If brought to trial, would Trump be found guilty by a jury of ANY felonies?

If brought to trial, would Trump be found guilty by a jury of ANY felonies?


  • Total voters
    9
Nov 2008
61,374
4,593
Washington state
#3
Trump is charged with being successful in front of Liberals and keeping them out of power. In this case he is charged with Liberals having an opinion of outrage over what he is doing. They want him charged with something even though there is no proof of wrong doing. Liberals have no business running government at this point, go to the back of the bus while the adults run the country
 
Mar 2012
53,808
35,635
New Hampshire
#7
Wrong.No law or Cotus wording puts a president above our criminal laws.
Do you live in Somalia?
I assume the SC would have to decide if a sitting president could be put on trial. Some have suggested if Congress doesnt remove a sittiing president then the trial may have to wait until they are out of office. Either way it would appear the SC would determine if a sitting president can go on trial.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
69,028
27,749
Florida
#8
I assume the SC would have to decide if a sitting president could be put on trial. Some have suggested if Congress doesnt remove a sittiing president then the trial may have to wait until they are out of office. Either way it would appear the SC would determine if a sitting president can go on trial.
I was responding to this incorrect post:
A sitting President cannot be indicted.

Another Alt Left Universe fantasy.

Carry on .....
Con scholars debate this issue which has never been decided by any court and would require an anti-American decision that puts Presidents above our laws.
If a party refuses to impeach for political reasons.....we are stuck with a criminal president for up to 4 years??
Absurd!!
 
Likes: BigBob
Mar 2012
53,808
35,635
New Hampshire
#9
Its problematic..

"The basic point is that prosecutors should not be able to tie up the work of a president," Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, told CBS News. "Imagine, for example, that a South Carolina prosecutor had tried to indict Abraham Lincoln in 1864. It would allow a prosecutor from one state to undermine the national will. But federal prosecutors are not amenable to quite the same criticism." This view was articulated in 1973 by the Justice Department, which insisted that indicting a president would "hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs." In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) came to a similar conclusion, stating that the "indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Mueller may be bound by the OLC's ruling on the matter, Fredericksen says, because it remains an official opinion of the Department of Justice. If Mueller ever attempted to indict Mr. Trump anyway, the president's lawyers would surely argue that the OLC opinion prevents him from doing so. "One of the ways around the concern of indicting a sitting president and interfering with his ability to execute the functions of the office is one can indict and the trial can be delayed until the president leaves office."

Again imagine the SC might have to decide.
Can a president be indicted?
 
Likes: pragmatic

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
69,028
27,749
Florida
#10
Its problematic..

"The basic point is that prosecutors should not be able to tie up the work of a president," Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, told CBS News. "Imagine, for example, that a South Carolina prosecutor had tried to indict Abraham Lincoln in 1864. It would allow a prosecutor from one state to undermine the national will. But federal prosecutors are not amenable to quite the same criticism." This view was articulated in 1973 by the Justice Department, which insisted that indicting a president would "hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs." In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) came to a similar conclusion, stating that the "indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Mueller may be bound by the OLC's ruling on the matter, Fredericksen says, because it remains an official opinion of the Department of Justice. If Mueller ever attempted to indict Mr. Trump anyway, the president's lawyers would surely argue that the OLC opinion prevents him from doing so. "One of the ways around the concern of indicting a sitting president and interfering with his ability to execute the functions of the office is one can indict and the trial can be delayed until the president leaves office."

Again imagine the SC might have to decide.
Can a president be indicted?
That's one side of the legal/constitutional argument which I think must give way to the concept that no man is above the law in this country. We don't have Kings!
The idea that we might have to wait up to 4 years allowing a criminal president to stay in office damaging this country b4 he/she is out of office is unthinkable.

Clearly the answer already exists: The President would be effectively incapacitated on trial/in prison and the VP should take over his duties.
simple!

Funny how these issues only arise when the GOP controls the WH and or congress!