~~May 31, 2019~~
SITTING PRESIDENT
… and this is where the Mueller Report ends!
Rep. Justin Amash:
“The ball is in our court, Congress!”
HortyRex©
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges?
The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process.
But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question.
http://www.reuters.com
~CORRECTION FROM A BLOG FOLLOWER~
(I agree and am quite thankful for input)
The Founding Fathers neither implicitly nor explicitly precluded a sitting president from criminal prosecution. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is such a preclusion stated. He is also wrong in asserting that most legal experts accept that presidents possess criminal immunity. The legal community is in fact quite torn over this issue because it never arose until the Watergate scandal of the early 1970’s and was revisited during the impeachment of Bill Clinton two decades later.
The entire basis for presidential criminal immunity rests solely on an internal DOJ policy memo written arbitrarily and without any participation by the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) or the judicial branch (i.e. the federal courts).
In other words, it’s total BS!
The only entity legally able to officially interpret the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has never ruled on this issue.
Thank you, Robert!
#APictureSaysATHousandWords #ThisOne #ACartoon #Screams #101 #SittingPresident #DOJ #StandingPolicy #SittingPresidentCantBeIndicted #HighCrimesAndMisdemanors #Congress #BallInOurCourt #ImpeachmentProcess #USConstitution #CriminalProsecution #MikeLuckovich #Cartoonist #AtlantaNews #AtlantaJournalConstitution
#WeAllAreOne #ItIsWhatItIs #DrRex #HortyRex #hrexachwordpress
It Is What It Is 
Great cartoon, but Akhil Reed Amar is wrong on both points. The Founding Fathers neither implicitly nor explicitly precluded a sitting president from criminal prosecution. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is such a preclusion stated. He is also wrong in asserting that most legal experts accept that presidents possess criminal immunity. The legal community is in fact quite torn over this issue because it never arose until the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s and was revisited during the impeachment of Bill Clinton two decades later. The entire basis for presidential criminal immunity rests solely on an internal DOJ policy memo written arbitrarily and without any participation by the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) or the judicial branch (i.e. the federal courts). In other words, it’s total BS! The only entity legally able to officially interpret the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has never ruled on this issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thx for the info … appreciate it! That’s what I thought … 🙏🏽
LikeLiked by 1 person