Barr inclined to agree a sitting president can't be indicted (click here)
Barr, asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal whether a sitting president can be indicted, suggested he falls back on past opinions that a sitting president can't be indicted. Barr said he sees no reason to change such legal opinions.
"For 40 years the position of the executive branch is that you can't indict a sitting president," Barr said, adding that he hasn't read those opinions in a long time, but "I see no reason to change them."...
Barr? You have got to be joking.
His statement about asylum seekers was that they should be evaluated outside of the USA.
He is answering to please Trump and will probably carry out the orders Trump issues whether legal or not.
An asylum seeker cannot stay where they are to be evaluated. To begin that would never happen in another sovereign country. It makes no sense to leave an asylum seeker in the country they are declaring will cause their death. His answers only make sense to Trump and not to the rest of the country.
Barr states Mueller is above reproach and he is. BUT, the Mueller report will not be released to the public. That is an insult to the Special Council.
The proper way to handle a criminal president is impeachment. In all honesty, I don't see a criminal sitting in the Oval Office once the facts were known by the US House and Senate.
By Charlie Savage
...The 56-page memo, (click here) locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office.
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”
Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows....
The Supremacy Clause is sometimes cited as a measure that would not allow a president to be indicted. HOWEVER, this particular citation is from the University of Chicago. It is important to review the extent this part of the US Constitution is discussed by the university.
The Supremacy Clause as discussed by The University of Chicago is about the FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY as opposed to the "fitness" of any particular officer of the federal authority. Impeachment is still the best process and I don't see any other aspect of the US Constitution standing in the way of that. As far as indictment, there is every reason to carry out indictments when an individual officer is proving to violate the oath of office and therefore unfit for office.
Article 6, Clause 2 (click here)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding....
