Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump

[honest.abe]

-snip-

While many legal experts contend that Mueller lacks the standing to bring criminal charges against Trump, at least two attorneys working with clients swept up in the Russia probe told POLITICO they consider it possible that Mueller could indict the president for obstruction of justice.

Neither attorney claimed to have specific knowledge of Mueller’s plans. Both based their opinions on their understanding of the law; one also cited his interactions with the special counsel’s team, whose interviews have recently examined whether Trump tried to derail the probe into his campaign’s Russia ties.

“If I were a betting man, I’d bet against the president,” said one of the lawyers.

The second attorney, who represents a senior Trump official, speculated that Mueller could try to bring an indictment against Trump even if he expects the move to draw fierce procedural challenges from the president’s lawyers – if only to demonstrate the gravity of his findings.

“It’s entirely possible that Mueller may go that route on the theory that, as an open question, it should be for the courts to decide,” the attorney said. “Even if the indictment is dismissed, it puts maximum pressure on Congress to treat this with the independence and intellectual honesty that it will never, ever get."

More:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-russia-indictment-mueller-probe-384969

========================

I think ultimately SCOTUS decides this.. and will rule in favor of Mueller.

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[Skittles]

2. but WHY is he obstructing justice?

BECAUSE HE COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA

[BigmanPigman]

3. I read the article and my head is spinning.

So many "ifs".

[nocalflea]

4. Love to see Muellar try.

Might as well address this now.

Hard to imagine the founders being against a remedy for dealing with a president who is blatantly breaking his oath to protect and defend the constitution and is being protected by the majority party in Congress.

This situation had to have occured to them. They were well aware of the pitfalls of partisanship.

The Legislative branch has failed it's role as the constitutional check on the Executive. The Judicial branch is the check here.

Obviously I'm no constitutional scholar so I'm all for being educated.

[ehrnst]

6. Their remedy was to have congress impeach and remove such a POTUS

Howevever, they didn't anticipate that enough corrupt complicit congresspersons would also get elected and would keep him there.

[Volaris]

9. Or that those congress persons would have gotten themselves elected with foreign aid.

[nocalflea]

55. You're not seriously suggesting that corruption did not exist at that time ?

Foreign influence$ was well known to the framers of the constitution.

These people lived in a much darker world. How many democracys existed back then ? Corruption and foreign intrigue were par for the course.

Remember the part the Hessians played in the war ? $$$

One of the largest threats to the newly minted nation was foreign influence.

[triron]

27. That about says it all.

[nocalflea]

54. I believe the keyword here is "enough".

[lagomorph777]

53. The actual Clauses in the Constitution, and my take:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

While many (apparently wishfully) read the part in bold as excluding criminal indictment, or at best prohibiting it until after an impeachment, I see it quite differently. I see it as declaring that Impeachment does not preclude Indictment (etc). In other words, the Constitution's authors are saying that Impeachment and Criminal Indictment are separate things and subjecting one president to both things is not double jeopardy.

[Cicada]

5. DOJ legal opinion says they cant indict sitting President

Apparently the DOJ adopted a legal opinion in 1973, confirmed in 2000, that they can’t indict a sitting President. Mueller is part of DOJ. Why would Trump DOJ change their mind?

[DeminPennswoods]

7. A DoJ legal opinion is not law

It's just their view that may or may not be correct. Given the date in 1973, it was likely written about Nixon and Watergate. For those who don't recall or know, Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the grand jury.

Impeachment is the constitutional rememdy for a lawless president, but in a situation like this where one party controls the government, what can be done to keep the president from being above the law when congress won't act as a check? That would have to fall then to the courts.

[Volaris]

11. My suspicion would be that the courts would defer to the electorate...

If this Congress won't do it, it's entirely possible the next one will; problem solved, president impeached, Constitutional Check delivered...WITHOUT the direct intervention of the court.
just MHO.

[DeminPennswoods]

13. That's the ideal solution

nt

[PJMcK]

51. There's a better solution

Robert Mueller could name Trump an un-indicted co-conspirator. Simultaneously, he can file indictments agains Trump but have them sealed until he leaves office, whether by impeachment, resignation or at the end of his term. Then the indictments are unsealed an the charges become public.

