Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president

[flyangler]

Well, certain people are not going to take this well. Sure, the impeachment gambit remains viable but Trump won’t be indicted by Mueller. How many here speculated that an indictment was coming? Who here in the legal profession argued there was an exception to be made here? 

 

Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president

(CNN) — Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.

"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."

That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller's team has compiled.

A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives. 

The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.

It had been an open question whether, if investigators found potentially criminal evidence against Trump, Mueller's team would try to challenge those Justice Department guidelines.

CNN reached out to Mueller's team. They declined to comment.

[J]

This is all coming together like a well orchestrated operation. 

 

Can't wait for the movie

[PlumFishing]

What’s the point, Tom. 

Everyone knows the President can’t be indicted. 

The more salient point is why Guilanni would make the statement. 

This guy may be the worst councilor ever to be hired.  

You have, I’m sure, had an attorney for one reason or another. Would you hire this crank for a traffic ticket based on his last few weeks?

[PlumFishing]

And of course, you have J to back up your point. Very thin gruel. 

[J]

How can you see to type with all that egg on your face? 

[PlumFishing]

5 mins ago, J said:

How can you see to type with all that egg on your face? 

You are a pot smoker. 

[flyangler]

13 mins ago, PlumFishing said:

What’s the point, Tom. 

Everyone knows the President can’t be indicted. 

The more salient point is why Guilanni would make the statement. 

This guy may be the worst councilor ever to be hired.  

You have, I’m sure, had an attorney for one reason or another. Would you hire this crank for a traffic ticket based on his last few weeks?

Sorry Plum, but there have been hours of discussion in CNN, msnbc, nbc, Comedy Central and elsewhere about how the 1999 policy could be set aside in Trump's case. That there aas some other memo written at some point that could be used to counter the standing DoJ policy. I have heard many such discussions. 

 

So, no, not "everyone" believed that and I heard as much on Chris Matthews' show tonight discussing how Trump could be indicted for BOTH Collusion and Obstruction. 

[J]

Only right before bed. High in my sleep. Sober when awake. 

 

Never so dumb as to believe the Left didn't break the law, abuse thee DOJ and frame a sitting President. 

 

Here's your sign..... 

[flyangler]

Indictment Or Impeachment: Rachel Maddow Zeroes In On Two Likely Outcomes Of The Mueller Report

April 12, 2018

Rachel Maddow warned Donald Trump that his refusal to sit down for an interview with Robert Mueller, thus speeding up the special counsel’s obstruction of justice report, does not bode well for him.

According to Maddow, what we already know about the forthcoming Mueller report suggests two possible outcomes for Trump: A criminal indictment or a recommendation that Congress moves forward with impeachment proceedings.

[J]

 

[flyangler]

On msnbc in April:

 

Politico: Mueller Can Protect Investigation By Requesting A Sealed Indictment Of Trump

April 23, 2018

[flyangler]

CNN's Brian Stelter: If Trump Is Ever Criminally Charged, Hannity's Viewers Won't See It Coming

On Date April 13, 2018

 

[flyangler]

From tonight, after Guilianni's statement:

 

Blumenthal: Rudy Giuliani's wrong, Trump can be indicted

Washington (CNN) — Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, says he thinks President Donald Trump could be indicted, despite Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani expressing otherwise. 

"The President is not above the law, and an indictment -- if that's the course that Robert Mueller chooses to go -- I believe would be upheld by the courts," Blumenthal said on CNN's "The Situation Room." 

[The Dude]

Looks like we’ve got a meltdown in progress.

[flyangler]

Letter to WaPo:

 

Yes, Trump can be indicted

Amid the talk about what remedies special counsel Robert S. Mueller III might ultimately pursue (report or indict?), I haven’t heard or read anything about the fact that many of the crimes that President Trump may be culpable of would undoubtedly have been committed before he was sworn into office: crimes such as “collusion” with Russia during the campaign and financial crimes (money laundering, illegal foreign payoffs) committed long before his presidency began.  

 

While there may be legal arguments pro and con about whether a sitting president can be indicted for crimes committed during his term in office, there should be no doubt that a sitting president can be indicted for crimes committed before his term. We already know from the Supreme Court decision in the Paula Jones case that a sitting president can be made to answer for civil wrongs committed before his term in office. It would be strange indeed if the result were any less clear when it came to a president’s criminal acts committed before his term in office. 

Thomas R. Kolb, Washington