If we're going to talk about the OLC memo on indicting a president, let's read the memo

[StarfishSaver]

From the Introduction:

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions

October 16, 2000

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew. In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.

In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time. In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part II, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.

{citations omitted}

Read the full memo here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[msongs]

1. what the DOJ thinks is irrelevant. Only the constitution is relevant. nt

[StarfishSaver]

2. It's certainly relevant if they're the ones making the decision whether to indict or not

[rockfordfile]

5. Then it's corrupted. The people who are supporting that are un-American

[hlthe2b]

3. Relies heavily on '73 highly questionable analysis "concocted" to deal with both Nixon & Agnew

--with Nixon impeachment looming and with prosecutors fearful that a Vice President known to have committed ongoing fraud and corruption could assume the Presidency. In questioning whether or not they could charge a sitting VP, they likewise had to address the issue for the Presidency. The fact of this poorly researched and ad hoc analysis was addressed in some wonderful interviews with the original Spiro Agnew prosecutors on Rachel Maddow's "Bagman" podcast. (highly recommend)

Similarly, the former attorney for Spiro Agnew has addressed this in a recent Time Magazine article:

http://time.com/5574520/mueller-report-trump-indictment-obstruction-justice/

Robert Mueller Was Wrong. President Trump Can Be Indicted

--snip--
But here’s the thing: There is not a syllable in the text of the Constitution that supports the conclusion reached by either the Nixon-appointed OLC lawyer that Nixon was immune or the Clinton-appointed OLC lawyer that Clinton was immune. The foundation of Mueller’s reluctance to indict is rotten to the core.

As I have written previously, both of the OLC opinions upon which Mueller relied have been described by scholars as “shaky” and “political.” Indeed, recent historical discoveries (of which Mueller might not even be aware) make them even weaker.

To rehash what happened:

The OLC rendered the first such opinion in 1973. On its face, it is dubious. It derived from the Department’s criminal investigation of Vice President Spiro Agnew. I was a member of Agnew’s legal team, and we argued the issue directly with Attorney General Elliot Richardson. We were hardly objective historians. We were advocates for our client, and we advanced the theory that an incumbent Vice President was immune from criminal prosecution. One of the bases of our argument was that inasmuch as some scholars opined the Article II President was immune, the Article II Vice President must be immune as well.

Richardson sent the question to the OLC and asked for an objective opinion. What he got, instead, was a politically dishonest one. To use one of President Trump’s preferred terms, the OLC response was “rigged.”

Please go read the entire piece at the link above. It is worth it

[rockfordfile]

6. This tells me about more about Mueller and how untrustworthy he is as a American

[Thomas Hurt]

4. that is weak...what do they think the line of succesion is for but to maintain the executive branch.