Why Robert Mueller Could Ask AG Barr To Indict Trump In Office | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

In a special report, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, Ari Melber, breaks down a central question in modern American politics: Can a sitting President be indicted? Melber examines how the constitution’s core remedy for a President who commits “high crimes or misdemeanours” is through Congress and the power of impeachment, but that this doesn’t legally mean a sitting President cannot be indicted. Melber also walks through how both the Special Counsel in the Watergate investigation and Ken Starr, in the investigation of Bill Clinton, have both argued that a President could, in fact, be indicted while in Office and that while DOJ guidelines recommend against it, if Mueller thought there was a public interest requirement to indict Trump, he could ask Attorney General Bill Barr for an exception.

MSNBC delivers breaking news and in-depth analysis of the headlines, as well as informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube

Why Robert Mueller Could Ask AG Barr To Indict Trump In Office | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

[ZombieWilfred]

The founding fathers overthrew an entire tyrannical government... To think that they would not want a sitting president indicted if they had committed crimes is idiotic, in my opinion.

[Matt-hxvn]

I personally think that Trump is guilty, but here is my view: IF Trump worked with Russia AND Trump continues to work with Russia, the impeachment process will be too slow to address the concern. In that instance, indicting a sitting president and immediately removing him (temporarily) from power while he goes through the courts would be the only moral action for a special council to take.

[sramoore]

If conspiring with a foreign adversary is not a high crime or misdemeanor I dont know what is!!!

[gobigorange]

Anybody with as much baggage as trump, should have never been sworn into office to start with. Trump is a raging dumpster fire 🔥

[tjduprey]

I assume that this "can't be indicted"does not apply to trump since he is never occupied in the endeavor of doing the business of the Presidency.

[thomasconnors]

The constitution says TWICE, once explicitly and once implicitly, that a sitting president can be indicted. Explicitly It is contained in one little word, but that word has a clear definition that leaves no room for debate: "Nevertheless". Nevertheless does not mean "then and not before" it means "still just as much as before". In an impeachment "the party convicted shall NEVERTHELESS be liable and subject to indictment...". Article 1 Section 3 does not protect the president, but rather strips him of the double jeopardy defense in the event that he faces both impeachment and indictment. On the implicit side, why does congress explicitly have privilege from arrest while the constitution is silent on such privilege for the president, and why should we believe that this claimed unstated privilege for the president goes any further than the congressional privilege, which explicitly does not apply in felony cases?

[jamesoxford]

If a president were to go to prison, would he still have secret service protection? ...and what would that look like?

[philliplopez]

The only thing that freightens me more than the " Trump administration " is the thought of the " Pence administration "

[ZombieWilfred]

"The president cannot be indicted while a sitting president because that would materially affect his ability to run the executive branch..." This is perhaps the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard on this matter. If the sitting president has committed crimes he should no longer be able to "run the executive branch, " or anything else, and that would be the primary purpose of indicting him! That's like saying "you can't punish the president for crimes he has committed because that would interfere with the criminal continuing to be free to commit further crimes while also continuing to run our country..." That's absurdly illogical!

[jannmutube]

Ari, -- > The Constitution does NOT suggest that a sitting president can't be indicted. That is propaganda taught by federalists who support the unitary executive myth. Actually, it says high crimes SHALL be subject to criminal prosecution. The Constitution clearly defines two trials and two judgements for high crimes, one by the Legislature and one by the Judiciary.

Article I Section 3, clause 7
... "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, AND disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted SHALL nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

-- > ... The adverb "After" is not in the original text of Article 1, Section 3, clause 7 . The adverb "First" could just as easily have been inserted instead... "...States: but (adverb) the Party..."
The subject of this clause is "judgement / punishment" that SHALL and SHALL NOT be imposed by the Legislative and Judicial branches ... NOT the timing of due process.
... It means that removal from office by impeachment and senate conviction is NOT sufficient when statutory laws have been violated. This interpretation fits the subject of punishment in this clause.
... These actions may be meant to work in concert but there is no timing for due process to wait for impeachment ... nor can there be unless every impeachment is conducted without investigation or evidence.

A Judge could grant leniency but criminal prosecution for high crimes is not optional. I guess Legislators could argue for leaving a president convicted of a high crime(s) in office or allow him or her to preside from prison. However, I believe that once a predicate has been established, it is the DUTY of both the Judiciary and the Legislature to carry out their designated tasks to their honest completion. Otherwise, it would be a violation of their oath of office

-- > It is the DUTY of government officials to protect and defend the U.S. from ALL enemies foreign and domestic....
... A President who breaks the law with impunity cannot protect and defend it.
... A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS A PRESIDENT TO BREAK THE LAW with impunity CAN NOT PROTECT AND DEFEND IT

[elizabethcook]

Now we wouldn't want to interfere with his frequent golf games. He has plenty of time for that. So, sorry, that one doesn't wash. Let us not ask him to reduce his golf trips for national interest. Ha. On second thought, let's just do it.

[jesushuerta]

The suggestion by other talking heads that Barr may “soften” the Mueller report’s findings makes me uncontrollably angry. I have to believe that in the end our Government servants will put country first and do what is right. My dislike of Trump aside, if he is innocent, so be it, but I hope the report is released warts and all so that we can put all of this to rest come what may.

[vladhardware]

Is there any person that Kate McKinnon can't imitate?

[darylkirkvid]

I think Ari just made an argument for the D's to start impeachment talks.

[joannathao]

Indict/impeach, I don't care how Congress does it just get that orange mother f%$# out of our White house. We need to heal as a country and work on building our relationships back with our allies. Much damage this administration has done.

[desmofan]

"constitutionally assigned duties" and "mental preoccupation" eh? Seems the president is doing a fine job of ignoring those on his own and in public.

[sandyozuna]

Barr please indict trump if mueller asks.

[ScytheNoire]

Founders couldn't have guessed something like Trump would happen. That the country would fall so far, that an entire party would work to undermine their own country.

[ronaldrose]

Treason, kidnapping, terrorism, collusion and corruption. Mr. President, how do you plea?

[zaphrax]

Step 1: Indict the president
Step 2: Use the 25th amendment to remove him from office because of step one.