Why President Trump Won’t Be Indicted For Obstruction of Justice

[aboutime]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/so-what-if-fbi-is-investigating-president-trump-literally-cant-be-indicted-for-obstruction-of-justice/


For the last few days, every media pundit and personality has debated and analyzed reports that President Donald Trump is being investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice. Trump pretty much confirmed the probe during a weekend tweet, despite his new attorney going on the cable news circuit to deny that his boss was under investigation.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
9:07 AM - 16 Jun 2017
47,518 47,518 Retweets 151,739 151,739 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Legal scholars have debated whether, based on his interaction with former FBI Director James Comey, Trump violated federal law with the intent to “corruptly influence” an investigation. Pundits have pontificated about whether Trump’s lawyer would even know if the FBI was investigating, and whether he should cooperate. However, what’s been pretty much ignored during this entire mess is that even if federal investigators find evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice, the Department of Justice likely can’t do anything about it. That’s because almost all legal scholars agree that sitting U.S. presidents are immune from indictment for the duration of their presidency. President Trump would likely be off the hook from any criminal prosecution at least for the next four years.

The Department of Justice addressed this in a memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 1973. That memo said that prosecution of a sitting President would undermine the power of the executive branch and its ability to function. In 2000, a new memo reviewed that determination and agreed.

“Neither the text nor the history of the Constitution ultimately provided dispositive guidance in determining whether a president is amenable to indictment or criminal prosecution while in office,” the memo reads.

The issue of whether a president can be indicted came up during the 1974 Watergate scandal under President Nixon, and again during the Whitewater controversy under President Clinton. In United States v. Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about this question when it ordered President Nixon to turn over tapes, but the courts has never issued a definitive opinion. In truth, the law is still bit murky because the Constitution is silent on the issue, but there are indications from the framers that they intended for presidents to be immune from indictment.

“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale recently commented. “If you’re going to undo a national election, the body that does that should have a national mandate,” he continued.

So does that mean President Trump can’t face repercussions if federal investigators find that he obstructed justice?

No, he could still be impeached. The FBI/DOJ could turn their findings over to a congressional committee, which could begin impeachment proceedings if they feel it’s justified.

Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

Follow LawNewz
Follow @law_newz Like us on Facebook

[Kathianne]

Totally agree, it's long been considered that if a 'crime' is applicable the only remedy is impeachment if it's a sitting President.

[revelarts]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/so-what-if-fbi-is-investigating-president-trump-literally-cant-be-indicted-for-obstruction-of-justice/
For the last few days, every media pundit and personality has debated and analyzed reports that President Donald Trump is being investigated by the FBI for obstruction of justice. Trump pretty much confirmed the probe during a weekend tweet, despite his new attorney going on the cable news circuit to deny that his boss was under investigation.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
9:07 AM - 16 Jun 2017
47,518 47,518 Retweets 151,739 151,739 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Legal scholars have debated whether, based on his interaction with former FBI Director James Comey, Trump violated federal law with the intent to “corruptly influence” an investigation. Pundits have pontificated about whether Trump’s lawyer would even know if the FBI was investigating, and whether he should cooperate. However, what’s been pretty much ignored during this entire mess is that even if federal investigators find evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice, the Department of Justice likely can’t do anything about it. That’s because almost all legal scholars agree that sitting U.S. presidents are immune from indictment for the duration of their presidency. President Trump would likely be off the hook from any criminal prosecution at least for the next four years.
The Department of Justice addressed this in a memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 1973. That memo said that prosecution of a sitting President would undermine the power of the executive branch and its ability to function. In 2000, a new memo reviewed that determination and agreed.
“Neither the text nor the history of the Constitution ultimately provided dispositive guidance in determining whether a president is amenable to indictment or criminal prosecution while in office,” the memo reads.
The issue of whether a president can be indicted came up during the 1974 Watergate scandal under President Nixon, and again during the Whitewater controversy under President Clinton. In United States v. Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about this question when it ordered President Nixon to turn over tapes, but the courts has never issued a definitive opinion. In truth, the law is still bit murky because the Constitution is silent on the issue, but there are indications from the framers that they intended for presidents to be immune from indictment.
“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale recently commented. “If you’re going to undo a national election, the body that does that should have a national mandate,” he continued.
So does that mean President Trump can’t face repercussions if federal investigators find that he obstructed justice?
No, he could still be impeached. The FBI/DOJ could turn their findings over to a congressional committee, which could begin impeachment proceedings if they feel it’s justified.
Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.
Follow LawNewz
Follow @law_newz Like us on Facebook


Totally agree, it's long been considered that if a 'crime' is applicable the only remedy is impeachment if it's a sitting President.

"....“The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution,” Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale recently commented...."
Realy?
the thing is, I still don't see in the constitution where this non-prosecutable "executive" concept is stated explicitly OR "implicitly".

Any quotes from the Constitution or the framers to go with that?

Implicitly speaking it seems pretty self-evident that the framers never meant for ANY person... no matter what the office... to be above the law.
In rejecting a monarchy, all of it's trappings and implied tyrannical powers and expecting the president to be a "civil servant", I'm not sure how anyone can HONESTLY say that a sitting president CAN NOT be indicted and prosecuted under any number of U.S. laws.

The general spirit of the revolution points FAR more clearly to THAT interpretation than this idea that a sitting president has some REAL built in penumbra of legal immunity.

