Office of Legal Council Indictment Ruling

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is an office in the United States Department of Justice that assists the Attorney General's position as legal adviser to the President and all executive branch agencies.
Office of Legal Counsel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

biotech.law.lsu.edu...

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

www.washingtonpost.com...

First in 1973 with President Richard M. Nixon, and then again in 2000 with President Bill Clinton, the OLC determined that the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president “would be unconstitutional because it would impermissibly interfere with the President’s ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions.” Despite its Nixon-era origins, the theory is not that the president is above the law, but rather that any criminal case must wait until after he or she leaves office. The issue is one of separation of powers. Although the Constitution sets out a mechanism by which Congress may remove the president — the impeachment process — any attempt to prosecute the commander in chief before he or she leaves office would, in the OLC’s view, constitute an unworkable intrusion into the president’s core responsibilities. Both in 1973 and 2000, the OLC analysis noted that the presidency is unique because the executive branch is ultimately led by a singular figure on call and on the job 24 hours a day, unlike Congress or the judiciary. If one or more members of the legislative or judicial branches are temporarily distracted, others on the job can step in to keep business going.

So to be clear here and stating simply the POTUS can not be held liable for any crime during his presidency.

The reason for this is extremely sound and completely necessary.

In order to maintain the continuity of government and refuse foreign meddling in our governance.

Otherwise any hostile country with the will and power to inject doubt into our system could simply assert certain crimes and sit back and reap the benefits.

With that said and operating under the facts it then becomes clear that such special council would be and is simply acting on behalf of the next round of elections. That in itself could very well be construed as political use of power and very much against the law.

For the sake of the country it is now time to recognize facts and realize the true intentions of an investigation that now serves no purpose other than a political one setting the stage for future elections is a crime in itself and should be immediately stopped.


www.ncsl.org...

50 State Table: Staff and Political Activity - Statutes www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50statetablestaffandpoliticalactivitystatutes.aspx A legislative employee may not, on government time, assist in political party or candidate activities. May not distribute or post communications .... (b) Use the authority of position to secure support for, or oppose, any candidate, party, or issue in a partisan election or affect the results thereof. No state employee shall use any ...

To sum things up...
We are stuck with 45 till term limit or death do us part.
Look to the next election cycle to vote the guy out if you do not like him.
That is the American Way!

if you are a 'dem' telling me you do not like this guy, that is laughable.
me, i voted for johnson. he was the only clean guy from the top 4. stein showed her true colors post election.

they will never take this guy out of office, because he is doing EXACTLY what past prez's did.
war, killing poor people around the world, sending our troops into harm for zero reason
taxes, he said he was going to get rid of taxes, he did not
siding against a free palystine, that is a big one, if you know how to read between the lines.

the media is doing their job, to villify him, so that the next dork, who, cory boooker from newark, he can come in as the 'cool hip' prez who will save the world, and instal so many sh!t laws and take away so many of our liberties because he is better than this guy, according to 'them.'

if the wars and taxes keep rolling, the people who really run the world are 'happy' and no one will rock the boat.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Great post.

Though, don't expect to get through to any crazies
who are hell bent on impeachment, come hell or high water.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

So to be clear here and stating simply the POTUS can not be held liable for any crime during his presidency.

I think you will find that this is not actually true.

If Trump were to shoot Melania to death and then stab Pence while in office, he wouldn't get a "pass" on that. Likewise, if he's laundering money while in office, he doesn't get a pass for that (and so on and so forth for a laundry list of crimes.)

Although the actions that people are pointing to as cause for prosecution and/or impeachment date from the election cycle and thus would not fall under the case you're citing.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: howtonhawky

So to be clear here and stating simply the POTUS can not be held liable for any crime during his presidency.

I think you will find that this is not actually true.

If Trump were to shoot Melania to death and then stab Pence while in office, he wouldn't get a "pass" on that. Likewise, if he's laundering money while in office, he doesn't get a pass for that (and so on and so forth for a laundry list of crimes.)

