Sorry Liberals, You Can’t Indict President Trump

There’s been a lot of discussion in the media recently about the Mueller investigation into President Trump’s alleged collusion with Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election. The investigation has now been ongoing for over a year, yet it has failed to uncover any evidence even remotely related to the claims levied against Trump in the so-called “Steele Dossier.” The investigation has been so fruitless that its purveyors have now shifted into damage-control mode, exploring every avenue available to pin some form of wrongdoing on President Trump and his associates. And, as in all investigations that run aground, Mueller’s team is trying to use the prosecutorial Swiss Army knife known as the obstruction of justice charge to avoid the embarrassment of admitting it has nothing.

The last two weeks in particular have seen a flurry of claims in the liberal media that Trump is on the verge of being indicted for obstruction of justice related to…something. What, they can’t say, but they’re sure Trump did something to obstruct justice, and they’re even more certain that an indictment is forthcoming. They don’t say precisely which entity will bring this indictment, but again, it’s done, save for the details. Fair enough, but there’s one glaring roadblock in this plan: "they" do not have the authority to indict President Trump.

Sorry Liberals, You Can’t Indict President Trump

As hard as it is for me to believe, a great many people in the media do not seem to have a clear grasp of Constitutional authority as it relates to the commission of crimes by a sitting president. Most of us learned about the Constitutional system of checks and balances in our intermediate-school social studies classes. But the talking heads on the alphabet networks seem to believe this is immaterial to this case, as do many of those who’ve been blinded by their hatred of Trump. Regardless, the Constitution is explicit regarding the process of removing a sitting president from office. So, class, let’s review what it says about this issue.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors” by a president shall trigger removal from office under the process of “Impeachment.” Having just ejected one despot from their lives, Madison and the other framers didn’t want to empower another. So they included provisions laying out how and by whom a sitting president would be impeached. The particulars of this procedure are outlined in Article I.

So who, you ask, holds the authority to impeach a sitting president? Article I, Section 2 states definitively that the “House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar, but this provision seems fairly explicit in its intent. “Sole power of Impeachment” seems to indicate pretty clearly that no special prosecutors or district attorneys may bring articles of impeachment against a sitting president. This is a whip hand held by Congress alone.

Sorry Liberals, You Can’t Indict President Trump

But bringing articles of impeachment is only the first part of the process. The president, being entitled to due process, must be tried for his alleged crimes. Article I, Section 3 grants the authority for holding presidential impeachment trials to the Senate. In such trials, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, and a two-thirds supermajority of Senators will be required to convict the president under the articles of impeachment brought against him.

Now again, this is all 6th-grade-level stuff, and hopefully it’s nothing you didn’t already know. But there is one remaining item within Section 3 of Article I that bears an important distinction germane to the current discussion. The final paragraph of the section clearly states that the conviction of a president under articles of impeachment allows only one punishment: removal from office. The Senate cannot sentence the president to prison time, or fine him, or send him into exile. The only punishment the Senate can levy against a sitting president convicted of those good ol’ high crimes and misdemeanors is the termination of his presidency.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s say the president were to commit some violent crime while in office, something so horrible that it couldn’t be forgiven or overlooked by the American public. Let’s say, for instance, that during a friendly game of croquet with media members on the South Lawn, President Trump became so upset after missing a wicket that he lost his temper and bashed Rachel Maddow’s head in with his croquet mallet. In such a horrifying but obviously realistic scenario, Trump would be, in fact, a murderer, but who would bring him to justice, given that the Senate can only punish him via removal from office? He just got away with it all because he’s president, right? Wrong.

In such a situation, the House of Representatives would likely bring articles of impeachment against President Trump for the “high crime” of murder, and it’s likely that the Senate would convict him under these articles. Can’t have a talking-head murderer as president, especially one that plays croquet, can we? So Trump would be gone. But the story wouldn’t end there. Once removed from office, once he were no longer the sitting president, Trump would then be subject to the full weight of the law. Because, while only the Congress can check the activities of President Trump, citizen Trump could be convicted of any crime he may commit in the same manner as any other U.S. citizen.

Article I, Section 3 states that, once removed from office via the impeachment process, a former president is “subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” There is no statute of limitations on murder, so he could then be brought to justice by the civil authorities barring the granting of a pardon by the new president (which is, in fact, how President Nixon avoided living his Watergate nightmare well into the 1980s). But President Pence would likely not grant such a pardon, not to a Maddow murderer who had so riled the soul of America.

