• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

OLC: Cops can't be Indicted

G

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,965
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
I was reading the October 2000 memorandum to the Attorney General regarding A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, which you can also read here:
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=742477

From the memorandum:

in light of the President's unique powers to supervise executive
branch prosecutions and assert executive privilege, the constitutional balance generally should favor the conclusion that
a sitting President may not be subjected to indictment or criminal prosecution. According to this argument,
the possession of these powers by the President renders the criminal prosecution of a sitting President inconsistent with
the constitutional structure. It was suggested that such powers, which relate so directly to the President's status as a law
enforcement officer, are simply incompatible with the notion that the President could be made a defendant in a
criminal case. The memorandum did not reach a definitive conclusion on the weight to be accorded the President's
capacity to exercise such powers in calculating the constitutional balance, although it did suggest that the President's
possession of such powers pointed somewhat against the conclusion that the chief executive could be subject to
indictment or criminal prosecution during his tenure in office.
Click to expand...

So, while a "law enforcement officer" enjoys their position, it is " inconsistent with the constitutional structure" to be able to prosecute a case against them.
 
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of
the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be up to the courts to determine constitutionality, not some bureaucrat?
 
Yes. However this isn't law, this is policy set by the office of the president's legal counsel as communicated to the AG.
 
It's not that complicated.

It means the President's actions have to reach a level which alarms Congress to the point of invoking impeachment powers. If that hurdle is cleared, the no longer sitting President can be indicted, tried, suffer the consequences, such as they may be.

My father would have summed up this situation by saying, "Their chickens have come home to roost." This is an old country expression, well understood by anyone who had chickens who roost in a tree. Just before dropping off to sleep, all the chickens on the limb, defecate in unison. Anyone who is standing under the tree at twilight, should be able to predict what is about to happen.

The GOP decided it was a good idea to investigate the Clinton's private business dealings(Whitewater) and ended up with the President committing perjury in an deposition about a personally embarrassing incident. Anyone with the intellectual acumen to pass a driving test could tell you how that was going to work out.

Criminal investigations for political ends, which lead to non-criminal embarrassments and related fallout, are the political norm. The GOP needs to just get used to it and take this into consideration next time they nominate a candidate for President.
 
Bronzeage said:
It's not that complicated.

It means the President's actions have to reach a level which alarms Congress to the point of invoking impeachment powers. If that hurdle is cleared, the no longer sitting President can be indicted, tried, suffer the consequences, such as they may be.

My father would have summed up this situation by saying, "Their chickens have come home to roost." This is an old country expression, well understood by anyone who had chickens who roost in a tree. Just before dropping off to sleep, all the chickens on the limb, defecate in unison. Anyone who is standing under the tree at twilight, should be able to predict what is about to happen.

The GOP decided it was a good idea to investigate the Clinton's private business dealings(Whitewater) and ended up with the President committing perjury in an deposition about a personally embarrassing incident. Anyone with the intellectual acumen to pass a driving test could tell you how that was going to work out.

Criminal investigations for political ends, which lead to non-criminal embarrassments and related fallout, are the political norm. The GOP needs to just get used to it and take this into consideration next time they nominate a candidate for President.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know what it means... this thread was an invitation to read the opinion for yourself, especially the part where it extends those same protections to "Law Enforcement Officers". The opinion implies that ANY law enforcement officer should be immune to indictment. That is what is "news" to me... and probably a little complicated, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom