Can you explain how we can believe that no man is above the law and still say that a President has immunity?

A person can believe anything if he/she has enough screws loose.

I’ve NEVER said nor believed that. I grew up way back when “The buck STOPS here.” NO matter whom, I think our president should be held to a higher standard!!!

I don’t believe it, no explanation needed.

I think they only mean fright wing Presidents ,left wing ones can be hung out to dry.

@SQUEEKY2 —honestly, how can you say that—when Trump is implicated for everything imaginable on the news on a daily basis? Has any left wing president or political leader ever faced such bashing and baseless accusations as we hear about the current administration on a daily basis?

Well, anyhow—to the original question, there are stipulations in place constitutionally that are supposed to protect the president from the kind of bashing and baseless accusations that are currently going on. The founders knew that all presidents and political leaders would have dissenters who would make every accusation imaginable in order to stop or nullify the works of leaders they don’t like.

The office of president requires that the president be allowed to act in the interest and protection of the nation, its borders, the safety of its citizens, etc etc without having a series of obstructions and detractions at every turn. The functioning of the nation depends on it.

So, which is more important? Peace with North Korea (or an agreement in the Middle East) or whether we can fudge an accusation of a payment to a porn star? That is what our nation has devolved to.

@Yellowdog Has any President been as “dirty” as, the Emperor/Dictator to be ?

I know how could your hard throb, “second coming”, perfect person . . . be guilty or even dirty? Ask Cohen ! ! !

So, which is more important? Peace with North Korea

We had peace. We haven’t been fighting North Korea for over 60 years.

or an agreement in the Middle East

Has Trump made some agreement that you know about and we don’t?

whether we can fudge an accusation of a payment to a porn star?

Ahhh, you typed something true. How unusual. Yes, the payment to the porn star is documented.

I don’t think “we” believe any such thing. There is a lot that goes on that never gets reported to the general public.

@Yellowdog You forget about the constant Obama bashing?
Your leader has been caught inmany a lie yet you blow it off as boastful.

@yellowdog The office of president requires that the president be allowed to act in the interest and protection of the nation, its borders, the safety of its citizens, etc etc Amen! He needs to start acting in the interest and protection of the nation instead of acting like a petulant little brat that has to tweet back to every word said about him in between golf games.

It’s simple. You merely legalize his immunity and his invulnerability is then integral to the law itself.

@SQUEEKY2 Obama was never bashed in the media. Anyone who criticized Obama was lambasted as a racist.

Most on the left LOVED Donald Trump as a celebrity before he represented conservatives. It was pretty common in MY city that the African American cab drivers revered Donald Trump. Trump was adored by Hollywood types and African Americans. Strange, isn’t it—how opposite it is today. Cant find anything near the plethora of lies or criminal activity most of you have been alleging for over 30 months.

Remember when Obama said he never knew of Hillary’s private email server until he heard about it on the news? Yet he communicated with her regularly in the pay-to-play activity. Remember when he said you can keep your doctor? your plan? Trump may have said more people attended an event than were there, but he never lied like Obama and Hillary—his chief accusers.

@Yellowdog You can’t be serious!!

Obama got blasted for going to Camp David on the weekends. Camp David was built just for that purpose. trump goes to Florida every weekend & takes a entourage with him…that’s NOT how our tax dollars should be spent!!!

The President does not have immunity; but the President will not be charged with a crime while in office. The SCOTUS has opined that the distraction of a prosecution would disrupt the operation of the country.

But a President can be charged after leaving office; that’s why Ford had to pardon Nixon.

The President can be impeached (maybe not if he is a Republican @zenvelo) .

The President can be charged; oh Brett Kavanaugh can changed that ! !

Right now it doesn’t seem to be true, that in the US, no man is above the law. Just like in the Philippines with Duterte and Russia with Putin.

As @zenvelo said, the President does not have immunity, Nothing deters prosecution when the president leaves office nor does anything prevent the President from being impeached. A criminal trial of a sitting President would bring the government to a standstill and endanger National Security, win or lose. It would be ridiculous to allow a single prosecutor to wield such power over the federal government. The risk is too great regardless of your dislike for the person in office.

