Everyone should be subject to the same laws, but, unfortunately, it sure doesn’t seem that way.

The President is an employee of the people, put there and paid by the people.I don't know why Americans have such a problem with this concept.

I wish they impeach the current president, because he is enbarassment to this country. Every country that has nukes I bet have them pointed at us, because of him,

This has come up before. Back with Nixon. At that time both the president and vice president (Agnew) were both under criminal investigation, which is something the foregathers did not think of. Because of this the justice dewpartment forwarded teh opinion that a sittign president could not be indited, but that opinion has yet to face a legal challenge, and it woudl likely be appealed to the supreme court.

In my opinion, I think that to say a sittign president can't be indited is just asking for corrupt persons to seek the office of president. Until a president is held accountable corrupt people (like Trump) will seek the office.

It is a simple concept so why is it often so hard to follow???

Lock him up!

the populace is divided more than usual. If getting rid of a sitting prez were too easy, none would survive 4 years. This case demonstrates that it may be too rigorous.

Obviously the White House Office of Legal Counsel has twice (Nixon, Clinton) ruled the answer is NO citing such a thing would result in a constitutional crisis while stating that impeachment is the only course against a sitting president. (I say obviously as the OLC serves the president.)

Kenneth Starr, when the Special Counsel against Clinton, wrote a lengthy memo arguing the opposite. But of course, the GOP agreed with Starr against Clinton, but seem more hesitant against Trump in another display of partisan hypocrisy.

The Economist has a quick summary of the debate. While I agree that no one is above the law, the argument is really which law can be used against a sitting president - indictment or impeachment.