I'd be FAR more comfortable with this type of talk if folks just said something like...
"...look I don't like the idea of the leader of the country being prosecuted for crimes, it makes the country look bad and undermines the perceived authority of the office. And maybe even makes the office vulnerable to petty partisan legal attacks that would be an undue distraction...."
I get that. I'd still disagree on constitutional grounds but i'd be open to an amendment that blocked petty or thin legal attacks on ALL presidents WHILE in office. but this idea that the Framers Implied or the constitution suggest it is BS. And makes the dialogue a dishonest one from the start.

And also there's the partisans aspect of this. It seems to me that both sides are READY to indict, prosecute and/or impeach the other at the drop of a hat. But when their guy is in, then there's a sense of outrage at WHY ANYONE would try to disrupt "the OFFICE".


As a practical matter, I think that most people FEEL like the president is like a temporary king of America. And they don't FEEL right seeing him in handcuffs or going to court or going to jail. And as far as the people in Congress go they enjoy a certain assumed immunity to prosecution and looking the other way over their corruption and horrors, so it doesn't really help them to make an example of the President over various issues.

So IMO THAT's REALY WHY a sitting president will never be indicted for anything really.

[Kathianne]

I think it comes down to the practicality of the outcome. If indicted how could he govern while the process drags on? How to ensure a fair trial? A jury not influenced by politics? It's not like he can be arrested for speeding, whether by car or horse. Things like the emoluments or obstruction are not going to result in fines and having a license revoked.

Impeachment process is the one most fitting for the president, IF there's a bases to the charges. In this case, like the calls for impeaching Bush or Obama, there just is no there, there. At least yet.

[revelarts]

I think it comes down to the practicality of the outcome. If indicted how could he govern while the process drags on? How to ensure a fair trial? A jury not influenced by politics? It's not like he can be arrested for speeding, whether by car or horse. Things like the emoluments or obstruction are not going to result in fines and having a license revoked.

Impeachment process is the one most fitting for the president, IF there's a bases to the charges. In this case, like the calls for impeaching Bush or Obama, there just is no there, there. At least yet.

Well maybe HE SHOULDN't govern while a trail was going on. Maybe the VICE president should step in?

As far as a fair trial goes. Sure there NO DOUBT that partisan feelings would be on the parts of all involved.
but it goes to the other part of my contention that a CiC probably should not be subject to petty crimes charges.

But practically speaking I suspect that if a president was caught on TV shooting a kid on the side of the road that gave him the finger THEN he might go to jail... MAYBE.
but barring something as blatant as that.
I doubt it.
Even then the president supporters would dig up every excuse ...in and out of the book... as to why the president was completely justified in shooting the kid
As we see with many of the police cases, some people are just assumed above the law no matter what

And I contend that for Both Bush and Obama there was plenty of "there there" constitutionally speaking they both BROKE the LAW. In several ways including warrantless spying and by illegally overstepping their constitutional authority in many other venues.
And both also broke the Geneva conventions and our own torture treaty and torture laws.

That's plenty of there for anyone who's being objective.
But people would rather make excuses why the Constitution shouldn't be adhered to or somehow doesn't apply ...because xyz.. when their guy does it.

[Kathianne]

Well maybe HE SHOULDN't govern while a trail was going on. Maybe the VICE president should step in?

As far as a fair trial goes. Sure there NO DOUBT that partisan feelings would be on the parts of all involved.
but it goes to the other part of my contention that a CiC probably should not be subject to petty crimes charges.

But practically speaking I suspect that if a president was caught on TV shooting a kid on the side of the road that gave him the finger THEN he might go to jail... MAYBE.
but barring something as blatant as that.
I doubt it.
Even then the president supporters would dig up every excuse ...in and out of the book... as to why the president was completely justified in shooting the kid
As we see with many of the police cases, some people are just assumed above the law no matter what

And I contend that for Both Bush and Obama there was plenty of "there there" constitutionally speaking they both BROKE the LAW in several ways including warrantless spying and by illegally overstepping their constitutional authority in many other venues.
And both also broke the Geneva conventions and our own torture treaty and torture laws.

That's plenty of there for anyone who's being objective.
But people would rather make excuses why the CONSTITUOON shouldn't be adhered to or somehow doesn't apply ...because xyz.. when their guy does it.


I agree with your purity, my response was in practicality. As for 'my guy,' I doubt we could be further on that then the current president. If you recall, I pretty much responded to calls for Obama's impeachment with the query, "For what?"

I think a president that shot someone on tv would probably face repercussions less it were in self-defense. Absent something along those lines, the political process of impeachment and conviction is probably the best way.

[revelarts]

I agree with your purity, my response was in practicality. As for 'my guy,' I doubt we could be further on that then the current president. If you recall, I pretty much responded to calls for Obama's impeachment with the query, "For what?"
I do recall, you've been consistent in your view here.
I respect that.



I think a president that shot someone on tv would probably face repercussions less it were in self-defense. Absent something along those lines, the political process of impeachment and conviction is probably the best way.
of course it'd be self-defense.


c'mon anyone could see that the president thought that the middle finger was a gun. DUH! And the GOOD experts agreeso case closed.
Plus it should be against the law to disrespect a president. And did you know that the kid had a record of Smoking pot and drinking, and associated with motorcycle gangs (or Muslims or Russians or the KKK or BLM)? so there's that...and all of the other factors of presidential stress and threats on his life earlier thatyear.. etc etc
so bottom line, WHAT good would it do the country? it's time for the country to "move on"

like i said "maybe"