Interesting perspectives, particularly when we keep referring to ourselves as a Nation of Laws. You would think that the Rule of Law would apply in a Nation of Laws and the Rule of Law is, basically, that law is supreme and is above every individual. No individual whether if he is rich, poor, rulers or ruled etc are above law.
I know, as Americans, we are loath to take the advice of those inferior non-Americans but from what I have read this concept of the Rule of Law is very old. An English judge wrote in the 1200’s: “The king himself ought to be subject to God and the law, because law makes him king.”
An English jurist and constitutionalist, A. V. Diecy held that laws cannot be arbitrary, that is all individuals, whether common man or government authority are bound to obey the laws as they are established. He believed that there should be equality under the law, that all, regardless of status must be tried using the same laws and in the same courts; no special laws or courts should be allowed for those who are in the government employ.
Diecy also noted that in England the Constitution is the result of the law of the land and, while in some countries certain rights are accorded by the Constitution, in England these rights were the results of judicial decisions. Perhaps this is where we should begin looking. Does the Constitution afford the President some special right? Does the Constitution allow for justice delayed in regards to the Chief Executive? If not, should he not be subject to the rule of law as is every other American?

@Jaxk I would be interested to hear why you believe that a criminal trial would bring the government to a standstill. Do we not have a Vice President that is supposed to be able to take over the reins at a moments notice? Do we not have both the Legislature and the Courts that would continue to function regardless? Do we not have the ability to replace the “head of state” every four years and if so, how indispensable can such a person be? Four years, three years, two years, one year how much difference would it really make?
I also have a hard time understanding how placing someone on trial will “endanger National Security”. Could you please elaborate?

@zenvelo, the same question as re: the claim of SCOTUS and the disruption of the operation of the country.

@Yellowdog, you state that “The office of president requires that the president be allowed to act in the interest and protection of the nation, its borders, the safety of its citizens, etc etc without having a series of obstructions and detractions at every turn. The functioning of the nation depends on it.” Are you saying that regardless of the actions of the President he (or she) can do no wrong, or rather, that whatever they do, regardless of it, it must be considered as having the interest of the nation at its core and is therefore cannot be prosecuted? It is as if you were saying that the President could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and could not be tried for it until the end of his term because doing so would be detrimental to the functioning of the government. I don’t think this is what you actually mean, but this is how it comes across. I would be very interested to hear your take on it and find out exactly where you would draw the line between prosecutorial actions and non-prosecutorial ones.

@rojo You’re oversimplifying the issue. First you can’t replace the President with the Vice President without his consent. Impeachment is how you do that. Your scenario above of the President murdering someone would lead to immediate impeachment.

As for national security, it is at times, necessary for immediate action. If Kim Jong Un fired a nuclear missile at Guam, as he threatened to do, immediate action would be required and possibly immediate military action.

We already have all the tools required to handle any conceivable criminal action. Why would we want to cripple our system based on the mindless screaming for political retribution.

@Jaxk For some strange reason, “crippling our system” reminds me of trump and his attack on American Democratic tradition and institutions. And “mindless twitting” as well.

I guess to answer the OP, no not even trump as president is above the law. He can be impeached. The question is, is he impeachable and if he is, will it it actually happen? There seems to be many hoops to go through first.

Former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, seems to think that impeachment is NOT the answer. I didn’t find the clip where he said he should be allowed to complete his term in office & then be prosecuted (IF applicable) once out of office. IF impeachment was good for the country, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have finished out his term.

I think the Democrats have shifted position on the joys of impeachment. The path of perpetual torment and humiliation is much more satisfying.

First you can’t replace the President with the Vice President without his consent.

The VP and cabinet can remove the president. If he objects, Congress rules on it.

25th amendment.

Trump’s popularity with fundamentalist Christians blows any theory of faith as a check on corruption or turpitude. In fact it may well be argued that it is the required suspension of common sense required of most religious adherents which allows for the idolitry of a morally deficient repugnant human being.