Replies

I think people get mixed up when thinking of the separation of powers. It is true that there is only one method available for removing a President, but that does not preclude one from being criminally prosecuted. I might entertain the arguement that a penalty as a result of a conviction might have to be postponed until the President left office, but he could be prosecuted and convicted. A mere prosecution and conviction does not remove him from office. However the enforcement of a penalty could prevent him from fulfilling his Presidential duties. This the court would not have the ability to enforce, IMO. Only Congress could remove him from office, then he could serve a term. Or he could serve the prison term at the end of his term of office.

During the Clinton administration there was a lot of talk about criminal prosecution of the President. Very few pundits or legal weasles stated that he could not be prosecuted while in office. In reality, until a prosecutor indicts a sitting President and the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the issue, the arguement is up in the air.

I would submit that if a sitting President can be ordered by the courts to submit to a legal deposition, then he can be ordered to stand trial. Either the courts have no ability to demand the President submit to anything, or they do have the ability to demand he submit as any citizen would. Clearly they have exhibited the ability to demand a President submit to their authority. So I submit the courts can and would allow an indictment if the situation warranted.

Robert Ray should have brought charges. Then the courts could have sorted the issue out. Asking the Justice Department under Janet Reno's leadership to make a ruling on that issue was incredibly stupid.