So, Rudy Giuliani told Fox News and CNN that Robert Mueller said his office will, per Fox News, "abide by DOJ guidelines" that assert a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is not surprising; it is mainly notable if Mueller told Giuliani so.
-
-
And the Fox News tweet:https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/996866827627257859 …
Show this thread -
The Special Counsel's Office, of course, is not going to confirm this. (I've asked.) And Giuliani has a track record here that makes it less than 100% clear what exactly Mueller said or agreed to in this situation.
Show this thread -
Assuming it is true (or roughly true): Based on what we know, it seems most likely to me that Mueller would tell Giuliani this as part of an effort to get Trump (and his lawyers) to agree to Trump's interview.
Show this thread -
The Special Counsel's Office spokesperson declined to comment.
Show this thread -
tl;dr: It has never seemed likely that by-the-book Mueller would seek to go outside of the historical decisions of DOJ on this question. That's the biggest reason why it's believable that SCO reached this conclusion.
Show this thread -
As to what exactly Mueller told Giuliani, who knows — and I've explained why I think it most likely it would have been discussed.
Show this thread -
None of this, note, has anything to do with the focus, findings, or direction of Mueller's investigation. This solely has to do with what they believe they can do with the conclusion of that investigation. For the president, it's a report to Congress.
Show this thread -
OK. That's all I've got on this. I get that lots of you just want to say that Rudy's lying. My point is: It's so obviously where Mueller was likely to end up that it's believable. If I talk to Giuliani, I'll ask him more — but Mueller's office isn't talking.
Show this thread -
[One
#lawdork note to append to this thread: I am not, by this, stating my view on whether I think DOJ’s longstanding position is legally correct—I think the questions raised are fair—but rather stating that it would surprise me to see Mueller be the the one to try to change it.]Show this thread -
Here's the 2000 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memo on the topic: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf …pic.twitter.com/D1ODb5eCcq
Show this thread -
The opinion was written by Randolph Moss, a former clerk to Justice Stevens who was nominated to a federal judgeship by Obama: He's now Judge Moss and he sits on the District Court in DC.pic.twitter.com/gJeCDqJCqe
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We have never been in this position before. If a president was ever going to get indicted, it's going be Trump. He doesn't deserve leniency.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which lies constantly
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting that we've moved from "no collusion" to "can't indict"
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.