What is indictment and arraignment of a US President as Donald Trump faces 34 charges?

An arraignment is the initial court appearance of a defendant in a criminal case. During an arraignment, the defendant is informed of the charges against them, advised of their legal rights, and given the opportunity to enter a plea. In the case of a US President, an arraignment would occur if they were formally charged with a crime. The arraignment process would follow the same general procedures as any other criminal case, with the exception that the President would likely have a team of highly skilled defense attorneys representing them.

An indictment, on the other hand, is a formal accusation of a crime made by a grand jury. A grand jury is a group of citizens who are selected to hear evidence in criminal cases and determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. If the grand jury determines that there is enough evidence, they will issue an indictment, which is essentially a formal charge against the defendant. In the case of a US President, an indictment would be issued if the grand jury determined that there was enough evidence to charge the President with a crime.

In the case of a US President, both an arraignment and an indictment would be highly unusual and would likely be subject to significant political scrutiny. While the US Constitution does not explicitly state that a sitting President cannot be indicted, there is a longstanding Justice Department policy that holds that a sitting President cannot be indicted. This policy is based on the idea that the President is immune from prosecution while in office in order to avoid distracting the President from their duties and to avoid creating a constitutional crisis.

Also read: The Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels hush money saga explained in a nutshell

Despite this policy, there is some debate among legal experts about whether a sitting President can be indicted. Some argue that the Constitution does not provide any immunity from prosecution for the President, while others argue that an indictment would be unconstitutional because it would interfere with the President's ability to perform their duties.

If a sitting President were to be indicted, it would likely trigger a constitutional crisis and lead to a protracted legal battle. The President would likely argue that they were immune from prosecution and would seek to have the indictment dismissed on constitutional grounds. If the case were to proceed, it would be closely watched by legal experts and the public alike, as it would have significant implications for the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

These are therefore important legal procedures that help ensure that no individual is above the law. While the question of whether a sitting President can be indicted remains a subject of debate, it is clear that any attempt to do so would trigger a constitutional crisis and require careful consideration of the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. Ultimately, the question of whether a President can be indicted will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, which has the final say on matters of constitutional law.