If a Special Counsel determined that the President had committed a major crime, would the Counsel be able to keep the President in the country?
What is the process for this? How long does that process take?
Nope.
The duties of the president trump (no pun intended) things like this.
Besides, usually they want to stop people traveling because they are a flight risk and they take their passport. Pretty sure the president of the US does not need a passport to go through customs when he travels.
It is hard to imagine how the president traveling abroad is a flight risk. Not sure what would happen if President Trump flew to Somalia and refused to come home. I am guessing the Secret Service would carry him back on to the plane.
If it came down to it, Trump could be impeached while he’s abroad. The impeachment could go all the way to conviction, at which point he’s no longer President, and just a normal, everyday American citizen. Then the normal extradition process would be used to bring him back here to stand trial for whatever other crimes, or, of course, he could be tried in a normal court in absentia as well, but since normal courts have higher standards of evidence, it might be more difficult to get a conviction without his testimony.
All a special counsel does is investigate and recommend laying a criminal charge if warranted (sorry) and produce a report. They have no special arrest powers.
Law & Order notwithstanding (or maybe Chicago PD is more appropriate) the “don’t leave town” crap is total BS. You are either under arrest for a crime and then possibly release on bail with conditions like “don’t leave the jurisdiction”; or you are a free citizen like any other citizen. Police, prosecutors (DA or special) have no right to detain you beyond that. (Ignoring short things like traffic stops). The only other exception I can think of is material witness. IANAL, not sure what the criteria would be for detaining a material witness who may show intent to depart. of course, fleeing the jurisdiction may be cited as evidence of guilt if your case gets to trial. But “he’s about to leave the country on a vacation/business trip” does not change whether or not there’s enough evidence to lay a charge.
One note: I recall reading somewhere that the head of state does not use a passport when traveling. I guess it has to be a recognized state. But prime miniisters are not heads of state, only of government. The head of state of Canada, for example, is Queen Elizabeth. But the US is different in that its head of state and head of government are one and the same.
That rule only applies to monarchies were passports are issues in the monarch’s name. The President of the United States (& the rest of his entourage) travels on a diplomatic passport. “Going through customs” consists of a junior member of the entourage meeting with an official from the host country’s foreign ministry to get everyone’s passports stamped at the same time.
A girl can dream.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political pot-shots out of GQ, please.
That is not correct. Here is the authorization given to Mueller, and note:
The authorization explicitly references Section 600.4 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations which says pretty much the same thing:
Emphasis added. And of course we all should know that Mueller has arrested 4 ex-Trump advisers in 6 months, signaling peril ahead for White House.
I apologize–I missed the forum.
Of course, police of any sort are allowed to tell you not to leave the country, and I imagine it’s not uncommon that they do. You’re under no obligation to obey that directive, but heck, you might not realize that, and stay anyway, which would make things more convenient for the police, so why not tell you?
Sorry - I Did not realize he had his own police to arrest people. I just assumed he was like any prosecutor and could lay charges (yes, you are right - not just recommend charges: I assume then if that were the case he would be an investigator not a prosecutor) Presumably he can get warrants, etc. too- And then have the police execute those warrants.
The Special Counsel has the powers of any other federal prosecutor. He can convene grand juries, apply for search warrants and arrest warrants, issue indictments (with consent of a grand jury) and charge investigative resources assigned to him (i.e. the FBI) with necessary tasks.
And I assume a passport (“surrender your passport”) can only be seized by a judge as a condition of bail after being charged with a crime?
Could the Secretary of State revoke the President’s passport?
Nope. A passport is not a right and can be revoked at any time while you are in the US by the State Department. Happened to Paul Robeson because racism.
But it cannot be seized or revoked by the initiative of some overzealous police or prosecutor?
And of course if you are a dual citizen (hey, Ted Cruz!) then I assume only that second country can revoke your other passport.
But if you are arrested, surrendering all passports could be a condition of bail…
Cruz gave up his Canadian citizenship during the campaign. Didn’t work.
I doubt it. You would have to have a situation where PoPo Joe could override the decision of the Department of State. I don’t think states have that right under our Federalist system. A Judge seizing the passport issued by an Executive Officer may be seen as a violation of the separation of power. Of course there is nothing to stop Officer Krunke or Judge Whitey Oldman from requesting the Secretary of State to seize your passport.
I vaguely recall some wording (maybe it was my British passport) along the lines of “the passport is the property of her majesty’s government” thus implying that your possession of a passport was a privilege granted by the government and they retained property rights to the passport and the right to revoke it at any time. Therefore any other other government taking it would be a violation of those terms and technically an illegality. You would have to voluntarily surrender it.
Actually, no. I may own something, but my ownership of it is always going to be qualified by the laws of the country where I (and it) happen to be. An American (say) who owns a handgun and who attempts to bring it with him into the UK will find that, unless he is compliant with the relevant UK laws, the handgun will be seized.
In the case of a passsport, owned by a government, there’s the further question of sovereign immunity. Sure, Her Majesty’s Government can seize a handgun owned by Joe Blow, American citizen, but can they seize a passport owned by the United States of America, and simply carried by Joe Blow? Yes, they can; seizing it may interfere with Joe Blow’s ability to carry it, but it doesn’t interfere with the ownership of the US. If the passport can be owned by the US when in the possession of Joe Blow, then it can still be owned by the US when in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government.
So, yeah, the authorities of Country A can and regularly do, in accordance with their own laws, seize, or require the surrender of, passports issued by Country B, and Country B does not normally consider this an offensive or hostile act or an infringement of its rights or status.