• Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The standing DOJ policy is that presidents will not be criminally prosecuted while in office – not that they are immune from criminal prosecution forever for any acts taken while holding office. Two wholly different things.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really have to wonder, though, exactly how firm that policy really is. Any crime? Say the sitting president shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, on carmera, in front of a huge number of witnesses. No charges until after impeachment and removal from office?

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s no charges while in office for things that are related to presidential duties, but that can be stretched as it’s very vague.

            • Nougat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, we’re referring to the 1973 Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum:

              In 1973, amid the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum concluding that it is unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president.[22] Its arguments include that the president “is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus in both foreign and domestic affairs.”[23] It says that the statute of limitations should not be tolled while the president is in office, but suggests that Congress could extend the statute of limitations specifically for presidents.[24] After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton, the OLC issued a second memorandum in 2000, distinguishing civil and criminal presidential immunity and determining that it was still improper to prosecute a president due to the adverse affect it might have on his ability to govern.[25]

              • Andy@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Like you said, it’s a memorandum. If someone committed, like homicide and cannibalism, a prosecutor would probably file charges and then it’d be up to a judge to determine if the reasoning in the memorandum is correct.