Sarahknowsbest · 19 days ago

That man does not know what he is talking about. The president cannot be above the law and our Constitution.

1
gobuddy · 19 days ago

That is the matter for discussion. There has been a lot of discussion (by scholars of Constitutional Law) whether a president can be indicted for a criminal offence while in the office.

1
Hamburgler · 19 days ago

It’s an interesting line of reasoning, and I’m not well versed in the particulars of legal precedent, and maybe it hasn’t event been tested enough times in court to know for sure. But where would the theoretical boundaries lay? Financial crimes are ok, but violent crimes aren’t? Misdemeanors are ok but felonies aren’t? Maybe crimes are ok if they are done only in the good of the country and not for personal gain?

1
IraqiVet49 · 19 days ago

No, it has not been tested in courts at all. That is the problem. You may want to read this if you want to develop a somewhat deeper understanding: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/presidential-immunity-from-judicial-direction
" However, the Court held, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”813 The primary constitutional duty of the courts “to do justice in criminal prosecutions” was a critical counterbalance to the claim of presidential immunity, and to accept the President’s argument would disturb the separation-of-powers function of achieving “a workable government” as well as “gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.”

1