Date: 2017-05-21 10:54 pm (UTC)
mmcirvin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mmcirvin
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the President being immune from normal prosecution. It says that Congress has the power to impeach and try federal officers, including the President--but nobody thinks that means Cabinet members, judges and such are immune from regular prosecution, so it's not clear that that's the case for the President either.

My impression is that there is little or no judicial precedent here. Though it was established during the Monica Lewinsky scandal that the President could be compelled to testify in a civil case.
Edited Date: 2017-05-21 10:55 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-05-21 11:03 pm (UTC)
mmcirvin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mmcirvin
...With judges, when it comes to civil liability, there seems to be a distinction between acts committed in the course of their duties as a judge (for which they are immune from lawsuit), and other acts. But this doesn't apply to criminal prosecution.

Some judges have argued that the President is indeed specially immune, but it's still a matter of some controversy.

Date: 2017-05-23 01:59 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ba_munronoe
Of course, anything clearly awful enough to make talk of immunity seem absurd would also have to require Impeachment. If it turns out the president has been strangling prostitutes and burying them in the foundations of his buildings to appease the Gods, even the majority of Republicans would have to vote to Impeach.


james_davis_nicoll: (Default)

September 2017

      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 08:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios