I set forth the law. There is a Constitutional provision, and some tangential court decisions to base it on, plus the Federalist Papers and statements of founding fathers and at least one early Justice to support the position that the Constitution provides (whether explicitly or implicitly) for no indictment while serving in office. I didn't just roll dice. It's just a random opinion, and it is the view of the majority of legal scholars on the topic. But, again, I've already acknowledged that there hasn't been a Supreme Court ruling, and there probably will never be one. But, if there is, I highly doubt it's going to empower 1,000s of state and federal prosecutors and district attorneys to issue indictments against sitting Presidents. Can you imagine if all the white racist idiots in the south had that power in 2009-2016?L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:34 pmThere is no such law. In regards to current affairs there are only opinions and hypotheses from people like Giuliani whose opinions and hypotheses carry absolutely no weight in regard to actual law.Forty Two wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:51 pmIt's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of law.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:32 pmWhile the Supreme Court might use sources like this to inform its decision should the question come before it, they carry no weight in regard to whether the statement 'A sitting President cannot be indicted for a crime' is factual. It is not a factual statement.
It's not a question of fact, it's a question of law. I never said it was factual. But, just because a legal issue hasn't been decided doesn't make all positions equally likely. I still haven't heard the legal argument in favor of the power to indict a sitting president. I'd love to see it.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:34 pmYour reading of the Constitution and £3 will get you a lousy cup of coffee in Leeds. Your reading of the Constitution and the rantings of Giuliani et al. still won't make your statement factual.Forty Two wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:51 pmAnd, as I mentioned, hardly any constitutional issues are 100%. I recognized that the issue had not been settled by the SCOTUS, so anything is possible. However, my reading of the constitution, and the precedent we do have, Federalist Papers 69 and 70, the viewpoints of Justice Story from 1833, and rather prominent founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (from opposite sides of the then political spectrum), all agree with my position on it. I haven't seen anything substantive that disagrees.
Look - it's not a fact. I never said it was a fact. It's a question of law. Nobody has the burden of proof on the issue. I gave you my argument for the legal position that a sitting president cannot be indicted for crime. The opposite argument is that he can. If the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the prosecutor/district attorney would have to survive a motion to dismiss by setting out the legal authority for indicting the President. The judge would be asking the prosecutor to show what gives him the power to indict.L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:34 pmI'm not the one who stated that 'A sitting President cannot be indicted for a crime' as if it were a fact. It's not my burden of proof to show that a sitting president can be subject to criminal indictment because I never claimed that was the case; it isn't a settled question. What I have done is question the veracity of your statement. All of your citations and tap-dancing cannot make the statement factual, because it is not. Nor is it a legitimate and accurate statement of law.
I've not made an absolute claim. I can't say it any more ways. It's not a settled question. No Constitutional questions are ever 100%. It's possible an argument can be made that says a sitting President can be indicted. I haven't heard one, have you? Saying "you haven't proved 100% that absolutely a court would find that the President can be indicted" doesn't answer the question.
I'm not even debating this with you. I'm not trying to win. It's a legal issue both of us are aware of. The Constitution either allows the sitting President to be indicted, or it does not. If a court makes a decision, then the court will take legal arguments from both sides. So, the question here is what are the arguments on both sides? I don't even care what side you're on. It's not a liberal conservative left right issue. This issue can gore a Democrat ox or Republican ox depending on who is President. So, the issue is one, in my view, that benefits both sides of the political divide, and if indictments were allowed, it would hurt both Democrats and Republicans. There will be another Democrat President. Probable cause to arrest or indict is a very low standard of proof. It's not even "probably." It's less than 50% probability to get to that point.
