SES
So your evidence that a sitting President can be indicted...
Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:06am
198.101.7.201 (XFF: 172.30.52.144)

...is that the Constitution doesn't say that a sitting President can be indicted?

So even though the Constitution specifically includes a statement that a President can be indicted AFTER being impeached,
you're going to INFER that it also leaves open the possibility that a sitting President can be indicted BEFORE being
impeached, even though the only thing that the Constitution DOES SAY is that a President can be indicted AFTER being
impeached?

AND even though the writers of the Constitution were trying to calm fears that the President might not be held accountable,
they DIDN'T say "Don't worry, you can indict the President any time you want" -- they instead said AGAIN that a President
could be held to account by being impeached, and THEN being subject to common law?

All of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE goes AGAINST your position, but you'll defend it by saying "Some experts disagree"?

Your inference that a President can be indicted comes ONLY from a realization that getting THIS President removed via
impeachment has a snowball's chance, plain and simple.


  • I didn't say any such thing.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 5:17pm
    My earlier remarks had NOTHING to do with MY personal opinion, but with disputing the "absoluteness" of yours that NO other interpretation was reasonable. You turned it into an argument over whether... more
    • So your evidence that a sitting President can be indicted... — SES, Thu Dec 13 10:06am
      • Nope. Read the referenced post inside for details.Sia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 7:57pm
        http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=206964;article=700259;title=Civilized%20General%20Discussion Also, DO NOT presume to tell me what or why I believe anything.
        • If you'll just go with "Experts say that a sitting President can be indicted", without giving your own opinion supported by facts, then good for you. I prefer to think for myself, but then...that's... more
          • Obviously, you did NOT read my actual response.Sia☺giah, Fri Dec 14 10:29pm
            I don't need to give MY personal opinion on the matter since I am NOT a legal scholar. I will accept the conclusions of both Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski that, YES, a sitting POTUS can be... more
          • You Quoted It, But...Amadeus, Fri Dec 14 4:37pm
            ...your interpretation of it is... what? Nonsense? Simply because the portion on impeachment explicitly mentions that impeachment does not abridge the ability to indict a president afterward does not ... more
        • Spelled out for youSia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 8:07pm
          This is what Kenneth Starr put in writing regarding indicting Bill Clinton. It's been locked in the national archives for 2 decades, but was released to the NYT under the Freedom of Information Act... more
      • You're a silly. You make dumb arguments that a child can blow holes in with ease as I just did. Answer why you believe the President is immune from the you silly troll.
Click here to receive daily updates