Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post - Mueller tells Nadler that report did not totally exonerate Trump

Pete F. · 07-25-2019, 08:50 AM

Per DOJ OLC rules (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...President.html) a sitting President cannot be indicted.

This is the closing paragraph from that document:

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

In his opening statement Mueller said this about indictment:

"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Some Constitutional Scholars have had discussions recently on this subject and disagree.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-cons...ment-president

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-pres...laurence-tribe

But this is not a new subject, here is something from 20 years ago.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.e...context=facpub

The correct conclusion IMHO is that Mueller did his assignment and produced his report. The next step is up to Congress.

We will see if they have the stomach for it.

07-25-2019, 08:50 AM	#5
Pete F. Canceled Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: vt Posts: 13,069	Per DOJ OLC rules (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...President.html) a sitting President cannot be indicted. This is the closing paragraph from that document: In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution. RANDOLPH D. MOSS Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel In his opening statement Mueller said this about indictment: "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today." Some Constitutional Scholars have had discussions recently on this subject and disagree. https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-cons...ment-president https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-pres...laurence-tribe But this is not a new subject, here is something from 20 years ago. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.e...context=facpub The correct conclusion IMHO is that Mueller did his assignment and produced his report. The next step is up to Congress. We will see if they have the stomach for it.
	Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind! Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you? Lets Go Darwin