Why can't you indict a sitting president if he is a criminal?

You think you can get away with that?  

Sure.   Rosie is angry.  So are all people who are looking to indict.  There is a reason.  She has, in the past year, given multitudinous REASONS why. 

Where is the MISUSE?


We have a ton of proof that he is more than incompetent.  He is a racist.  He is a liar.  He steals.  He cheats.  He hacks and he tweets.

And he lies.

And he is in league with our arch-enemy.


So, do we get to INDICT NOW?

????? Excuse me? That makes no  sense at all. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It certainly does not answer the question I asked. It is simply a way to rant at me  JakobA. I have invited you to ignore me before and I  invite you once again to ignore from here on out. You clearly aren't interested in providing thoughtful, useful, helpful information. Of course I can't stop you but I can certainly ignore you. Geez Louise what a revoltin development.

  I think when you're indicted you have to face a Grand Jury Shar. I don't know if any prez ever faced that. But I don't really know. Thank you for your reply! :)

Didn't Nixon?  I don't know either. I think he was indicted.  I'll check.  LOL

Big surprise.  NO HE WAS NOT.  He just threw everyone else who worked for him under the bus.

Just like TRUMP is going to do.  Just watch.

The scandal led to the discovery of multiple abuses of power by members of the Nixon administration, an impeachment process against the president that led to articles of impeachment,[2] and the resignation of Nixon. The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials.[3]

The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex on Saturday, June 17, 1972. The FBI investigated and discovered a connection between cash found on the burglars and a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), the official organization of Nixon's campaign.[4][5] In July 1973, evidence mounted against the President’s staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee. The investigation revealed that President Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.[6][7]

After a series of court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obliged to release the tapes to government investigators. The tapes revealed that Nixon had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in, and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8] Facing virtually certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974, preventing the House from impeaching him.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

The name “Watergate” and the suffix “-gate” have since become synonymous with political and non-political scandals in the United States, and some other parts of the world.[ This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at June 8, 2017 12:42 PM MDT

I'm not sure how to reply to your response lq since I don't understand it. I live in California. I'm not sure how it or a death penalty has anything to do with the question I asked. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Thank you for your response.

all i was really trying to say is that it would make more sense to impeach than indict. my analogy sucked, yes, but i likened impeachment to a life sentence (with no parole), and the death penalty to indictment. we don't need to toss a president in prison to simply have him removed from office. it would make more sense to go after the more obtainable goal. (like it would make more sense to stop the ineffective and costly death penalty in places like California where people die of natural causes rather than via capitol punishment) i mean, i realize it's unlikely any President would actually be impeached/removed from office, but it's likely easier to have a president removed from office than it would be to have them formally charged, tried by a jury of their peers, and then convicted and imprisoned.

Apologies for not getting it lq. That's why I asked. Thank you for your thoughtful and  comprehensive reply and Happy Saturday. I appreciate that you took the time to go the extra mile! :):)

no worries at all. :) always welcome, you are.

hope Saturday was good to you. hope Sunday night is the same.

peace!

Well, little, it would make more sense, IF the ones that were doing the impeaching were not Trump's puppets.  The Senate and House are both a tad lopsided and mostly RED these days.  No one is going to get an impeachment out of that bunch. 

yeah, that's one of the reasons i said, "i realize it's unlikely any President would actually be impeached/removed from office..." presidents tend to run amok when they posses unofficial immunity. but heck, even if the odds weren't stacked in his favor, we'd likely see him resign before he could be impeached. really it would depend on how his narcissism would prefer the headlines to read. if he quit, i would consider that victory enough. but like you said... he's seemingly immune, as it were.