The upshot of all this is a very simple idea: sitting Presidents of the United States are granted enormous powers and protections under our system of government. We already knew this—right, liberals?—but it bears rehashing in light of the Mueller investigation. And our system of government was designed this way for a reason. Imagine if a district attorney in some podunk little jurisdiction in South Alabama or East Texas held the authority to indict the president. President Obama would have been indicted as he was taking the oath of office. His entire 8 years in office would have been spent fighting cooked up charges all across this land while the business of the nation went untended.

Mueller has been empowered to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing against Trump, but he has no real authority over the president. I know this is likely a shock to many people, but it is a fact. Mueller cannot indict the president; he has no authority to even question the president. The most he can do in regards to President Trump is to turn over his findings to the House for their consideration. The Mueller investigation is little more than a political witch hunt, the same way that the Ken Starr investigation into President Clinton was a witch hunt. The only difference between the two is that President Trump seems to have better taste in women than Mr. Clinton.

Sorry Liberals, You Can’t Indict President Trump

Either way, Trump haters have no power to secure an indictment against Trump, and they’re not going to see him impeached, not with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. There is, in fact, only one way to take down this or any other sitting president, and that’s with our most powerful political tool of all, the vote.


5|16
939

Most Helpful Girl

  • I remember when they wanted to Impeach Obama...

    0|0
    0|0
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE

Most Helpful Guys

  • You did an excellent job with this myTake. Sadly, so many people (including people in the mainstream media) are ignorant of our Constitutional system of separation of powers. Robert Mueller is exercising whatever authority he has under his special counsel appointment as a member of the Executive Branch of government. Any authority Mueller has is entirely derivative of that of the Executive, and Article II of the Constitution vests all executive authority in the president. When the various secretaries of the federal departments act (say, for example, the Secretary of State or Defense), they are acting under the authority of the president. So is Robert Mueller. So it's widely acknowledged among Constitutional scholars that the Executive cannot indict himself. The remedy provided by the Framers is, as you ably describe, impeachment and trial and removal from office.

    1|1
    0|0
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
  • How can people say he's not committing crimes. He's LITERALLY admitted to obstructing justice. i.ytimg.com/vi/RwXZWSHgMVI/maxresdefault.jpg

    If he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI and did nothing when asked about it he obstructed Justice. That's a felony offense. Obviously, nothing is going to happen to him because our government is more corrupt now than it has been in its entire history.

    If ANY OTHER president had done this they'd have been impeached. Not this dude though. He's bullied the republican senators into being pussies.

    1|1
    0|1
    THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE

Recommended myTakes

Join the discussion

What Girls Said 8

  • Kicking Donald Trump out of office without an election is a fantasy. Congress couldn't even get rid of bill Clinton who committed a serious crime in front of the nation.

    0|8
    0|0
    • Catholicgirl22: Just what was this serious crime? The crime he committed was perjury, for denying that he had sex with a adult, single woman.

    • Show All
    • Catholicgirl22: So, why are you dragging out BS from 17 years ago, about someone who is no longer in power? Doesn't it make more sense, to call out the BS re. someone who is in power right now, and is full of BS?

    • @markscott so you defend bill but then when you can't defend him because he's done as much shit as Trump if not more you dismiss it?
      My orginal point stands Trump isn't going anywhere until the next election and the reason why is because congress couldn't get rid of Bill who had committed a serious crime that was 100% provable.

  • Just like the couldn't impeach Clinton... American presidents are practically immune from such things, as much as we like to believe otherwise. To many people worship not just the person but the office itself.

    1|1
    0|3
    • Has there ever been a legitimate reason to impeach a president?
      Clinton got a blow job in the oval office. That was hardly a reason to impeach him. Realistically it should have been an issue between himself, his wife and Monica.
      Trump hasn't done anything to warrent impeachment either.

      Perhaps Nixon? Was he impeached? Or did he resign?

      Anyway, this isn't sarcasm, it's a legit question coming from a Canadian.

    • Show All
    • Bill Clinton was already impeached. But he was found not guilty. He did get fined for lying under oath though.

  • I'm not even American and knew that his impeachment is practically impossible. I don't even think it would be the best option because that would just reinforce his supporters.

    0|3
    0|1
    • I think it's really pathetic the way the Left has been handling his Presidency. I am really impressed with the job he has done so far, and I would certainly vote for him again. I do hope he changes his environmental stance though...

    • Show All
    • @DJZest Ich glaub dir hat man wohl in dein Madenhirn geschissen. Verpiss dich du dummer Wichser.

    • @DJZest Was bist du eigentlich für ein Versager? Kommentierst hier irgendeinen kryptischen Scheiß und drohst dann einer Frau völlig grundlos mit Gewalt? Wie erbärmlich kann man als menschliches Wesen eigentlich sein? Ja ne, kein Interesse.

  • When are they going to give it a rest. What has it been 2 years.

    0|7
    0|0
  • LOL!!! GOOOOD. xxoo

    1|3
    0|0
  • Impeachment would be fine enough for me.

    0|2
    1|10
    • The Senate would have to vote to remove after that. That is not happening soon, but maybe in 2019 it could happen. Not likely though.

    • Show All
    • @SEuclid Trump is not liked by the elite even if technically, he is elite. Washington and Jefferson were elites. Elite is not always bad. Hillary is a lap dog of Goldman Sachs. Trump dealt with them from time to time, but he never owed the other elites any real favors like Lizard on a String Hillary. By the way some golf clubs were so nasty elite that Trump bought them and opened them up to blacks, gays etc. Just because your family and mine might not have the money to join certain clubs, doesn't make them nefarious. Secret Societies like Skull and Bones are bad, bad, bad. Bush, Shrub and Dem Cousin John Kerry were members.

    • @SEuclid so you voted for a criminal... ha ha you and your parents are so sad

  • I do make note that the argument of foolish people like yourself has gone from "he is innocent" to "you can't indict him".
    The mobter president has undermined nearly every norm that made our country unique-rule of law, civility, decency, respect for justice, a love for scientific inquiry, protection of the weak and aftraid, truthful utterances- all these he denigrates with almost every breath he takes. He is an embarrassement to us and to everythiing we hold dear as Americans.

    So-our country is the laughing stock of every other civilized democracy in the world Is it any wonder that he was not invited to Bush's funeral, that he has been disinvited to McCains pending funeral, that he wasn't invited to the royal wedding? Is it any wonder that he finds friends in the autocrats and the thugs of the world? i would think that you 'make america great' people would have made note that America has instead become a second rate banana republic in the eyes of the world. our greatness is long past with this mobster president.
    You should have noticed that,-wanting america to be great and all.
    But you have chosen the path of willful ignorance. you count yourself as a supporter of a mobster state...
    Keep declaring that the president can't be indicted!!! Every time you say that, it makes the case for decency all the stronger.

    2|1
    1|6
    • What has he done? I keep hearing all of these claims but no one can actually point to anything substantial that he has done. "mobster president"? What has he done that even resembles that? He donates his entire presidential paycheck (something Obama and Clinton sure as hell didn't do). Hillary Clinton was paid by foreign powers, both for her campaign and to her fund, after acquiring that money suddenly the thing that foreign power wanted to happen happened yet Clinton claims the two events are unrelated. She destroyed evidence by her own admission, of her criminal act and had nothing happen. Obama bombed 8 different countries, denied non profit status to conservative non profits, seems to have spied on trump while he was running for president, refused to fund any research that did not explicitly state that global warming was man made (thus creating a false impression by silencing the other side of the debate)

    • Show All
    • @Rissyanne sounds like another broken, stupid record of yours, ris

    • you always chicken out and mute or block, when you have no good argument to offer.
      just like a russian bot.

  • That's right

    0|4
    0|0

What Guys Said 37

  • with all the crazy shit that Trump is saying and alongside it the stupid things, I still believe he is a better option than Hillary.
    We would have had a 3rd world war by now.
    Can't say it was nice to watch Trump vs Kim, but hey at least the things cooled off a bit.

    Why I tend to like this guy even more is that he's not giving in to the Bilderberg, Rotschild and Soros.

    That god damn Soros funding NGOs to try and overturn governments all around the world.
    Romania is such a case where 300 K people were manipulated into going in the street for absurd reasons being told on Facebook that the Government wants to steal democracy. The funny thing is that the Government they were demonstrating against was elected through general elections with 4.5 millions votes against 2 million - closest opposition party.
    Even now his NGOs are still trying to overturn the Government. 1 year and a half after the first attempt.
    Now it's because the prime minister of Romania went to a public visit in Israel.
    The president (who is also part of the system trying to grab power in Romania at the expense of the elected party), said "who knows what the prime minister planned with the jews".
    Klaus Iohannis ladies and gentlemen, president or Romania, accusing his own country's prime minister of wrongdoing for a diplomatic visit to Israel.

    Now the opposition leader (Ludovic) filled a penal complaint for high treason against the prime minister trying to get her removed from her position and have the government disolved. Reason: the official meeting with Israel prime minister.

    Funny thing is that right before the complaint the opposition leader filled, he was actually in an unofficial meeting with Angela Merkel in Germany.
    So he probably got approval and support for filling the complaint. Plus rumour has it Merkel is in good relations with Soros. And it makes sense given she opposed Trump in mostly everything since Trump came to power in the US.

    Hungary in Europe named Soros as persona non-grata. Soros is of Hungarian descent. Europe hates Hungary.
    Israel named Soros as persona non-grata. Soros is of Israeli descent. Europe leaders are not that fond of Israel either.

    So is it just a coincidence that the leaders pointing fingers at Soros are getting their hands smacked by the EU.

    So, god help us against these interest groups & Soros.

    0|1
    1|0
    • Right now the battle in Romania reached new heights. The ruling party elected in November 2016, promised people (as this is why they were voted) that they will pass a law that states magistrates WILL BE charged if abusive decision are being made. Why? Because penal cases were used by the National AntiCorruption Agency to remove politicians and people that did not obey their ways.
      Prime minister Ponta was forced to leave position through a made up penal case. Proves he was innocent and evidence was made up.
      5 judges from high court were fired as they suddenly got a penal case on their name because they refused to obey the system. Proves (7 years later), they are NOT guilty of any of the accuses. During these 7 years they were forbidden to work in the field in any way. Talk about having your career destroyed.
      Countless made up cases against those not system friendly.
      Recently, recordings of prosecutors forcing witnesses into declaring fictive events to get politicians.

    • So the winning party declared war to this parallel system trying to rule from the background by passing a law that holds the magistrates responsible for making up cases or giving abusive decisions to cases they are responsible for as the country did not have such a law so far, believe it or not. It's like nothing can happen to them. And the system (supported by Soros NGOs) want to keep it that way: go anything, but never be held responsible.
      Justice Minister made a report proving the head of the National AntiCorruption Agency is responsible for abusive behaviour and asking her people to act illegally.
      President simply said "I don't see anything wrong. It will all go away as time passes by".
      Imagine that.

      Now Prime Minister is being investigated for high treason :)))))

      I support Trump if he is the one we need to get rid of Soros and interest groups in Europe and over the world.

  • Clinton LIED to the Grand Jury, and was Impeached, but never resigned!!!
    Why do so many seem to be trying to get rid of Trump, rather than working together, as AMERICANS, to make better place!!
    So sick of all this party bickering and back-stabbing!!
    I would vote just about all of them out, and do a lottery, as to who is the Senators and Representatives!! Maybe 'normal' people can get something done, and stop fcking about like these clowns!!!

    0|1
    0|0
  • They have nothing to indict him on. "Russian meddling" doesn't even involve voter fraud, or voter registration fraud. They believe that Russian made "fake" political messages on facebook "won" Trump the election. Obama's Acorn was found guilty of voter registration fraud numerous times, and lead to the downfall of the organization along with several charges against it's members. Liberals always said that voting was perfectly safe, and voter ID laws were not based in reality and were racist by nature. Even though a bi-partisan committee recognized voter ID laws as a necessary step to keeping our election integrity, along with other reforms. All of sudden, democrats now believe Russia hacked the elections, when they haven't hacked anything but a DNC server (allegedly, the hack actually originated out of Ukraine.) Guccifer 2.0 claims responsibility for it, but who knows cyber crime is hard to track or verify. Aside from that, it wasn't even made up. It was actual, legitimate DNC dirt that they uncovered.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah, I don't get why these morons in the media who are supposed to be "political insiders" don't even understand our Constitution. Only Congress can check a president during his term. I really thought everyone knew that. And they *did* know that when Obama was in office. They just happened to conveniently forget it the instant Trump got elected.

    Great take, very well written.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Liberals are pathetic.
    You can't impeach a president simply because you dislike their policies.
    He hasn't broken any laws. And you can't get him for things he did BEFORE he assumed office, unless he raped of killed someone.

    0|3
    1|0
  • tl;dr, but there have been, what, 22, 23 indictments in one year of the Mueller investigation? How does that compare to previous investigations at that level?

    fivethirtyeight.com/.../atd-indictments-0514.png

    0|1
    0|0
    • The ones against the Russians were contested. Did you know that they decided to show up in court to fight Mueller? I don't know who these Russians are. Are they good or evil? I honestly have no clue. I will not assume anything on that. For some odd reason, Mueller asked the judge for an extension to the court date. Why? Now for sure, I know that a judge tore Mueller a new one by saying that he was only interested in Manaforte in order to get to Trump and remove him from office. This could mean that the charges were bogus from the start. Maybe, maybe not. Then Manafort's former son in law is cooperating with the feds. Maybe Mueller has something or maybe he is just teaching a bird to sing whatever he wants it to sing.