Trump is so dirty, his malice is beyond what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

[Cicada]

26. I agree but if Mueller follows DOJ rule it will never get to a court

[Cicada]

25. But will Mueller defer to DOJ procedures? I would think he would

he seems like the kind of guy who would just follow the rules

[LiberalFighter]

40. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits prosecution

Just that Congress can only remove from office the President or other office holders through impeachment. There have been a number of judges and other high officials that have been indicted and convicted.

Mueller may have been part of DOJ but he may not have concurred on that opinion. It is possible they consider it legal to indict but don't want to do it except for more serious grievances.

[Honeycombe8]

8. The SCOTUS would likely decide in favor of Trump. It gives Exec Branch wide latitude, IMO.

It gives executive branch wide latitude, when the legislative branch hasn't passed a law to stop something, and it could have.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anthony Kennedy (?)
John Roberts (Chief Justice) (Trump)
Clarence Thomas (Trump)
Stephen Breyer
Elena Kagan
Samuel A. Alito (Trump)
Sonia Sotomayor
Neil Gorsuch (Trump)

[sharedvalues]

14. You mean Justice Illegitimate Gorsuch. Or Justice* G

Even the asterisk is not strong enough to indicate the crimes that resulted in the stolen SCOTUS seat. Gorsuch is a partisan hack, who openly discusses GOP strategy with politicians and who gave a speech on rule of law (!!) at the hotel where the Constitution is being flouted on emoluments.

[honest.abe]

15. I think Roberts goes against Trump

[Nitram]

17. I wouldn't be surprised if Roberts voted against Trump, but I think he could go either way.

I suspect Roberts cares about his reputation and legacy, and that would incline him to vote against Trump.

[honest.abe]

20. Roberts is no friend of Trump and not a lock vote for Republican issues.

He demonstrated that particularly with his Obamacare vote. Trump called him an "absolute disaster". Also some of his comments recently have been leaning more left and critical of Trump. I think if Mueller presents a solid case for obstruction of justice and this goes to SCOTUS, I think Roberts votes with Mueller.

[Honeycombe8]

18. If he does, then Kennedy does, too, I think. Can't say for sure about Roberts.

He generally goes the conservative route, but he surprised them once. I think it was the penalty for Obamacare decision.

But the SCt has been decisive before about executive branch duties. Their position is that if it can be handled by legislation, then that's what should happen. If the legislative branch doesn't find it important enough to pass legislation against something, they, the SCT, isn't going to do it.

However, all things can't be handled by legislation.

[honest.abe]

21. yes, agreed.

Remember Trump insulted Roberts regarding that vote. Not saying the Roberts is vindictive with his votes but he certainly is not going out of his way to help Trump.

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Yup, yup, yup

The Supremes are just as politically supportive of Trump as the congress. That's why the ass hats in Congress made sure Obama didn't pick a Supreme.

The useless court will probably declare Trump king or more likely Tsar. Remember how they made W president and top torturer?

We are a seriously broken democracy.

[bdamomma]

32. so going by your list

there are only or possibly 4 trump supporters and 5 non trump supporters taking in consideration which way Kennedy will rule if he is a ? mark.

I don't even want to think about this ruling, I am tired of the absolute dismantling of our government in support of this imbecile, who has lowered the bar so much and makes Russia so ecstatic that they are dismantling the US.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. They should indict

If it's a serious criminal matter, Congress should impeach. If not, the case can rest until the president is out of office.

[Vinca]

12. No one is above the law.

[honest.abe]

16. Yes, that is the basic simple rule that SCOTUS will probably use.

Which means Trump goes down.

[bdamomma]

30. makes sense to me

but we have some in government who don't believe in the Constitution. Esp. wanna be dic...tator trump.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Agreed

A President, VP, or civil officers are not immune from violation of the law. I think the question would be whether it was in the performance of their office or otherwise. If performance of their office they likely would receive some leeway. But committing treason, murder, bribery, or other crimes that are not part of their duties are not immune from prosecution.

