The Justice Department has a ‘rule’ that presidents cannot be indicted. Really? It’s not a law. It’s not in the Constitution. Since all attorneys general are appointed by presidents, is it possible that little fact provides us clue as to why this ‘rule’ just appeared without any legislative history or legal foundation?
From where did this ridiculous idea emerge? Certainly not from American law, English Common Law, tradition or sense of history. Someone just pulled it out of their rectum.
Some have claimed that it would interfere with the president performing his presidential duties. Really? Are they speaking of those rare occasions the present president has been spotted on a golf course? The Constitution specifically provides for the president’s duties to be interrupted. It’s known as impeachment.
The Founding Fathers reached back to the Magna Carta from 1215 for inspiration in composing the Constitution. One of the most important features of that document was that the king could be held answerable to the nobles. The king had 40 days from notice to redress a problem, or all of his castles and land could be taken from him. The king did not have absolute power. There was no imperial presidency.
The president is not a king. The Founding Fathers were adamant that this new nation was to be a republic, not a monarchy. Has anyone in the Justice Department read a book on American history? Have they ever heard of the American Revolution? The president is supposed to be a public servant. He is not to have more rights that the citizenry.
It is understandable that a president should not be bothered by civil lawsuits while in office. Those can be addressed after the term of office. But, the situation that we face appears to be an elaborate criminal and treasonous enterprise that puts our system of government at jeopardy and our most precious institutions at risk.
Are we to stand by while Trump wreaks havoc for two more years. The damage is immediate and potentially long-lasting. We have and should use the remedies available, rather than accept the moronic ‘rule’ that has no actual justification.
.
.
