• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a president have to be impeached and removed from office before being charged with crimes?

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
49,538
Reaction score
38,821
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the house impeaches and the Senate does not convict, does that mean, to you, the president should not be charged for criminal behavior while in office? One is a political proceeding the other is a criminal proceeding, why are Republicans trying to tie the two together?
 
There are definitely safeguards that makes it hard to go after a President while said President is in office, but if the President were involved in illegal activities while in office, I don' think there is anything protecting him/ her from prosecution once the presidency is over.
 
joluoto said:
There are definitely safeguards that makes it hard to go after a President while said President is in office, but if the President were involved in illegal activities while in office, I don' think there is anything protecting him/ her from prosecution once the presidency is over.
Click to expand...
But isn't that exactly what the trump lawyers are now arguing, complete immunity, meaning every single charge against trump while he was in office disappears.
 
Tying a potentially criminal act to a political process is nuts. Basically that would mean giving a President who has control of the Senate total immunity . Look what happened with the Jan 6th impeachment.
 
samiam5211 said:
Presidents should be able to be charged with a crime while in office.

It would be bad for the country, but we should face consequences for electing people who commit crimes in office.
Click to expand...
We are facing the consequences of trump's time in office, shouldn't he be the one facing consequences?
 
bongsaway said:
If the house impeaches and the Senate does not convict, does that mean, to you, the president should not be charged for criminal behavior while in office? One is a political proceeding the other is a criminal proceeding, why are Republicans trying to tie the two together?
Click to expand...
The Constitution outlines impeachment as the way to deal with a President. The general position has been sitting Presidents can't be indicted. We will have to see what the SCOTUS comes up with.
Clearly if a President has no immunity, a lot of American Presidents are going to be in danger of being in court.
 
Oh its even worse than that.

The question the SC posed for Oral Argument, much driven by the RW majority centered around "ALLEGED Official Acts". What a horse shit SC we have.

I have never in all my days seen since an unscrupulous, radical SC.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The Constitution outlines impeachment as the way to deal with a President. The general position has been sitting Presidents can't be indicted. We will have to see what the SCOTUS comes up with.
Clearly if a President has no immunity, a lot of American Presidents are going to be in danger of being in court.
Click to expand...
Impeachment is a political tool, not a criminal tool.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The Constitution outlines impeachment as the way to deal with a President. The general position has been sitting Presidents can't be indicted. We will have to see what the SCOTUS comes up with.
Clearly if a President has no immunity, a lot of American Presidents are going to be in danger of being in court.
Click to expand...
That is a gross misstatement.
The constitution outlines the way a president, VP etc can be removed from office.
It absolutely does not state impeachment is the only mechanism by which an executive can be held accountable for their criminal conduct.
 
Sure. So long as it doesn't occur to the President to start bumping off congressmen then everything should be fine.
 
samiam5211 said:
Presidents should be able to be charged with a crime while in office.

It would be bad for the country, but we should face consequences for electing people who commit crimes in office.
Click to expand...
THIS (y)

I have always believed that a president who commits a serious crime while in office should have no special treatment. What the hell is the VP for if he can't take over the duties?
 
Integrityrespec said:
The Constitution outlines impeachment as the way to deal with a President. The general position has been sitting Presidents can't be indicted. We will have to see what the SCOTUS comes up with.
Clearly if a President has no immunity, a lot of American Presidents are going to be in danger of being in court.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't that just too bad. Then perhaps they should follow the laws they took an oath to uphold and enforce. Your argument makes no sense.

