Somebody needs to learn history. WRONG. "On this day in 1974, the House of Representatives charges President Richard M. Nixon with the first of three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice after he refused to release White House tape recordings that contained crucial information regarding the Watergate scandal." http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-charged-with-first-of-three-articles-of-impeachment End of story and your argument...
Incorrect . The House never charged Nixon with anything since he resigned before impeachment. Furthermore, this was an impeachment process, not an indictment. Congress can impeach the president for whatever they want to if they get enough votes. I've said that before---that the only way other than illness to remove a president is impeachment. ---But the only result is removal from office. It is not a criminal complaint. It is simply impossible for a president to commit obstruction of justice. The president is the last word on justice and as such cannot obstruct themselves. Notice how Nixon was never charged with any crime---
Ohfergawdsakes. Here! A different tack: Everyone who swears/affirms an Oath to the United States, swears fealty to The Constitution Of The United States, and not to any person. WHY? Answer that, at least for yourself, and maybe feel better about, you know, Life! Your Country! And all that rot.
Exactly. But he could have been charged so your argument is moot, wrong and redundant. It is like me saying: I am invincible, nobody can kill me because I kill myself first. Anyhow, let's go back to trading, so why didn't you buy the dip?
No, he could not have been charged. He could only be impeached. Presidents cannot be indicted. --and this is especially true with respect to obstruction of justice. The president is the chief justice officer of the US and as such it is impossible to obstruct themselves. You can't charge the person who has ability to pardon anyone or fire anyone. Presidents are completely above the law.
By the way, if Mueller were to have a grand jury indict The President, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court nearly immediately as unconstitutional and Mueller would fall from any grace he has left.
[((What is that German term referring to finding humor at others' discomfort? Shoiden-frueda or some such?)) I just don't know whether to laugh (chuckle??) or cry/moan at this point. Dunno. At any rate...] This reminds me of Second Amendment arguments..... To wit: "What is it about 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors" that you don't get?
That's called impeachment, not indictment. President cannot be charged with or commit obstruction of justice, they can only be impeached for whatever Congress wants to impeach them for in preparation for removal from office.
When Clinton lied under oath, he was impeached, he was not indicted. ---Had he been removed from office and then indicted, Gore would have pardoned him. Had he been indicted after his term was over and he was no longer president, Bush would have pardoned him. Bottom line though is that a president cannot be indicted and cannot commit obstruction of justice. The president IS justice.
Why would the chief executive be removed from office? What actions would they have to have undertaken? What actions would qualify? How do we term those actions? What's the word? The word??????? A single word??? TWO words, if you need 'em? "The President is above the law." "The President is Justice." Yeahhhhhhh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel To quote The Orange Idiot: "You're Fired." [okay. I'm out.]