Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,674 posts)
76. It was pretty obvious to me that he was reflecting what the OLC opinions said,
Wed May 29, 2019, 10:04 PM
May 2019

which can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

But what would have happened if Mueller had decided to ignore the OLC opinions?

The OLC opined that a sitting president can't be indicted because to do so would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, but what if Mueller had decided, "Fuck that guy and fuck the OLC memos, he obstructed justice and I'm gonna indict his ass." Of course, the opinion stated in the OLC memos is not settled law, although the argument and the research and reasoning behind it is rational and credible, not "stupid" or "bullshit," as some have described it. Others, notably Lawrence Tribe, have made very good arguments to the contrary, as here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

So what if Mueller had decided scholars like Tribe were right and the OLC was wrong? Let's say he takes the evidence to a grand jury, which returns a bill of indictment actually charging the president and not just calling him an unindicted co-conspirator, as a Watergate grand jury did with Nixon. What would have happened to that indictment?

Most likely, Bill Barr is what would have happened, since it's probable that decision would have been made toward the end of the investigation and after Barr was appointed (and if not Barr, unqualified toady Whitaker or easily-intimidated Rosenstein).

Barr or his predecessors, on Trump's instructions or on their own, would have ensured that the indictment would have never seen the light of day and Mueller would have been fired. That's what would have happened. It would be another Saturday Night Massacre but without any heroes like Richardson and Ruckelshaus. Even though the Special Counsel regulations require any denials of proposed prosecution to be reported, if Mueller was fired there would be no report.

Or, taking it another direction, let's say Barr didn't quash the indictment or fire Mueller but instead challenged the indictment on the basis of the OLC opinions. Now we have two parts of the same agency, the DoJ, fighting with each other in court - the Special Counsel vs. his boss, the Attorney General. How does that play out? And if it ever did get to the Supreme Court, how is a majority of this Court going to rule? Kroner to krugerrands, they'd go with the OLC opinions.

So then we'd be back where we started and Trump will have run out the clock. Arguments about the validity and strength of the OLC guidance and whether Mueller should have followed it are academic and fruitless because the ultimate result would have been the same: no indictment.


