STUART TAYLOR: No, I don't think so. I think probably the better of the argument is that you cannot indict a sitting President in a criminal proceeding, at least not for something like this. And I don't think this changes that at all. He has not admitted to committing a crime. You notice - he only admitted - and it is exquisitely negotiated -- I won't call you a liar if you don't call me a vast right wing conspiracy, right. But he has admitted that some of his answers were false. He has admitted that he was deliberately misleading. Some of that he had admitted before. He admitted that it obstructed the bar proceeding-- I'm sorry, the civil lawsuit and agreed to accept a five-year suspension. He hasn't agreed to any criminal sanction at all, and he has most definitely has not said anything that's tantamount to "I committed a crime."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/deal_1-19.htmlKEN GORMLEY, Duquesne University School of Law: Well, Margaret, I believe that when Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski looked at this during Watergate and also Robert Bork, then the solicitor general, they concluded that it was most likely not constitutional to indict a sitting president, that's, in fact, why President Nixon was not indicted and Jaworski just named him an unindicted co-conspirator. I think if you look at the constitutional history, if you look at Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69 and 77, it was clear what he envisioned was that the president would have to be removed from office before he could be indicted or prosecuted. And when you look at the separation of powers, ramification of this, it becomes really clear why that's the rule. It creates gargantuan problems if you allow a sitting president to be indicted and prosecuted because with that comes the ability of another branch of government to incarcerate him, to arrest him, to put him in jail. And that can effectively stop the functioning of the government because, unlike any of the officials who Professor Freedman mentioned, vice president or a federal judge, the president is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, he is the head of all the executive departments and if you are allowed to indict and prosecute this president, you can also put him behind bars and keep him effectively from being able to govern the country.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june99/indict_2-1.htmlI don't see a credible source on this story and I don't see how they are going to use the Consttution to indict a sitting Prez!
This stuff is pure BS.
CTFT
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
