Democrats Look To Repeal Justice Department Rule Barring Indictment of Sitting President
While a decades-old internal Justice Department guideline protects a sitting president from being indicted by the federal government, some congressional Democrats appear to be weighing legislation to repeal this rule.
“In response to the special counsel’s report, Democrats are piecing together a package of legislation focused largely on shielding elections from foreign influence, including proposals to bar candidates from accepting foreign help of any kind, while making it mandatory that campaigns alert the FBI when such offers are extended,” The Hill reported Saturday.
But that’s not all.
Some Democrats also want to use the legislative process to nullify the long-standing rule that says sitting presidents can’t be federally indicted.
“It’s definitely on the menu,” Virginia Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly, who’s on the Oversight and Reform Committee, told The Hill.
“I’m in favor of expanding enforcement tools and accountability tools, and that’s definitely one of them,” he said.
New York Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries echoed that sentiment, calling such legislation a “reasonable thing to do.”
“It’s fair to say that one of the options we should consider is revisiting that Department of Justice rule so you don’t have a rogue and lawless president immunized from criminal prosecution,” Jeffries, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told The Hill.
Do you think a sitting president should be indicted?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
The Hill noted it’s unclear how the measure could be introduced, whether it be in a spending bill “or as an authorization bill out of the House Judiciary Committee.”
Regardless, Connolly said “it will be a topic of discussion.”
But some Democrats aren’t so sure it’s such a good idea.
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of California, for instance, said such a proposal might not be as effective as Democrats hope, suggesting officials within Trump’s own Justice Department would be hesitant to charge him with a crime.
“That’s why we have impeachment,” Waters told The Hill. “Because when the president is unfit — and it doesn’t have to be criminal — when the Congress decides that he’s not fit to be president, then that’s what impeachment is for. That’s what we’re supposed to do.”
“A President may not be able fully to discharge the powers and duties of his office if he had to defend a criminal prosecution,” the document reads.
In 2000, after then-President Bill Clinton was impeached, the DOJ noted that “the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.”
“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller added.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.