Thank you Effie. GemDigger May 2019 #1
I agree, I was 'confused' about his statement: That is unconstitutional. elleng May 2019 #2
I think the key word is it is their policy still_one May 2019 #5
Right, and too damn bad. elleng May 2019 #6
He is following the DOJ constraint. If the DOJ said that it was Constitutional to indict a sitting still_one May 2019 #3
To be fair... llmart May 2019 #4
Thanks elleng May 2019 #8
The sentence isn't in the least ambiguous EffieBlack May 2019 #11
I have to disagree. llmart May 2019 #15
Why would anyone assume Mueller suddenly injected an opinion in the middle of a paragraph EffieBlack May 2019 #25
You missed my point. llmart May 2019 #26
I listened to the audio again. It sounds like he said EffieBlack May 2019 #27
Actually, if he had said "that it's unconstitutional" there would be no argument Goodheart May 2019 #30
Actually... taken out of context, those words are misused. ehrnst May 2019 #59
You really show your lawyering chops in this comment. emmaverybo May 2019 #53
"Clearly and unequivocally"? LOL. Er, no. Goodheart May 2019 #7
Let me clarify: EffieBlack May 2019 #12
Let ME clarify: you're wrong. Goodheart May 2019 #16
INCORRECT. ehrnst May 2019 #63
You specifically said "he's a very poor grammarian". nt greyl May 2019 #41
Still wrong on your interpretation of his words. You are taking a phrase out of context. ehrnst May 2019 #77
Bless you. H2O Man May 2019 #9
Thank you! nt emmaverybo May 2019 #10
K&R BlueJac May 2019 #13
Mueller didn't indict the President because he couldn't under DoJ rules DeminPennswoods May 2019 #14
Which makes all this discussion of his personal view on unconstitutionality beside the point. Goodheart May 2019 #19
"Plain language" ehrnst May 2019 #64
True. But there are people here trying to obfuscate that point EffieBlack May 2019 #20
Post removed Post removed May 2019 #23
ppl sincerely pissed off at Mueller is doing trumps dirty work? many long time members. you Kurt V. May 2019 #65
You truly believe that Mueller was "doing Trump's dirty work" ehrnst May 2019 #66
no i think Mueller was acting in the the constraints he was given. my issue is with effie implying Kurt V. May 2019 #67
I think that focusing our rage at allies doesn't help our goals. ehrnst May 2019 #69
Absolutely!!! we're allies here. Let's start right there. Kurt V. May 2019 #70
.. ehrnst May 2019 #72
Yes, I certainly do believe that EffieBlack May 2019 #74
Once Again Effie Me. May 2019 #17
If it was unconstitutional that would make the POTUS above the law and, therefore, a king. Vinca May 2019 #18
Correct. Goodheart May 2019 #21
Correct. Mueller is constrained by what they interpret as unconstitutional. ehrnst May 2019 #78
It is long standing DOJ policy BECAUSE it's in the Constitution. Scoopster May 2019 #22
The Constitution doesn't say that. Goodheart May 2019 #24
The DOJ subscribes to that interpretation. ehrnst May 2019 #61
So what? jberryhill May 2019 #28
Exactly! EffieBlack May 2019 #29
"I suspect the purpose..." jberryhill May 2019 #31
Nobody here has said nor insinuated that it makes a difference. Goodheart May 2019 #32
You apparently haven't seen the several OPs who seem to think t makes a difference. EffieBlack May 2019 #35
You're missing a handful of OPs that in fact, say just that. LanternWaste May 2019 #37
Including your posts? ehrnst May 2019 #62
Thanks. Heard him say it and instantly knew it would be mischaracterized by the Atticus May 2019 #33
DU is being swarmed today Hekate May 2019 #34
Yup EffieBlack May 2019 #36
The base of my skull is telling me my blood pressure's rising.I need to take a break from the idiocy Hekate May 2019 #38
Go shopping EffieBlack May 2019 #39
Sure is mcar May 2019 #68
who said that? i figured everyone knew that it was doj policy. Kurt V. May 2019 #40
+1, the more this goes on the more it looks like shit uponit7771 May 2019 #51
Plenty of people said it StarfishSaver May 2019 #54
Members of a political site should be more informed than that but ppl are worked up. so it goes Kurt V. May 2019 #58
He just should have kept to his original report being it was policy & kept the unconstitutional yaesu May 2019 #42
Mueller is not a policy maker or breaker. Some POTUS candidates pledge to reverse that OLC policy. Marcuse May 2019 #43
There's almost zero chance of indictment while he's in office. Honeycombe8 May 2019 #44
The US House has the SOLE RIGHT via the US Constitution.... LovingA2andMI May 2019 #46
My post was about indictment, as so many keep insisting the Dems pursue. Honeycombe8 May 2019 #52
Congress has no power to indict anyone StarfishSaver May 2019 #49
I see. I thought Congress could. But doesn't make much difference, with the current SCT.nt Honeycombe8 May 2019 #50
I agree with your interpretation. That whole paragraph is about the Department's policy, pnwmom May 2019 #45
Tricky Dick said. gilligan May 2019 #47
My impression of the entire statement Mr.Bill May 2019 #48
More to me like he was getting something on the record. live love laugh May 2019 #57
This DOJ policy needs to be changed. Lonestarblue May 2019 #55
Exactly. Having a policy that puts the president above the law is what's unconstitutional AndJusticeForSome May 2019 #56
Well, there is the 25th amendment which is quicker than impeachment ehrnst May 2019 #60
People are seeing what they want to see. TwilightZone May 2019 #71
Thanks for trying to smarten up DU overall. Hortensis May 2019 #73
You nailed it, Effie! StarfishSaver May 2019 #75
It was pretty obvious to me that he was reflecting what the OLC opinions said, The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Don't buy the lie that Mu...»Reply #76