Can a President be Criminally Prosecuted

Legal & Second Amendment
1

This is a summary from today’s Washington Post of one of the legal issues the Court of Appeals (and probably, ultimately the US Supreme Court) is wrestling with. Namely, can a President be criminally prosecuted for an act he takes in office without first being impeached by the House and tried and convicted by the Senate?

"Trump attorney D. John Sauer argued that presidential immunity means that a president cannot be prosecuted for any actions that fall under his presidential duties — unless the House first votes to impeach him and the Senate then convicts him.

Judge Florence Y. Pan, an appointee of President Biden, asked Sauer if a president could be criminally prosecuted if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Such a scenario — ordering the military to do something — would fall under presidential duties. But having a rival murdered would also be a clear violation of the law.

Sauer said the Justice Department could only charge the president for giving such an order if the Senate votes to convict him first. Pan also asked him whether a president could sell pardons or nuclear secrets without being prosecuted. Sauer responded similarly.

Pan seemed skeptical and said that conceding that a president can be prosecuted for official acts in any instance — say, after the congressional impeachment and conviction process — undermines the president’s presidential immunity argument.

“Given that you’re conceding that presidents can be criminally prosecuted, doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to, ‘Can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said. She added, “Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances, your other arguments fall away.”

The judges were clearly concerned that accepting Trump’s argument would open a Pandora’s box of horrible acts by future presidents that would go unchecked and unpunished.

Trump’s lawyer tried to convince the panel that the real danger was letting this case go forward and opening a door to future presidents operating in fear of being prosecuted when they left office."

5 Likes
2

Sounds like a good question for AI.

3 Likes
3

There’s an interesting development with the Democratic States that are trying to kick Trump off the ballot over the allegations that he has done something.

Missouri ( and other Republican States) are threatening to kick Biden off of the ballot over the allegations that Puddin Pants has done something wrong. I’ve been saying this for years, talking about unintended consequences.

10 Likes
4

@Zavier_D The Resident Joke BiteMe should also be taken off the ballets for not keeping his Oath to the Constitution, and taking threats against our 2A rights in banning firearms calling them ASSAULT WEAPONS! Furthermore willing to pursue total DISARMAMENT! He SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND PROSECUTED FOR TREASON!

9 Likes
5

If Trump’s legal argument prevails, Biden could not be prosecuted until and unless he is first impeached by the House, and tried and convicted by the Senate.

3 Likes
6

Yes a president can be criminally prosecuted, provided that his actions during his term have been been heard by the Congress and he has been impeached and convicted. His immunity for those actions only are stripped. and he is then liable to the decisions of competent criminal and civil courts. Legal competency is not the same as normal competency.

There are distinct differences. Currently Colorado, California and several other states are in the process of trying to remove Trump from the Ballot, citing the 14th Amendment Article 3, which was created to prevent Confederate candidates from attaining office subsequent to the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression if you prefer). These actions are based upon a political bias. Aside from the fact that such actions are a Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, which is punishable by law, they have failed to understand certain basic tenets of the law. First, that under our Constitution, no person may be deprived of any right, without the application of Due Process. He has not been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction for the claimed act of Insurrection, nor has he even been charged for such. Beyond that, Article 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment that they cite, was vacated by Congress in 1898! They may want to spend a little time in the law library r at least hit Google.

Their lack of Jurisprudence is not only alarming, but embarrassing. Given that their positions as State Supreme Court “justices” (cough, cough) demands a certain knowledge of the fundamentals of Common, Civil and Maritime law in order to preside, one is led to believe that they are not acting in good faith and as such may be removed from the bench (for bad behavior). Their reliance on immunity is void if their actions are made in bad faith, or from gross incompetence. They may be held criminally or civilly liable for those actions. If the act is willful and made in collusion with others it could be construed as Conspiracy. They rely on the ignorance of the law on the part of the People. Try pleading ignorance in court and see how you are treated.

I do applaud the three dissenting Colorado justices whom, despite their political leanings, exercised good conscience and competency and filed strongly constructed dissents.

Biden is a different story. I will not digress at this point.

Understand that I have no political affiliation. I am an independent, natural, living man, native to Virginia. I really do not care who you are, how much money you make or which party you affiliate with. I am an American. My concern is for my country.

God Bless the Republic! She needs all the help she can get during these troubled times.

10 Likes
7

@Patrick243 Welcome to the community, I totally agree, great comment, And I’m right there with you, same feelings all the way here in NM, with our NM, and TX borders bleeding heavy migrant flow across the Rio Grande. Need to PLUG THAT HOLE QUICK! There’s more migrants flowing on that river than there is water on the Rio Grande.

5 Likes
8

Hello and welcome @Patrick243

3 Likes
9

Thanks, @Patrick243 . God Bless You and welcome to the USCCA Forum

4 Likes
10

Well damn, @Patrick243 way to make your 1st post memorable.

