There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump

[brooklynite]

The Atlantic:

The latest revelations about President Trump have, once again, excited the interest of the public, leading to speculation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may have amassed sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice. Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller (which happened last June, but is only now being publicly reported) is, under this line of thinking, the final straw.

Color me deeply skeptical.

Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.

He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee. More to the point, if we know anything about Mueller, we think we know that he follows the rules—all of them. Even the ones that restrict him in ways he would prefer they not. And if he were to choose not to follow the rules, that, in turn, would be a reasonable justification for firing him. So … the special counsel will not indict the president.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. No, it will be a referral to congress which in the current configuration will do nothing given

the GOP are traitors, but IF people stop HOLDING THEIR NOSES long enough to vote in 2018, problem solved.

Oh, remember tons of POC wont be allowed to vote. So gotta make up for that.

Indicting Trump was never an option, really. But impeachment is, but you have to have patriots to do that. Democrats have to be in charge.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Trump won't be indicted while he is president, for the reasons

stated in the article. While there is a credible argument to be made that a sitting president can be indicted (Laurence Tribe is of that opinion), since Justice Department policy is to the contrary Mueller will stick to the established practice and not ask for an indictment. However, when Trump is no longer president (and that can't come soon enough), he's fair game.

[pbmus]

3. Mueller cant BUT Eric Schneiderman Will.....

v

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. Correct

...even though action on those charges might have to wait until he is out of office. It'd be a little like Agnew's legal issues with the State of Maryland.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. I think there will be intense pressure for Mueller to "fish or cut bait" by both sides of this

The Republicans want to know what they are dealing with in terms of campaign issues (assuming we actually have something resembling free and fair elections); the Dems want to focus their outrage.

One reasonably supposes that any indictments of Trump family members (Don Jr. , Jared) will be quickly quashed with pardons.

What evidence he passes to state prosecutors will be more interesting. The implication from a lot of the articles is that the worst charges may involve money laundering and may have nothing to do with Russian election meddling.

[flotsam]

6. The author has an agenda...N/T

[brooklynite]

7. Does that mean his facts, or his analysis of Mueller are wrong?

[flotsam]

8. Hoover and Heritage?

They are at least biased.

[beachbum bob]

9. a president can be indicted if criminal law is involved as being president is not a free pass to

be a criminal or do criminal actions. I dare say, it will be a grand jury that indite if mueller brings the evidence to them. Mueller doe not indite, a grand jury

[pnwmom]

10. So he names him as an unindicted conspirator, and indicts Donald Jr., Jared Kushner,

and multiple members of the GOP for corruption.

After the election the Democrats will vote to impeach, and the hearings they will hold will put enormous pressure on the Senate.

In any case, the NY AG CAN indict Trump on any laws he broke in NY, such as money-laundering.