To indict this sitting president is for me a depression eradicator. In truth, though, I think it would be difficult but, perhaps, not impossible. It has never happened before and there is no precedent for it. I believe precedent should be made. There are instructions within the Constitution for removing a president. He has been treated as a unique person. The precedent-setting question of indictment of a sitting president, however, in modern times, has, in fact, been debated and is not without thought about it now. I would not want to be in Drumpf's shoes. It would be chilling to think that the genius of Special Counsel Mueller is even having it cross his cerebral cortex. Keep thinking about it, Mr. Mueller. My opinion on the powers of the presidency is evolving and I thank Mr. Trump's heinous actions for that.
I think indictment of a sitting president for criminal acts would set precedent even if a Democratic president were in office. If a sitting president could face criminal indictment for criminal acts he might commit it might make presidents think long and hard -- very long and hard -- about the legality of what they do or say including even the foreign policies they create.
Clearly, the grievous acts and the complexion of the Trump presidency we all see every day, the lies he consistently tells, his immoral actions against women and the politicization of Republicans in Congress defying Democrats any way they can not because they love Trump but because they want to hold on to power. The power to indict a president gives the ability of the special counsel to reclaim justice more quickly. It makes it clear to me the ability of the Special Counsel Muller to indict Trump would take immense power out of the chief executive's sole dictate and present an impediment to illegal actions the president might commit. It would be, I submit, as the Founders intended the democratic republic they shaped to work and crush future attempts at government in extremis.
Politico: Independent counsel Kenneth Starr never tried to indict
Clinton. But Starr, who filed a damning report to Congress in 1998,
considered the option — and even tasked his lawyers with preparing draft
indictments, as well as a legal opinion asserting his power to charge
Clinton.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties,” Starr’s legal adviser, Ronald Rotunda, concluded in a 1998 memo first made public last summer through an open records request by the New York Times.
“In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law,” the memo said.
Since
FDR I have always believed in strong executive power as a way to ensure
a president can quickly make policy needed for the common good. Yes, I
said common good. Since Trump's actions, including
obstruction of justice are not for the common good but for the good of
enriching Trump himself, his family and his 2% cronies at the
electorate's expense I now think his powers must be immediately
curtailed. What you must do, Mr. Mueller, do quickly and if through
indictment then let it be so.“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties,” Starr’s legal adviser, Ronald Rotunda, concluded in a 1998 memo first made public last summer through an open records request by the New York Times.
“In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law,” the memo said.
Trump presents a clear and present danger to the nation with policies he has enacted solely through hubris and to appease his right wing extremist base. He believes he can do anything including shooting a person in Times Square as he said in his campaign. I believe he was not jesting and thinks, as Nixon did, if the president does it it is legal. Mueller must show him what he has done is not legal and indict him for his democracy obliterating acts.
He is tearing this nation apart aiming to crush the Russia investigation where an adversarial nation was and is allowed to infiltrate the nation, shape a presidential election helping Trump gain power and Russia to accrue power obliterating US sanctions against it. With the help of his Republican Party once hostile to Russia, he has overtaken our nation's most fundamental democratic mandates and even halted the sanctions imposed upon Russia through a distinct majority in Congress before Trump was elected. Trump refuses to act on them. The quid pro quo is this: Russia helps Trump gain the 2016 presidency and Trump helps Russia avoid sanctions. That is worth a lot of money to Russia and that is a crime which can alter the foundation of our country.
It is not news that Trump lies and does so all the time. It is not news that Trump has flouted the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution and it is clear that Trump has obstructed justice and has done so many times. It is not news that Trump has an authoritarian personality wanting power and loyalty to emanate largely from and to him. We are, however, not a dictatorship ... yet! We are loyal or should be to our Constitution and nowhere else.
I believe our Founders, in their prescient way, knew through their European experience, the powers that kings could capture at the the expense of the people. They wanted to curtail a chief executive's behavior in a future era from usurping immense power for himself alone thereby negating the separation of powers our Founders intended the republic to be. They created the first branch of government, the Congress, as a check against presidential excess. Simply ask yourself what you think our Founders would have thought about Trump. It is my argument for indictment of this most deplorable man to more quickly right the nation. I rest my case.