Welcome to the forum.

7 Likes
11

Thank you!

4 Likes
12

I see no significant difference in President Trump telling people to peacefully assemble and protest than the actions taken by Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Al Gore in 2000 when the latter two encouraged their supporters to protest and march in challenging each of those votes and elections.

5 Likes
13

Hello and welcome @billmovesfast76

3 Likes
14

@billmovesfast76 Welcome to the community!

3 Likes
15

Ronald 150. WE HAVE TO STOP THE INVASION FOR THIS PRESIDENT BITME!! Or we lose our LIVES AND OR FREEDOM THEY ARE COVERING WHAT THIS BITME HAS DONE. HE IS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY AND HE TRULY IS DESTROYING THE NATION. BIDEN IS PUTTING EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER. AND HE IS GOING TO PUT FOREIGN ILLEGALLY HERE OVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MY GOD. STOP :stop_sign: BY TEXAS AND HELP STOP THIS INVASION TEXAS IS BEING OVER RAN SIR I LIVE TEN MINUTES FROM WF TEXAS JUST EAST 21 miles east Love Bobby Jean and Debbie ann BROTHERS :chile::heart::white_heart::blue_heart::100::100::100::owl::feather::feather::beer::popcorn::100::100::100::bangbang::brick::brick::brick::brick::brick:

2 Likes
16

Hell yes he can be criminally prosecuted. Now they just need to figure out what for :rofl: :rofl:

2 Likes
17

I live in the same zip code as the processing center in San Antonio Texas. It’s an absolute sh** show. It’s on San Pedro Ave, on the North Central part of the city. They have spilled out miles in each direction & are panhandling. Stealing items from all of the retail outlets & food stores. They come up to women & elderly people in groups demanding money. The most recent bus to arrive had nothing but young military aged men. No women or children. Governor Abbot at least has the balls to stand up & call to account President Biden & his border policy which is in reality; NO POLICY WHATSOEVER. MAN, THUS JUST CHAPS MY A**

8 Likes
18

RUGER9. Brother SIR WE ARE GOING TO STICK TOGETHER TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY SIR AND THE BITEME. IS MORE THAN LIKELY ALL READY . GOT US IN TO THE NEXT WORLD WAR IN THIS COUNTRY AND WITH ALL OF OUR PEOPLE AT RISK OF BEING KILLED AND I BELIEVE HE HAS PLANNED THIS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND THAT IS TREASON SIR AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR OUR OWN LIFES AND OUR FAMILIES LIVES SIR. GOD BLESS TEXAS KAZ WITH FALL WE ALL FALL AMERICAN PEOPLE EVERY WHERE ARE IN THIS SOON TO BE DESASTER SIR WAR I. HOPE WE CAN SAVE OUR COUNTRY I HOPE WE CAN SAVE TEXAS. I LOVE TEXAS THIS IS MY HOME SIR LOVE BOBBY JEAN AND DEBBIE ANN SIR :us::us::us::chile::chile::chile::100::100::100::heart::white_heart::blue_heart::owl::feather::feather::brick::brick::brick::brick::popcorn::beer::popcorn::beer::cherry_blossom::cherry_blossom:

2 Likes
19

The question you would likely be asked by an appellate court would be:

So, Mr. Patrick your position is that a President may only be criminally prosecuted if he has been impeached by the House and convicted in a trial by the Senate. Does that mean that you believe a President is immune from criminal prosecution after he has left office without impeachment and conviction due to partisan gridlock in the House or Senate that either presented impeachment or conviction?

Suppose that a President was engaged in a bribery conspiracy that came to light after he left office – for example, a President through the actions of his family traded his influence in political office for payments to a family member. A conspiracy for which he was neither impeached or convicted. Would he, by your standard be immune from criminal prosecution?

2 Likes
20

Good question especially during the current situation. The Constitution provides that the President may be convicted of certain high crimes and misdemeanors. While it does not list these offenses extensively, it does specify treason and bribery. It is not a broad blanket for ALL crimes. Likewise, it does not preclude him from being criminally or civilly charged for those listed offenses after being removed from office. However, the President enjoys immunity for other acts occurring during the course of his official duties. Questioning the validity of a hinky election is part of his duties. However, criminal acts unrelated to his duties, such as theft, fraud, bribery, murder etc are not protected. Ordering the murder of another person would come under real scrutiny, as it should. Doing so for purely political reasons, would not, but the intentional murder of a citizen engaged in acts against the nation most likely would. Obama had best hope so given that he droned several Americans. If it was inadvertent such as a friendly fire incident or collateral damage of a strike on an enemy of the state would likely be covered.

It can be very complicated at times. This is going to be interesting to watch.

3 Likes