You wouldn't be saying this if it was Biden asking for immunity. You would be screaming "Lock Him Up."
 
bongsaway said:
Should a president have to be impeached and removed from office before being charged with crimes?
Click to expand...
That's what the Constitution says. This was settled during Watergate, before most of us were born.

bongsaway said:
If the house impeaches and the Senate does not convict, does that mean, to you, the president should not be charged for criminal behavior while in office?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Clinton administration.

bongsaway said:
One is a political proceeding the other is a criminal proceeding, why are Republicans trying to tie the two together?
Click to expand...
Read the Antiwar quote in my sig.
 
joluoto said:
There are definitely safeguards that makes it hard to go after a President while said President is in office, but if the President were involved in illegal activities while in office, I don' think there is anything protecting him/ her from prosecution once the presidency is over.
Click to expand...

And if they simply refuse to leave office?
 
Jay59 said:
That's what the Constitution says. This was settled during Watergate, before most of us were born.


Welcome to the Clinton administration.


Read the Antiwar quote in my sig.
Click to expand...
Mind showing us where it says that in the constitution? Really comparing Clinton lying about a blow job is equal to trump's endeavors? So what about antiwar, one person.
 
Putting my reasonable person hat on.

#1 While in office the President should have Presidential Immunity for actions taken in office. Both civil and criminal.

#2 While in office the President should not have Presidential Immunity for actions taken prior to office. Both civil and criminal.

#3 After leaving office the former President should have Presidential Immunity for action taken in office within the scope of responsibilities for the Office of the President.

#4 After leaving office the former President should not have Presidential Immunity for action taken in office outside the scope of responsibilities for the Office of the President.

#5 While in office it is up to the Congress, per the Constitution, if the claims against the President warrant removal from office so civil and criminal cases can proceed for actions taken in office.

WW
 
bongsaway said:
Mind showing us where it says that in the constitution? Really comparing Clinton lying about a blow job is equal to trump's endeavors? So what about antiwar, one person.
Click to expand...
This was all done in the 1970s because of Watergate.

The relevant passage is the impeachment clause so you already know it. Add that to sovereign immunity and you get what you see.

WorldWatcher said:
Putting my reasonable person hat on.

#1 While in office the President should have Presidential Immunity for actions taken in office. Both civil and criminal.
#2 While in office the President should not have Presidential Immunity for actions taken prior to office. Both civil and criminal.
#3 After leaving office the former President should have Presidential Immunity for action taken in office within the scope of responsibilities for the Office of the President.
#4 After leaving office the former President should not have Presidential Immunity for action taken in office outside the scope of responsibilities for the Office of the President.
#5 While in office it is up to the Congress, per the Constitution, if the claims against the President warrant removal from office so civil and criminal cases can proceed for actions taken in office.

WW
Click to expand...
  1. Sort of correct.
  2. Not true
  3. That is the basis of the current legal petition
  4. This requires extensive definition of terms but there may be something there
  5. The impeachment clause
A lot of people have trouble grasping that the government is not subject to laws unless it chooses to be. In the case of the President, it is clear that the founders did not want the officeholders to be subject to harassment by lawsuit, ie exactly what we see now regarding Trump.
 
Jay59 said:
This was all done in the 1970s because of Watergate.

The relevant passage is the impeachment clause so you already know it. Add that to sovereign immunity and you get what you see.


  1. Sort of correct.
  2. Not true
  3. That is the basis of the current legal petition
  4. This requires extensive definition of terms but there may be something there
  5. The impeachment clause
A lot of people have trouble grasping that the government is not subject to laws unless it chooses to be. In the case of the President, it is clear that the founders did not want the officeholders to be subject to harassment by lawsuit, ie exactly what we see now regarding Trump.
Click to expand...

Trumps actions surrounding efforts to illegally overturn the election were not within the scope of office for the President.

Trumps refusal to return US government classified documents after leaving office are not within the scope of Presidential duties.

Trumps campaign and business records illegal activity as a candidate and later after assuming office are not within the scope of Presidential duties.

WW
 
Jay59 said:
This was all done in the 1970s because of Watergate.

The relevant passage is the impeachment clause so you already know it. Add that to sovereign immunity and you get what you see.


  1. Sort of correct.
  2. Not true
  3. That is the basis of the current legal petition
  4. This requires extensive definition of terms but there may be something there
  5. The impeachment clause
A lot of people have trouble grasping that the government is not subject to laws unless it chooses to be. In the case of the President, it is clear that the founders did not want the officeholders to be subject to harassment by lawsuit, ie exactly what we see now regarding Trump.
Click to expand...
The issue absolutely was not resolved via the Watergate fiasco and not sure why you continue to claim it was. Nothing in the impeachment clause says anything about criminal prosecutions or that a president must be convicted via impeachment before being charged. If that's what you are claiming, you are making it up. It only states how a president is removed from office. Nothing more.

If I'm wrong, cite a single holding of any court that supports your claim. And of course, if in fact the issue was "settled" there wouldn't' even need to be a case before the supreme court.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
The issue absolutely was not resolved via the Watergate fiasco and not sure why you continue to claim it was. Nothing in the impeachment clause says anything about criminal prosecutions or that a president must be convicted via impeachment before being charged. If that's what you are claiming, you are making it up. It only states how a president is removed from office. Nothing more.

If I'm wrong, cite a single holding of any court that supports your claim. And of course, if in fact the issue was "settled" there wouldn't' even need to be a case before the supreme court.
Click to expand...

It's double escape clause:

Part 1: You can't charge a President in office without impeaching him/her for crimes not related to the scope of duties of the President. (Which I don't necessarily disagree with.)

Part 2: Once (s)he is out of office, you can't impeach them because they are not currently in office, but still have the immunity from crimes while in office. Since you can't charge while in office, and then can't charge out of office without impeachment but since you can't impeach someone after they left office they can't be charged.

Perfect double think to claim that once a President that person can never be charged.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
It's double escape clause:

Part 1: You can't charge a President in office without impeaching him/her for crimes not related to the scope of duties of the President. (Which I don't necessarily disagree with.)

Part 2: Once (s)he is out of office, you can't impeach them because they are not currently in office, but still have the immunity from crimes while in office. Since you can't charge while in office, and then can't charge out of office without impeachment but since you can't impeach someone after they left office they can't be charged.

Perfect double think to claim that once a President that person can never be charged.

WW
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the infamous circular logic of Joseph Heller's Catch 22. The mentally unfit can be discharged from the army, but you have to be mentally fit in order to make the request to be discharged in order to spare you the horrors of war. So you can't be discharged.
 
Jay59 said:
This was all done in the 1970s because of Watergate.

The relevant passage is the impeachment clause so you already know it. Add that to sovereign immunity and you get what you see.


  1. Sort of correct.
  2. Not true
  3. That is the basis of the current legal petition
  4. This requires extensive definition of terms but there may be something there
  5. The impeachment clause
A lot of people have trouble grasping that the government is not subject to laws unless it chooses to be. In the case of the President, it is clear that the founders did not want the officeholders to be subject to harassment by lawsuit, ie exactly what we see now regarding Trump.
Click to expand...
I will take that as a no, total immunity is not in the constitution but thanks for playing.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
The issue absolutely was not resolved via the Watergate fiasco and not sure why you continue to claim it was. Nothing in the impeachment clause says anything about criminal prosecutions or that a president must be convicted via impeachment before being charged. If that's what you are claiming, you are making it up. It only states how a president is removed from office. Nothing more.

If I'm wrong, cite a single holding of any court that supports your claim. And of course, if in fact the issue was "settled" there wouldn't' even need to be a case before the supreme court.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, you should know how to read more closely.

The issue was raised in the Watergate era and the resolution was that Nixon had to be removed from office before he could be prosecuted. Ford's blanket indemnity quashed all federal lines but the precedent was established. Show me anything contradictory because the Republicans felt bound in the 1990s.

bongsaway said:
I will take that as a no, total immunity is not in the constitution but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
Your reading issues are not my concern.

You are wrong and probably know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom