Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

unblock

(52,126 posts)

11. i don't think that will happen.

Reply to Cicada (Reply #10)

Fri May 18, 2018, 01:19 PM

May 2018

once the precedent has been set, it's harder to reverse it. especially because the clinton experience was that the country didn't fall apart due to scheduling conflicts.

i could see the supreme court saying that trials for sitting president have to be suspended during time of war, for instance, but not under routine circumstances.

i really don't think a president should have effective license to commit all manner of crimes and to be immune from prosecution for as long as he can stay in office. that's very clearly not what the founders intended.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question: Is there any difference between state laws and federal laws pertaining to [View all] bluestarone May 2018 OP

A court might delay state action until presidency over Cicada May 2018 #1

i don't think there's a difference between state and federal action in this regard. unblock May 2018 #4

Yes, bugliosi said feds we're wrong not to delay Cicada May 2018 #10

i don't think that will happen. unblock May 2018 #11

AGREE here! bluestarone May 2018 #13

people forget that the court has to look beyond the particular case. unblock May 2018 #15

Would him playing golf almost every weekend come into play? bluestarone May 2018 #16

Indeed it would. unblock May 2018 #17

a few differences: unblock May 2018 #2

There are no explicit laws preventing the indictment of a sitting President - ultimately... PoliticAverse May 2018 #3

arresting a president seems hardly necessary. unblock May 2018 #5

"if anyone on the planet can be released on their own recognizance" PoliticAverse May 2018 #6

fair point, though really anyone released on their own recognizance is as well. unblock May 2018 #7

Trump a flight risk? LOL! Who would take him in? Putin, wouldn't. I don't think they'd want Nitram May 2018 #8

My answer to your question about the states. Jim Lane May 2018 #12

Excellent point here!!!! TY bluestarone May 2018 #14

TY all for your answers here! bluestarone May 2018 #9