The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.GungHo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:40 pm Why isn't he simply arrested again? I really don't get how DOJ policy supercedes US law. There's no way trump(or any other person in this country) isn't arrested if they walk into a school with an uzi and start shooting everyone, so clearly a president can be both arrested and charged with crimes. So this DOJ policy (again policy, not a duly enacted law) is about degrees of crime for which the president cannot be charged. Which is fn stupid.
Just bc an additional means of removing the president from office exists doesn't mean that other means cease to exist. Does DOJ policy prohibit the president from dying as well?
And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.