This would seem to bear on the question of whether a sitting President can be indicted. The Clinton precedent suggests to me that they can be, but I suppose it would depend on the particulars.[/QUOTE] Don't do too much of a mix and match between criminal and civil cases in regard to the whether a president can be subject to legal action. You can make a case that in a civil action seeking monetary damages that a president can pay out and still go to his job the next day. In criminal matters that could involve prison time, it is a whole nuther matter. The Framer's recognized that no man is above the law, on the other hand they recognized that a duly elected president should not be brought down or harassed on a daily basis by dipshit charges. Somewhere between the two is the answer. Of note, Bubba was also a sitting president when he entered a guilty plea in a criminal case- ie. perjury. It gets complicated. He might have a constitutional argument against being prosecuted while president but he probably also has the right to waive that and enter into plea negotiations if he wishes.
this is exactly correct. I will tell you what is even worse for the liberty of our country. When the IRS targets groups for political reasons and no one goes to jails. Weaponizing the IRS should have caused a top to bottom witch hunt. next is comey insulating Hillarys team with pardons. That should have the biggest investigation we can muster. The monster of D.C. is getting so big... we may lose to our country to that govt monster.
Trump DOJ: No plans to charge Lois Lerner in IRS scandal http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/08/doj-declines-to-charge-lois-lerner-in-irs-scandal.html Who stopped Trump from charging these people? And Comey has no power to pardon, you mean immunity which is what you give to the small fish to encourage them to speak out. The monster in DC is led by a corrupt con man, a perfect representation of conservatism.
comey insulated hillary's team... they were not all small fish. a parallel would be if mueller granted immunity to papadop, manafort, flynn, jared and don jr to encourage them to speak out. with respect to your other point... you make my point. the fact IRS was found to have done wrong but got away with an apology is not something to celebrate. since no one was punished we will see bigger facists type corruption out of ht IRS in the future. A proper response would have been to punish the wrong doers and eliminate their jobs so it can't happen again. That you could be cheering for that is so messed up beyond anything I care to think about. Its seems you don't even realize it could be turned on you, tony and your types some day.
Don't do too much of a mix and match between criminal and civil cases in regard to the whether a president can be subject to legal action. You can make a case that in a civil action seeking monetary damages that a president can pay out and still go to his job the next day. In criminal matters that could involve prison time, it is a whole nuther matter. The Framer's recognized that no man is above the law, on the other hand they recognized that a duly elected president should not be brought down or harassed on a daily basis by dipshit charges. Somewhere between the two is the answer. Of note, Bubba was also a sitting president when he entered a guilty plea in a criminal case- ie. perjury. It gets complicated. He might have a constitutional argument against being prosecuted while president but he probably also has the right to waive that and enter into plea negotiations if he wishes.[/QUOTE] The Clinto precedent was impeachment, not indictment. Presidents cannot be indicted.