Thursday marks the one year anniversary for the appointment of the special counsel Robert Mueller and his never ending ‘all things Russia’ investigation.
On Wednesday, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s most recent attorney to join his legal team, announced that Mueller would not seek to indict the President.
It should have come as no surprise to anyone however, because pursuant to a 1973 U.S. Department of Justice decision, a sitting President can not be indicted.
The decision was reaffirmed by the DOJ in a 2000 DOJ memo which concludes:
“In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal
prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus
violate the constitutional separation of powers.
No court has addressed this question
directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing vaUdity of
our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken
and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally
immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”
Does this mean that Trump is in the clear and Mueller’s ever-expanding investigation is over?
While the DOJ concludes that a sitting President can not be indicted, it doesn’t preclude a former President from being indicted once he leaves office.
Clearly, this is another good reason why Trump’s legal team should prevent Trump from ever sitting down with Mueller under any circumstances.
If subpoenaed by Mueller, Trump should be advised to plead the Fifth Amendment because while Giuliani felt comfortable saying, “This case is essentially over. They’re just in denial,” after the announcement that Mueller would not seek an indictment against Trump, Mueller clearly isn’t finished.
On Wednesday, it was announced that Mueller issued more subpoenas.
Mueller issued two subpoenas on Jason Sullivan, a social media specialist, who worked as Roger Stone’s chief strategist on the Trump campaign.
Reports indicates that the subpoenas appear to show that Mueller is partly focusing on Stone and any communications with WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange he may have had.
It seems that Mueller may be trying to prove that Stone knew in advance about WikiLeaks intent to publish hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and is pursuing claims that Stone made contradictory statements when he said he had no knowledge of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Stone told reporters last year, “I am aware of no evidence whatsoever of collusion by the Russian state or anyone in the Trump campaign.”
Could it be that Mueller just doesn’t like the fact that Assange may have published information that was negative about the Democrats and wants to prove some type of collusion between Stone, Assange and Russia?
Can you say “grasping for straws?”
It appears that Mueller will continue to “kick the ‘Russia’ can” down the political road for as long as possible unless someone puts an end to his “never ending” witch hunt.
© 2018, admin. The Logo and Photos (by Susan Knowles) are protected by U.S. Copyright Laws, and are not to be downloaded or reproduced in any way without the written permission of Susan J. Knowles. Copyright 2014 Susan J. Knowles All Rights Reserved.