Dixon Memo declared null and void, the President of the United States is fully subject to investigation, indictment, arrest, prosecution and imprisonment while in office

In dismissing Trump’s suit against the Manhattan District of Attorney regarding his tax returns, United States District Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting at Manhattan, made a groundbreaking legal finding.

He found that the Dixon Memo, propagated by the Justice Department in 1973, is null and void and of no legal effect. He found that the President of the United States is fully subject to investigation, indictment, arrest, prosecution and imprisonment while in office.

This is a critically important check on the President that will go far beyond Trump to all future Presidents and ensure that none can hold themselves above the law.

Glad to see the Dixon Memo finally placed in the circular file where it belongs.


Ooo. Now that is interesting.

Hmm… You got him now.


Be interesting to see what the Mueller report would look like after this opinion, assuming it stands, either in whole or in part.

Uhhmm, I have not been leading the impeachment or indictment bandwagons.

I merely am waiting to see how it all plays out.

In fact, I have previously express views of holding off on impeachment.

Is this interpretation likely to stand or…?

It will clearly survive at the Second Circuit and I think the Supreme Court will be loath to step into this. I believe if it gets to the Supreme Court, they will simply deny certiorari without comment, which essentially will allow this ruling to stand as the law of the land.

Perhaps some restriction against prosecution will stand, but t’s difficult to imagine a world where the President is completely immune, even to investigation into possible criminal conduct. Literally, he’d be above the law.

But, with this Supreme Court, who can say? Alito was approved to the court being a known Federalist Society Unitary Executive proponent.

Good to see this ruling. No one is above the law no matter who they are or what power they hold.

Possibly. This is a memo we’re talking about. There is a more modern Starr memo that says the president can be indicted. I guess it boils down to which memo or memos carry more credence. Also, Clinton v Jones says a sitting president is not immune from civil law litigation from actions before taking and not related to office. It seems as though civil tax fraud from the state of New York already meets the precedent.


This might have been nice to hear about before the years long look into blatant Trump wrongdoing that basically ended with Mueller throwing his hands up and claiming he had no recourse to even accuse the man of shady behavior, let alone charge him.

Courts are slow

Forget Trump for a minute. Lets pretend this ruling has nothing too do with him.

Do we really want future Presidents subject to various state cases brought against him by states where the opposite political party is in control of the prosecutors and judicial system?

That could effectively overturn the results of an election.

If the case is bad enough and there is strong enough proof, that should result in an impeachment, conviction in the Senate, and then charges could be brought.

No man or woman should be free to engage in rampant illegal behavior simply because they won an election. We don’t tolerate it in Representatives, Senators, Mayors, etc etc. Why should the President be different?

We’ve already seen how unwilling Republicans are to even admit what Trump has been doing is wrong, let alone show any courage to even consider holding him accountable for it.


No chance in heck this stands. The constitution clearly defines the only way a President may be removed from office and arrest and imprisonment is not it. If I were President New York State would have to defeat the US armed forces to pull it off.

Silly south, fighting a civil war when all they had to do was have Georgia charge, arrest and imprison Abraham Lincoln.

Tough luck. The alternative is civil war.

This is nothing new. Nixon v Fitzgerald and Clinton v Jones state a President can face criminal charges while in office and while the President has immunity from civil charges brought against actions while in office, they do not have immunity from civil charges brought from actions before office.

The Trump attorneys tried to use a DoJ memo as legally binding or as precedent, which it is not. It’s simply how the DoJ decided to treat presidential indictments.

Please cite the precedent you mention. Because neither of those said any such thing AFAIK.

I understand this argument. The issue is when you run into the Senate that we currently have. Flip it and make it Democrats with Clinton.

You guys would be screaming for him to go to jail and the senate has their way.

There has to be something reasonable beyond impeachment as a back up.

But I get the arguement. The president shoots someone on live tv, we would all expect that person to be impeached and then indicted.

Sadly…life isnt like that