and ruining many aspects of not just our country and its character and reputation, but has inflicted global damage as well.
12
@JKile
Exactly. If theres enough evidence to indict him he has to be removed immediately!
5
@JKile Second thought after hitting submit. If he, or his campaign, is found guilty of colluding with the Russians and convicted after he is out of office, shouldn’t we be able to vavate all his decisions? A fruit of the poisoned tree kind of thing?
5
Real simple, Trump can not separate his business and politics. Any actions that promote his business is good. The political consequences of such actions are ignored. Thus, his motive his to make my business great and ignore the country's interests.
This is what the indictments have demonstrated. Media should pick up on this.
12
It should be obvious by now that Mueller has nothing re collusion. His focus isn't on that at all,nor does it appear to have been for some time. Mueller needs to wrap it up one way or the other.
@Ralphie Cool your jets, Ralphie. The Mueller report has not yet been published. Mueller has shown his approach to be methodical and precise. If he reports that in the SC's opinion there was no collusion, so be it. Be patient, it's coming.
6
@Ralphie
Hey Ralphie: You obviously didn't bother reading the article (or perhaps you didn't understand what it says).
The article isn't about whether Trump "colluded." The article discusses the need to find out why Trump seems "unwilling or unable to deal seriously with... Russia’s ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy... and whether they compromise his ability to protect and defend the nation.”
There are many other potential reasons why Trump isn't doing his duty: He could have a conflict of interest because of his business; He could be under threat of blackmail due to the purported pee tape; Etc.
Your Trumpist apologists are playing a knee-jerk game of deflection that's getting tiresome. Continuously screaming "no collusion" is as ridiculous as your continuous screaming of "Hillary's e-mails" and "Benghazi!"
1
The rather bizarre conclusion of this piece is that a president's having engaged in felonious activity to secure the presidency should not be charged because there are other fish to fry.
I should have thought, using pre-Trumpian assumptions I suppose, that it would be worthy to deal with the current possibility that the president broke the law to get elected and set a future standard on this score. But, as I say, I am not up to date on all the Trumpian logic we engage in these days.
51
A President who takes a bribe may be indicted to toll the statute of limitations, then prosecuted after he or she leaves office.
Bills of attainder are unconstitutional and, by implication, active criminal prosecutions during a president's term are as well because they are susceptible to abuse.
But, no man or woman, including the President, is above the law and may be indicted during his or her term of office, and then prosecuted later.
This is why the current President realizes he will likely need a pardon before he leaves office, which makes his resignation and pardon by a President Pence a realistic proposition.
27
I want to thank the author for clarifying that the Mueller investigation is unlawful. He writes that "Mr. Mueller was hired to lead a counterintelligence investigation." There is nothing in the DOJ regulations authorizing the appointment of special counsel that says they can be appointed to conduct counterintelligence investigations. Rather, they are to be appointed where a crime has been committed, and there is a conflict of interest preventing DOJ from investigating or prosecuting the crime. Here, no crime was ever identified as the predicate for the appointment of Mr. Mueller. Rather, he was, as the author says, appointed to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation. That appointment was unauthorized and hence unlawful.
1
Mr. Mueller was NOT hired to lead a counterintelligence investigation. The memorandum specifically states that the Special Counsel is to investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign and any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation. Crimes have been committed, the Special Counsel is identifying them and getting not just indictments, but guilty pleas and verdicts.
87
@Douglas
You are declaring victory over a third party opinion. Mueller’s investigation isn’t officially a ‘counter intelligence’ investigation. But it is legal and important to any who cares about this country. Only the most partisan, un-American would not want to see it completed.
8
@Douglas Don't fight that feeling if it helps keep your dream alive but understand reality may prove a different outcome.
5
The impeachment of a President is the means of criminal punishment provided for by the Constitution. An indictment presumably would be for the purpose of imprisonment. It would not require that the President step down if convicted. It could require that he be held on bail. And he might well be prosecuted by his own Attorney General.
Although there is no legal guidance for an indictment, the VP might take over the President ‘s office. But this is not provided for by Constitution or statute, so the applicable procedure is made up as you go along. Bottom line, an indictment is possible but not even remotely practical.
2
Given that Trump has visited one of his golf courses 154 times since being inaugurated, doesn't start his "working" day until 11 AM, and has a schedule filled with empty time, it should be impossible for his lawyers to argue, or for a court to accept, that there is any factual or reasonable basis to conclude that a trial would "significantly burden the time and attention" of this President.
448
@In VA: Wow! Did you knock this one out of the park...or what? A great post!
17
@In VA Yes! Nor does it make sense that an indictment would diminish a President's standing in the world (as if this President's world standing could get any lower). While indicting trump probably would lower his personal ratings, respect for the US as well as for the Office of the Presidency, would likely increase significantly.