[BigOleDummy]

22. Not

so optimistic about the SCOTUS as some here are. Really believe we are seeing a subversive takeover by the right. They feel they can do anything anymore and do. Defying the courts already just look at Pennsylvania.

[Progressive dog]

23. Indictment of a sitting President is not prohibited

by the Constitution. I too think SCOTUS would rule in favor of allowing Mueller to charge and try the psychopath in the White House.

[Farmer-Rick]

24. The US can indicate the president but probably can't try him until he is

Done being our Tsar, I mean president. Then there is always impeachment but that will Not happen while the Republicons and Putin control our congress.

So, basically a grand jury could indicate Trump but that won't get rid of him.

[bdamomma]

28. K&R

nt

[EthanBlue]

29. I hope so

There is so much damage that has been done, in just one years time. I'm becoming very afraid that it's going to get worse, and even bloody in the future. The treasonous republicans that day in and day out allow this country to crumble need to be investigated and charged.

[H2O Man]

31. I agree 100%

Recommended.

[PatentlyDemocratic]

33. I would expect Mueller to wait until he can unleash a salvo

Perhaps Mueller wants to wait until he has overwhelming evidence to support a host of charges. So much that even a large percentage of Republicans would be unable to ignore. Conversely, if it trickles out, each would be easier to dismiss in isolation.

[m3n0z]

34. Speculation at this point until

Mueller acts.

Correcting if I'm wrong but would an indictment give mueller more power and resource to go after Trump?

[TNLib]

35. Maybe so It's looking more and more like Gates Flipped

nt

[Clarity2]

36. I want to believe

that Mueller must be compelled to indict. We’ve never been in a situation before where a president sells out his country to a foreign adversary. This is on a level of treason beyond compare. He just CANNOT get away scott free. No way.

If he cant be indicted as a sitting president, there is a way that has been proposed before, to seal an indictment, impeach then go forward with charges.

[ffr]

37. Where's the gas can, so I can add fuel to this story?

Cannot happen soon enough. And trust me, I think an indictment would be too kind.

[rockfordfile]

38. This is the time to do it. Trump is certainly the person.

[Mr.Bill]

39. There is legal precedent for a POTUS being arrested and fined

for violating the law.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/65855/cop-who-gave-ulysses-s-grant-speeding-ticket

[Kirk Lover]

42. Can someone please explain how nobody is above the law, yet if a Prez commits crimes he

can't be indicted, so he is kinda above the law. You have impeachment to get him to the law but that's not a given. Therefore, if a Prez is committing crimes he or she should be able to be indicted.

[LiberalFighter]

43. I don't see anything under Article II that exempts DT from prosecution.

It should make it easier to impeach him if he is convicted.

[LuckyCharms]

44. I keep reading opinions that a sitting president cannot be indicted?

That he would have to be impeached by both houses and removed first?

I'm sorry...I can't cite anything specifically in the constitution.

In any case, I think Mueller should indict regardless, if it is warranted.

[LiberalFighter]

45. Sometimes people are stick in the muds and can't get the mud out of their eyes.

All it says is

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The key part of that clause is all about removal from office.

[LuckyCharms]

46. OK, thanks. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

47. Just to be clear I didn't mean you.

[Kirk Lover]

49. Than what is all this 'you can't indict a sitting President' stuff? n/t

[triron]

48. kick for visibility

[rolypolychloe]

50. If the President shot someone in cold blood,

would he not be arrested and tried? I think indictment is the only option. If tried and convicted, he will still be President, but he will be a President in jail, preferably in solitary confinement. If Congress is fine with that, they can just leave things be. But if they want to fund the government, they will have to impeach him. Otherwise, I just can't see Ryan allowing an impeachment vote.

[missingm]

52. That should highlight how ridiculous their case against indictment is.

If you were to believe them, the President could waltz into the treasury and take out a few pallets of thousand dollar bills before boarding his jet to Russia, and no one could stop him.

He most certainly can be detained, charged, and found guilty without waiting on Congress to act. Impeachment is only about kicking him out of office, as it is everywhere else in government.