In 1999 Mitch McConnell said Bill Clinton was “in violation of the federal obstruction of justice law." He also expressed frustration with anyone who disagreed. Can a POTUS obstruct justice?
McConMan is a waddled fool.
Nobody is above the law. Nobody
No man is above the law. No man. Ever.
A president’s sworn duty is to uphold and defend the law, not to pretend to be above it or to operate outside of it. Like anyone else willing to commit a crime, a president *can* obstruct justice, and like anyone else who commits that or any other crime, justice and the law demand he be held accountable.
Perhaps but he can’t be indicted.
So, do you agree that the President should be above the law? That he can shut down any criminal investigation into him?
Where did you hear that BS?
Yes I agree with the rule of law and the law says that a sitting president can not be criminally indicted.
Then you believe all presidents are above the law and can obstruct any and all investigations against them...
Where do you get this nonsense?
So you don’t believe in the rule of law?
This is clearly what you are claiming.
Please show me where in the constitution it specifically says a president can not be criminally indicted.....
The DOJ says so.
Here’s a reference outlining several different views the predominant opinions are that the president must be removed from office prior to criminal indictment.
From your reference,
“In a series of memorandums, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that indicting a sitting president would violate the Constitution by undermining his ability to do his job. Those memos, too, though, said the answer was a matter of structure and inference.”
So, according to both, it isn't "settled" law. Which is my point....
But the predominant opinion of the DOJ and legal scholars is that he can’t be indicted while in office. That does not put him above the law.
But you said it was "settled" law. So you was wrong. And according to you if the President isn't removed, then he is above the law....
Where did I say it was “settled” law?
And making it clear that he could be indicted after he is removed from office shows that he is NOT above the law.
You said "the law says a sitting president can not be indicted".
Which means "settled law". Don't play semantics to try to continue your argument.
But, also making it clear that "unless" he is removed he can obstruct justice and is above the law....
No it doesn’t. You’re the one playing semantics.
I never said that either but, as most intelligent people are aware, the president will leave office eventually.
How can he be above the law when that is the law? You’re not making any sense.
How old are you DJ?
Well, if your going to deny your own statements, that everyone can go back and read, then this conversation is over.....They can see what lengths you will go to to when a debate...have a good day....
I didn’t say any of the things you put in quotations. For future reference if you put something in quotations that means you are quoting someone.
I welcome anyone to review what I said and see for themselves that I didn’t say them.
I’ve concluded that you are very young and that accounts for your lack of precision it your debate. So I agree further debate is useless.
Btw if you will follow your followers you will get more who will see your polls.
Last post, check your 3:00 post and then deny again what you said....
“Yes I agree with the rule of law and the law says that a sitting president can not be criminally indicted.”
Nowhere in my statement did I say anything that you attributed to me in direct quotation marks. Now what is it you don’t understand about my statement?
That's a stupid rule too. If a president broke the law/committed a serious felony, he/she needs to be indicted and have the Vice President take over.
Ladyniner, it isn't "law" even if Ebola tries to claim it is. It is just Ebola's opinion, based on other people's opinion, that it is "law"...
As a preliminary matter, there is no precedent for prosecuting a current or former president in criminal court for that offense. And several legal commentators have defended Mr. Trump by claiming that a president cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice because Article II of the Constitution gives the president authority to supervise and control the executive branch, including law enforcement decisions and personnel.
Yes, unless it’s our lord and savior trump
The anointed one.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice to impede a civil court case of Paula Jones. Of course it has to be proven.
Absolutely! The Presidency should not be a dictatorship!
Are you talking about our last one?
No, this one.
I would have sworn you were talking about the last one.
Nope! The one who thinks he’s a dictator now.
Okay so it's not the last dictator.
The poll is about the wanna be dictator now.
I get it now Obama was a dictator and Trump is a want to be. I don't see him getting there.
The poll is about Clinton & McConnell. However....it would apply to any potus who is under investigation.
You can’t talk about obstruction and Trump without talking about obstruction and Obama.