    • @dano65 Or maybe he doesn't want to tip his hand too early. Do you really think it's wrong for the FBI (or other LEAs) to pressure criminals to give up other criminals?

      "As of February 23, 2018, Mueller has secured guilty pleas from five people: Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, private citizen Richard Pinedo, and Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan. Additional indictments have been issued against Manafort, thirteen Russian citizens, and three Russian entities. On April 3, 2018, van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison, and fined $20,000."
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_investigation

  • I think Trump definitely has his flaws (like groping women reportedly) but I don’t think impeachment would ever be good because that would set a precedent where Congress could just impeach anyone they didn’t like even if it was against the will of the people.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You lost me when you claimed it would be embarrassing if the inquiry turns up nothing (and given the number of indictments already, I think that would be a hard point to argue). Why would that be embarrassing? We're talking about something extremely serious: the possibility of collusion between a presidential campaign and a hostile foreign power. Do you not think that should be investigated?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Very good. Good day to you, Sir. You're explination is sufficient and your argument convinces. Very well done. Thank you.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yes, he has to either be impeached or resign foe this to happen, I know this, however after 2018 elections when democrats retake the house its likely that he will be impeached or resign

    0|0
    0|0
  • As Nixon proved, you just have your successor Grant you a blanket pardon covering a span of years, and Trump walks away with the emollients he's already pocketed.

    0|0
    0|0
  • There will be no impeachment process. Part of me believes that the investigation continues so that Mr. Mueller still has a job..

    0|1
    0|0
  • You think Liberals are the only ones that are mad at Trump?

    1|1
    0|1
  • Regardless, unless the opposition comes up with someone hopelessly lame in 2020 (which is always possible), Trump will get spanked soundly.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I see a possible shortcut. Is there a parade in Dallas soon? Not my idea, but it appears to work sometimes.

    0|0
    0|0
    • kennedy was a GOOD democrat. not a BAD republican like trump. he was a good dem. because he was a progressive, trump is a conervative narccistic, and most americans are like that, so, they likely wouldn't assassinate him. besides, the nra meeting was just held in dallas. it likely wouldn't happen

    • Show All
    • People like me? People like me will NOT elect him, never have, never will, HE IS A FUCKTARD

    • it's funny, you're a guru, rissy, and yet you act like a dumbass.. cause that's what you are, a DUMB ASS

  • Very good take, even though not an American, I knew most of this.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Let's be honest, the whole Republican party is spoon fed by fox and friends. Any Republican opposing that base is career suicide. Impeachment is impossible with today's dignity. If anything happens to don, it's money laundering.

    So lets say maybe Ivanka Trump is potentialy change with the full brunt of all the Trump family law cases leaving him all alone with Eric or he can resign in disgrace and face the music. But that's just a theory, an American constitutional disaster theory, thanks for reading.

    0|1
    0|1
  • it does not matter who is president they are all satanist

    0|1
    0|1
    • since they're politicians, ALL liars

    • Many in the elite worship Satan. I don't think that Trump is one of them. I understand that many hate him because he doesn't do just that.

  • Literally never heard anyone talk about impeachment who doesn’t know this.

    the assumption that there is -no scenario- by which a republican house would impeach is a strong one. It’s likely true that the calculation of much or the house would be political not ethical though.

    If the GOP ever concludes trump is a vote loser not winner the odds of impeachment (which I think are extemely low) rise.

    Anyone expecting the mueller investigation to move fast though clearly had no clue how these things work. They are ponderously slow always.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Mueller is so compromised, it is not even funny. He was Hillary's bag man in the Uranium One deal with Russia. The FBI leadership has been totally biased in favor of the Clintons and Obamas instead of being apolitical. This hasn't gone unnoticed by clean elements in the FBI, DOJ, and Congress.

    • Show All
    • @dano65 You do know that the Uranium One deal was simply to allow a Russian company to financially take over a Canadian company that could never export uranium from the US, right?

      All they could take was money.

    • @goaded no clearly they were selling nuclear secrets to the Russians.

      Who we are friends with because trump said so

      #winning

  • Trump must be hoping the Republican majority survives the mid-term elections.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Even if it didn't, a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate would be required to convict him under articles of impeachment, so Trump is safe for now. The only chance liberals have to be rid of him is to vote him out in 2020.

  • More from Guys
    17

Recommended Questions

Loading...