General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGiuliani says Mueller 'can't indict.' It might go better for Trump if he does. - By Jonathan Turley
From a defense lawyers point of view, an impeachment, followed by indictment, is potentially worse.
By Jonathan Turley May 18 at 6:00 AM
They cant indict. Because if they did, it would be dismissed quickly. Theres no precedent for a president being indicted.
So declared President Trumps lawyer, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who eagerly recounted this week how special counsel Robert S. Mueller IIIs team has assured Trumps legal team that Mueller wont try to indict the president while he remains in office a decision based, presumably, on a long-standing Department of Justice policy that holds that a sitting president cant be indicted.
Plenty of legal scholars, including me, disagree with the basis of that policy: Nothing in the Constitution bars indictment of a sitting president. But even if Mueller opts to follow that questionable policy, it may not be the legal victory Giuliani seems to think it is. Trump might fare better if hes indicted, and not impeached. Indeed, for Mueller, the question might only come down to the order, not the merits, of these actions. In other words, Trump could find himself both impeached and indicted. An impeachment can even make such an indictment more likely.
Under his mandate as special counsel, Mueller must follow the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Justice Department. Arguably, that binds him to the departments two Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos, neither of which has the force of law but which both support the principle that Trump cant be indicted while in office. During the Nixon administration, OLC found that, despite acknowledging troublesome implications and certain drawbacks, an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office. During the Clinton administration, OLC conceded that the question of indicting a sitting president was an open one but, ultimately, concluded that neither the text nor the history of the Constitution is dispositive on this question. Despite this finding, OLC explained that no indictment of a sitting president should be sought because of more general considerations of constitutional structure. The OLC has a long history of supporting inherent executive powers, but this memo stood out as a superficial and self-serving (and mostly wrong) analysis: The Framers of our Constitution discussed presidential powers at length and in detail. There was no stated intent to create such a sweeping immunity in this one officeholder.
But while many legal observers disagree on the underlying question of the constitutionality of indicting a sitting president, there is close to universal agreement that it is better for the country to have presidential impeachments precede indictments. This, however, is only a matter of sequencing. Even if Mueller does not seek an indictment for constitutional reasons, he could easily do so if Trump is removed from office or after the president completes his term. That sequence would work against Trumps interests as a criminal defendant.
more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/giuliani-says-mueller-cant-indict-but-it-might-go-better-for-trump-if-he-does/
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Does it toll during the time he is President? I could see them arguing and beating off an indictment now and then running behind the statute after he leaves office (assuming he doesn't get a Pence pardon as he goes out the door. Heck with one more justice he probably could uphold a self pardon).
procon
(15,805 posts)Office of Legal Counsel. If a DOJ lawyer wrote them back in the day, then why can't another lawyer write an opposing view today?