Brett Kavanaugh Quotes

There is no sentence in the United States Constitution that says the president's children cannot be indicted.

We should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.

I didn't say 'former president,' I said 'president,' and I have the constitutional rights according to the constitution, including immunity from prosecution.

The vice president had a bargaining asset, however, that no ordinary person has: He was next in line to the presidency. I saw no chance that he would resign first, then take his chances on trial, conviction, and jail.

I don't doubt that there are many presidential acts that would constitute obstructions of justice if anyone but the president engaged in them but which constitute legitimate exercises of presidential power when the president engages in them.

If the President does it, it can't be illegal.

This is a case if the President is permitted to be above the law, then we no longer have a republic.

Presidential power was overruled by the high bench in July 1974, when President Nixon was ordered to turn over some audio tapes of his White House conversations, including the 'smoking gun' tape of June 23, 1972, that revealing the Watergate cover up.

When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal.

The President is entitled to keep secret those conversations which a President may have had with his aids for the purpose of advising him in his Constitutional duties. Executive privilege cannot cover crimes, for they are not Constitutional duties.

Obama isn't just too big to fail. He's too big to know. Obama is so vital to the country and to the world, he must be kept out of the loop in order to save him from his failed presidency.

The upshot of the Nixon tapes case was that any president is going to have an extremely hard time resisting a request from a law enforcement officer.

Once you become president, you don't even have to stop for red lights. And if it looks like traffic's too bad, you just take a helicopter.

I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers.

No responsible scholar who thinks a sitting president cannot be indicted also thinks an attorney general can try to truncate a process of oversight - by Congress, for example - by 'pre-clearing' the president in advance.

Everything having to do with President Trump and Russia, whether it is Mr. Trump's demand for an investigation into the investigation by the special counsel Robert Mueller, or whether Mr. Trump will testify, requires an answer to one essential background question: Can Mr. Mueller seek to indict the president?

I think probably, you know, from my perspective, the folks who say a sitting president cannot be indicted have the better of the argument that the president can't be indicted - put, you know, through a criminal trial while he is president - and that the proper way to do it is to impeach him first, remove him, and then seek criminal prosecution.

The president can violate the law, and when he does, he is supposed to be held accountable. That is supposed to be one of the pillars of our democracy.

In our system of government, the president is not supposed to be above the law. He is not a king; his word is not the law.

Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting president is debatable.

But history shows that when courts intervene because a president is trying to shield his own conduct, the deck is stacked against him.

A President can obstruct justice and Congress has the full right to hold a President accountable for such law-breaking through impeachment. After a President leaves office, I believe they may be held accountable through the courts as well.

In a way I never did with George W. Bush or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, I will write about the actions of the Trump presidency with the working assumption that our nation must be protected both by and from the president.

In a case involving his private conduct, a President should be treated like any private citizen. The rule of law requires no more - and no less.

There is no doubt in my mind that Article II limits to a considerable degree the application of the obstruction statutes to the president when he is acting in his capacity as chief law-enforcement officer of the country.