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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
but, reading your tweets, it's credible that M did tell G that? ie it really did happen
-
I have no reason not to believe that something along the lines of what is described by Giuliani in the CNN and Fox reporting is accurate.
-
Except it’s Rudy.
-
Read what I wrote. I am accounting for that fact and was responding to his question.
-
Yes. I saw but I needed to say it again because Rudy.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
So by saying this is Giuliani inadvertently admitting that Trump would be indicted but is in the clear because 'Mueller won't or can't'?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What does Peter Carr do all day?
-
Someone should ask him but I get the feeling he's not going to answer
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like to think of the Special Counsel's Office spokesperson diligently attending work each day, logging into their computer and emails, then clocking up insane Tetris scores and sniping eBay auctions from 9-5 as they watch the 'no comment' auto responses fly from their outbox.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Now the real question is once Trumpis out of office can they bring charges if anything is found? Most assumed a sitting pres cant be charged.....yet I dont believe Ruddy worth a

-
If Trump is out of office he certainly can be, as Nixon would have been if not pardoned. The real question for me is whether a state could prosecute him. What if NY indicted Trump or his company?
-
I think they have to look at each crime for possible statute of limitations older crimes may have time limits for filing charges ect.
-
I don't think there is a statute of limitations on treason.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.