Show me a pregnant member of MENSA, that lives in the mountains, that's been convicted of a crime. Conclusion: Pregnant members of MENSA that live in the mountains are above the law. Just ... amazing.
---Just as Trump will eventually pardon Barack Hussein for what he has done.---And believe me, what Hussein did makes Nixon look like a candy-thief.
As I indicated earlier, you guys just don't get it.--You don't understand the Constitution or how the world works. Presidents are above the law. Hell, we even have one that handed terrorist Iran a whole bunch of money under the table and spied on citizens and he is walking free.
This is why Barack Hussein was ok with using executive orders to write laws. He knew he was above the law.
This is not at all as straightforward as you seem to assume. Of course the president is answerable for some crimes, eg murder. Others , not so, because his Constitutional authority as President and head of the Executive Branch supersedes any conflicting laws. He can be prosecuted for murder for walking pm the sidewalk and shooting someone, but he can't be prosecuted for ordering a drone strike to kill a terrorist or for the Air Force to bomb some small country. So there's a continuum of actions from those that are purely personal and to those that are part and parcel of being President. Generally, I think we would all agree that the President has total authority to run the Justice Department. He doesn't have authority to take a bribe to kill an investigation however. Here we have situation that has some personal elements, after all he was the target, and some that are clearly Article II responsibilities. Mueller's apparent disagreement centers around his contention that the President's inner motive for taking an otherwise lawful Executive action can somehow render the act criminal. Helpfully, he also sets himself up as the arbiter of such fine distinctions. Needless to say, Mueller's argument, like much of his whole sordid investigation, flies in the face of the Constitution. The President's motives in taking an action cannot render it criminal if it is otherwise within his Constitutional authority. To take any other position would render the Presidency subordinant to an endless number of politicized prosecutors.
Actually, we haven't got to the complicated stuff. We're stuck here: Cite the law that holds that POTUS' are not held to criminal statutes. That's a simple (still open) request. Still no cites. We are a nation of rules/laws ... not anecdotal conclusions of opinions. Again, cite? Huh? First, accountability under the law is not equivalent to whether one is prosecuted. My debate is on accountability. For example, murder is unlawful. We citizens understand that accountability. However, whether one is prosecuted for alleged murder is a different question all together. And whether one is found guilty of murder is still another question. Again, and to be clear, my debate is on the issue of accountability. Second, ordering a drone strike is not a crime, per se. Just as a LEO killing a citizen that was pointing a gun at him is also not a crime, per se. Now, if, in either case, they were acting outside the scope of their duties and beyond reasonableness; those same exact actions could be deemed criminal. But again, these go beyond my debate; beyond the accountability question. IOW, in either case, they are held accountable via homicide statutes and/or war crime provisions. Simply: They are accountable, and not above the law. Subject to restrictions: Title VII Restrictions; Code of Conduct Restrictions; War Crimes Restrictions, and other Lawful Restrictions (Criminal Statutes). Boys and Girls, the US was founded upon a hated of Kings. We have no Kings here. No one is above the law.