Why did Starr feel he could ignore OLC's 1973 opinion? Because the law under which he was appointed allowed him to do just about anything. His title was "independent counsel," and for all intents and purposes he was the Department of Justice with regard to Clinton. 5/
-
-
While some have suggested that Mueller would make an "impeachment referral" to Congress if he finds evidence of impeachable acts, that was part of the now-expired independent counsel statute and is no longer an option for Mueller. 16/
Show this thread -
Other than judicial filings and trial proceedings, Mueller's work can reach Congress only with Rosenstein's blessing -- unless Congress subpoenas Mueller's report, which isn't likely to happen as long as the GOP controls Congress. 17/
Show this thread -
(It's also possible that Congress might subpoena grand jury evidence, as suggested here by
@rgoodlaw and@alexgwhiting.) 18/https://www.justsecurity.org/44191/mueller-grand-jury-report-public-hand-congress/ …Show this thread -
Bottom line: Trump won't be indicted, this is all about impeachment, the upcoming midterm elections are crucial, Rosenstein remains a very important guy, and I’m holding my nose and hoping that Sessions stays where he is. 19/end
Show this thread -
P.S. I just published a piece in WaPo based upon this thread.

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/958437941319208961 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What you say is true, but the bigger influence on Mueller is the same one that prevented Starr from indicting Clinton. Our system doesn't contemplate a single prosecutor/court/jury effectively deciding to remove the president.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, he'd whitewash and memory hole it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.