If, As Is The Case, Impeachment Won't Happen, That OLC Ruling Is Too Dangerous To Allow It To Stand

That infamous Office of Legal Counsel ruling against indicting a sitting president has the stinking hands of fascism on it through its real creator, then Solicitor General Robert Bork, the guy who was ready to carry out the Saturday Night Massacre for the criminal President Richard Nixon, it basically was designed to protect criminal presidents such as Nixon and others who have, actually, characterized the presidency after Nixon.  Ronald Reagan's administration was floridly corrupt, including George H. W. Bush who found it necessary to issue a number of pardons to protect himself as he left the presidency and the protection of that OLC ruling.   It certainly characterized the corrupt regime of his son, George W. Bush who was installed illegally by Republicans on the Supreme Court and who went on to be managed by the corrupt Dick Cheney.  It certainly has been true of the Trump regime imposed on us by a foreign billionaire oligarchic criminal regime working hand in glove with American millionaires and billionaires taking advantage of the corruption embedded in the American system through the Electoral College system and Republican state administrations who have rigged the systems in their own states.  By comparison the petty criminality of Bill Clinton, lying under oath about getting a blow job while in office, is hardly in the same class of criminality.  That it was at the very end of his term of office that the awful thing was revived in 2000 is telling.  By comparison, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama's presidencies have been oases of law abidance. * 

The excuse for putting even a legitimate president above the law other than the weight of office, something which we regularly overcome whenever there is a change of presidents, is that the Constitution has given Congress the power to remove presidents through impeachment.   That fact also refutes the excuse for that ruling, if a criminal trial would distract a sitting president from their responsibilities of office in an unacceptable way, an impeachment is no less disruptive, in every way it is more of a distraction because an impeachment through congress would be inherently a political as well as a quasi-judicial process.  The temptation of a president to go hammer and tongs against their political opposition would be, if anything, far more disruptive of their executive activities.  The Constitution didn't take what might be a rational response to such a concern, temporarily putting the Vice President in charge when a President is on trial or under an active impeachment action.  

That excuse for the likes of Robert Bork creating unstated Constitutional lore, that impeachment is the proper way to remove a criminal president is, itself, shown for its illegitimacy through the failure of Houses to impeach and Senates to remove presidents in every single instance of Presidential criminality in our history.  The fact that the Republicans in the Senate, refusing to remove Donald Trump with his record of criminality, even to the extent of not only failing to protect and defend the United States from enemies foreign as well as domestic BUT HAVING COLLABORATED WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN'S CRIME REGIME TO GAIN THE OFFICE shows the fact that depending on impeachment in lieu of indicting and convicting Donald Trump is about as dangerous an artifact as Robert Bork left to rot out American democracy.  

*  I would not include Gerald Ford because his pardon of Nixon was one of the most irresponsible and dangerous acts taken by an American president.  If Nixon had been indicted and convicted and sentenced for his crimes, the subsequent history of criminality by, mostly, Republican presidents may have been very different.  As far as I'm concerned, Ford was a part of one of the most dangerous cover-ups for crime in the history of the United States. 

Update;  Anticipating some objection to what I said, based in the failure of the fabled Founders to have taken this into consideration, the failure of Congresses to impeach and remove criminal presidents and others throughout our history refutes their Constitutional theories that impeachment is an adequate prevention for even as criminal an executive administration as they could imagine.  I think with Trump we've gone way past what those men, who relied so much on even their inadequate concept of "honor" could have possibly imagined would possibly happen under their system.   I think the last time we could depend on that level of "honor" among Republicans was when there were Republicans in the House who voted to impeach and, having come to the conclusion that Nixon would cost the Republican Party in the next election, some of the leading Senate Republicans told Nixon the jig was up, though that last one was hardly an act of honor instead of self-serving damage control.  If you're counting on the likes of Susan Collins and Mitt Romney in that regard, you are a hopeless chump. 

The thing doesn't work to keep us safe from the worst.  The Founders theory on this was clearly inadequate without the possibility of an indictment and trial of a sitting president.