Although the actions that people are pointing to as cause for prosecution and/or impeachment date from the election cycle and thus would not fall under the case you're citing.

BS
Unless the potus admitted to such or the olc ruled differently against their previous ruling.

The reason is for continuity of governance.

It keeps every tom dick and harry from framing the potus and keeps our country strong.

a reply to: Byrd

Real classy example there.

Very "distinctive" too 👋

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: howtonhawky

So to be clear here and stating simply the POTUS can not be held liable for any crime during his presidency.

I think you will find that this is not actually true.

If Trump were to shoot Melania to death and then stab Pence while in office, he wouldn't get a "pass" on that. Likewise, if he's laundering money while in office, he doesn't get a pass for that (and so on and so forth for a laundry list of crimes.)

Although the actions that people are pointing to as cause for prosecution and/or impeachment date from the election cycle and thus would not fall under the case you're citing.

BS
Unless the potus admitted to such or the olc ruled differently against their previous ruling.

The reason is for continuity of governance.

It keeps every tom dick and harry from framing the potus and keeps our country strong.

If there's evidence of a serious crime, the President could be removed from office and prosecution could proceed. And the immunity from prosecution only extends to acts that happen during the administration. As we saw with Trump, other lawsuits could and did proceed based on what he did before he won the election.

a reply to: howtonhawky

DUnno man...its becoming more and more clear that the Mueller investigation has nothing to do with Trump directly, but rather people who latched onto him.

Recall that there was a blacklist of sorts in the wake of Trump winning, and #Resist/#NeverTrump movements kept even Republicans from cooperating. So he didn't really get the best/brightest to pick from. He was ripe for the picking.

In any event, Im not so sure Mueller's investigation is an issue for the POTUS. Its just the rumor mill making believe it is.

a reply to: howtonhawky

No, he CAN be impeached... Will he? SHOULD he? I seriously doubt it, and no he shouldn't.

He may be impeached if dems take the house, but he will NOT be removed from office. They will never have enough votes in the senate...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: howtonhawky

No, he CAN be impeached... Will he? SHOULD he? I seriously doubt it, and no he shouldn't.

He may be impeached if dems take the house, but he will NOT be removed from office. They will never have enough votes in the senate...

Jaden

Dully noted that the title has a mistake in it...

I should have said indicted but said impeached.

Perhaps a mod could change the wording to reflect the thread.

Yes if the votes are there then he could be impeached but not indicted unless the olc rules against itself.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You may be correct in that a normal court cannot consider charges during a Presidency however Congress can consider high crimes and misdemeanors for the impeachment proceeding which leads to removal from office which the charges would soon follow for criminal proceedings if impeachment sucessful.

If this is so, why did Nixon need to be pardoned? His crimes were while he was in office.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: howtonhawky

You may be correct in that a normal court cannot consider charges during a Presidency however Congress can consider high crimes and misdemeanors for the impeachment proceeding which leads to removal from office which the charges would soon follow for criminal proceedings if impeachment sucessful.

Indeed hence the term used "sitting" president.

I will note that any president that allows himself to be impeached is not worthy of the office in the first place because when acting as president he has the power if wielded correctly to quail any such investigations or proceedings.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
If this is so, why did Nixon need to be pardoned? His crimes were while he was in office.

1974 On this day in 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommends that America's 37th president, Richard M. Nixon, be impeached and removed from office. The impeachment proceedings resulted from a series of political scandals involving the Nixon administration that came to be collectively known as Watergate. Nixon charged with first of three articles of impeachment - Jul 27, 1974 ... www.history.com/this-day.../nixon-charged-with-first-of-three-articles-of-impeachment

www.history.com...

It is because after a president is removed he can be charged.

Also..

Collusion is not a crime.

The only impeachable offence in the matter would be obstruction of justice and the investigators have already twice cleared the potus from being a target of a criminal investigation.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Excellent post.