28
"The more pertinent question, then, is whether a sitting president can be charged"
This returns to Dubya's embrace of the Unitary Executive theory of the Presidency.
Is the entire executive branch just the one man elected, and the rest working for him? Dubya and Cheney said so, and so did many others letting them do it.
Obviously Trump can't indict himself.
If the rest of the government is independent of the only elected official, it is then independent of voters too. It would a bureaucracy running itself without elected controls.
It is a real, live question, made worse because of the way Dubya and Cheney abused it. However, the DoJ guidance seems to be in favor of the President cannot indict himself, and so his employees cannot do it in his name.
Actually a grand jury indicts the president, so the technical objections arising from the fictional Unitary Executive do not exist.
3
"What the nation most needs to know . . . why the president appears unwilling or unable to deal seriously with those threats"
Yes Trump could, and no he is not.
Neither is anyone else. It is almost as if they don't take it seriously, just are using it as a club to beat their opponent.
The nation most needs to know if this is a real threat. Then if it is, the nation needs to know why NOBODY is doing anything about it.
Why this one particular politicians among so many is not doing something is not the beginning and end. It is one data point, if the threat is real at all, and not just Her excuse.
I'm inclined to think it is a real long term threat. I'm also inclined to think nobody is taking that seriously, just using it as a club.
16
@Mark Thomason
We already have an answer to your question, "Is this a real threat?" Dan Coates, Director of National Intelligance, has already told Congress more than once that the threat from Russian meddling is real and ongoing.
2
@Jonathan McGaw -- Okay, then we don't need Mueller to tell us. The nation knows, so it no longer has finding that out as a top priority.
Then who is trying to fix it? Nobody.
Who has proposed fixes? No political leader.
Trump hasn't done it. Nobody else has done it. Nobody else is proposing to do it.
Aside from the author’s significant point that Russian interference and Trump campaign collusion are much more important than campaign finance violations, there is the political blowback that would follow an indictment on non-Russia charges. For such an overwhelming fraction of the American public, the Mueller investigation is founded on the question of Russian interference. When the smoke clears, if the only result is that Trump is charged with illegal campaign donations, Trump will not be the only one saying that the Special Counsel investigation was a ‘witch hunt’. The last thing the United States needs is Trump vindicated.
32
@Ockham9, let's not forget that the non-Russia related investigation into Trump corruption is being run by SDNY, not Mueller. When Trump is charged with campaign finance felonies, it probably won't be by the Mueller team.
3
@Eyes Wide Open Except it is already clear - to those who have eyes - that the Trump campaign collaborated and cooperated with Russia from 2015 forward. See the 16 Trump folks who (1) had contact with Russians, and (2) lied about those contacts.
2
@Ockham9
Campaign finance violations remove transparency from the voters, and may thus skew the outcome of an election. Hence, when a candidate violates such a law and succeeds in being elected, fraud has been committed towards the electorate. It is of utmost importance that the candidate be prosecuted and, if fund guilty, immediately be removed from office. Any other process would serve to reinforce that committing campaign finance violations is an acceptable behavior, which the voters would vehemently disagree with.
3
"the principal objective of the Russia investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which is less to punish past wrongdoing than to identify continuing threats to our electoral system"
The one and only purpose of the Mueller investigation is to get Trump.
Whitewater was to get Clinton.
Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, but fools nobody except those who want to pretend.
2
@Mark Thomason
It is erroneous to compare this issue with Whitewater.
Whitewater was trivial and contrived.
Mueller's investigation involves a REAL problem of national security and a threat to democracy.
238
Mark you are correct that political motivations are a key driver to this investigation.
It is incorrect, however, to presume that is the only driver. If it were, then the investigation never would have happened, considering it was initiated by Republicans, is being led by a Republican, and is being overseen by a Republican.
Let's also avoid the logical fallacy of assuming the investigation has no validity simply because political opposition have motivations to back it. Doing this ignores the very real issue that we have been, and continue to be manipulated by foreign and domestic entities in ways that subvert our core democratic processes.
This is not about Trump and only Trump. Yes, he's a key topic within the scope of the investigation. He's not the only topic though.
15
@Michael Richter
You are right. Whitewater was trivial. And so was the denial of sexual activity with "that woman."
Likewise, while Russian interference is very serious, a payoff to keep to woman from spilling their lurid stories is trivial, and the campaign cash (or private cash) is equally trivial.
No President will or should be brought down by a fairly small campaign finance violation for a trivial matter. And the damage to our Democracy just because this is Trump, and the ridiculous statements by the left that "these are not normal times" is nonsense. He was elected. And therefore subject to the same treatment as every other president. Even if the left hates him.
2