Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won't Indict President: Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's attorney and longtime associate, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has notified Trump's legal team that he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.

"All they get to do is write a report," said Giuliani.

Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.  -Fox News

Federal prosecutors are barred from indicting a sitting president, as laid out in a Justice Department memo. Giuliani says that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance. 

Meanwhile, the special counsel's office and Trump's legal team continue to hash out the conditions under which the President will communicate with investigators. 

Giuliani joined Trump's legal team last month and has repeatedly warned that an in-person interview of the president by the special counsel's team would constitute a "perjury trap." Complicating matters, Trump himself has refused to rule out agreeing to an interview with Mueller.

In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity earlier this month, Giuliani said that the Mueller team had ruled out allowing the Trump team to submit written answers to the special counsel's questions.

Giuliani said last week that the president's legal team would oppose any subpoena unless they could "reach agreement on the ground rules." He argued that Trump could invoke executive privilege, and the team would point to Justice Department opinions in fighting a subpoena and "on both law and the facts, we would have the strongest case you could imagine."-Fox News

Giuliani has pointed to the fact that the Trump team has handed over 1.2 million documents to Mueller as evidence of cooperation with the probe - which marks its one-year anniversary on Thursday

So far, Mueller's probe has resulted in the resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the arrests of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and the indictment of 13 Russian nationals on allegations of hacking the 2016 election - along with the raid of Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein - who is officially in charge of the Russia investigation - admitted that Trump can't be indicted.

"The Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted," Rosenstein said. "There's been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don't have anything more to say about it."

In a series of memorandums, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that indicting a sitting president would violate the Constitution by undermining his ability to do his job. Those memos, too, though, said the answer was a matter of structure and inference.

The Justice Department’s regulations require Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, to follow the department’s “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies.” If the memos bind Mr. Mueller, it would seem he could not indict Mr. Trump, no matter what he uncovered.-NYT

No American court has ever addressed the matter, however elements of the issue were argued before the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon in a 1974 case in which Richard Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena from special counsel Lee Jaworski during the Watergate investigation, however the issue of indictment was not ruled on. 

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."

Comments

Kafir Goyim King of Ruperts Land Wed, 05/16/2018 - 18:54 Permalink

This is spin.  There was never supposed to be an indictment, which is impossible on a sitting president, as Giuliani (and every 6th grader) knows.  What will happen is that Mueller will "refer it to congress" after the Marxists gain seats in November.

There is no threshold that Mueller must meet before referring something to congress.  It's all up to him.  Once it's been referred to congress, they can vote to impeach.  Again, there is no threshold necessary for impeachment.  It's just a vote.  It's basically a congressional (un)popularity contest.  If you lose it, you're impeached, no matter what evidence of impropriety there may or may not be.

Giuliani is spinning this, but it's a non-story.

In reply to by King of Ruperts Land

nmewn Kafir Goyim Wed, 05/16/2018 - 20:07 Permalink

The Marxists will not gain seats in November, the Blue Wave was just another Alinsky figment of the imagination.

The pendulum always swings and this pendulum has a long way to swing to the right before coming back to center. It's not that I didn't try to warn my prog nemesis' either, they just wouldn't listen.

Now, they will have judges for decades (or the rest of their lives) nominated and confirmed, under Trump, and they needn't come crying to me.

Toldja so dumbasses.

In reply to by Kafir Goyim

11b40 Kafir Goyim Wed, 05/16/2018 - 20:20 Permalink

Even IF, and it is a very big IF, the Donkeys take control of one, or both, Houses of Congress, and brought him up on charges for impeachment, they would still need a 2/3's majority to remove him from office.

Short of finding something really criminal against him, there is no way the Reds will go along with an impeachment....not if they ever wanted to gain the 1/3 or more of the Party that is his base.  That would keep them out of controlling anything for a long time, as his base would go nuts.

 

Trump's numbers are actually increasing, while the Dems are going down.  They have a really lousy slate of top tier candidates, and the public is waking up to a lot of their BS, like sanctuary cities and the whole immigration shit-show for example.

 

......and we have not even gotten to the Awan/Wasserman-Shultz/Congressional offices/ Pakistani Spy Scandal.........yet  ;-)

In reply to by Kafir Goyim

el buitre blindfaith Wed, 05/16/2018 - 20:35 Permalink

I learned in 8th grade civics class that no prosecutor can indict a sitting president, only the House can impeach him (with a simple majority of those present) and the Senate convict him with a 2/3 vote.  Mueller must have dozed through 8th grade civics class.  Douchebag.  But I guess that the Constitution is just too vague about this.  Just like the statement "that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is way too vague.  While the average high school student would know exactly what it means, they get progressively stupider as they go through law school.  But then again,  I guess it depends on what is is.  Shakespeare has it right when he wrote, "First we hang all the lawyers."  And IMO that goes for Mr 9/11 inside job collaborator as well.

In reply to by blindfaith

NoDebt ???ö? Wed, 05/16/2018 - 18:53 Permalink

First off, I think almost everyone on ZH has known from the start that a sitting president can't be indicted in a court of law (while president) but can only be impeached. 

Secondly, the purpose of this investigation was never to "indict" Trump, it was to provide grounds for the Ds to impeach him, deny Trump the capacity to govern by distraction and running him out of time and resources, and to do everything possible to smear and denigrate him in an attempt to help the Ds win back the house & senate in 2018.  In short, it was designed to nullify his presidency.

I can only imagine, judging by this article, it will come as quite a shock to some people that there is NO CHANCE that the Senate would ever CONVICT Trump on impeachment charges even if the house ever voted to do so.

This whole strategy by the Ds and the Deep State to take down Trump in this manner appears to be failing at this point except insofar as it is succeeding in simultaneously enraging me and boring me to tears.

 

In reply to by ???ö?

nmewn NoDebt Wed, 05/16/2018 - 19:57 Permalink

"This whole strategy by the Ds and the Deep State to take down Trump in this manner appears to be failing at this point except insofar as it is succeeding in simultaneously enraging me and boring me to tears."

Agree with all except the last with the obligatory "thats not my downie".

The nation needed to know what these leftwing psychopaths were attempting to do and have done in the past on a regular basis (the IRS being their go-to-tool usually) so that they never regain the levers of "officialdom" again. 

That is the point in not letting this get boring...they used the levers of a superpower nation-state in an attempt to overturn a domestic, legal election. That should make everyone shudder (left/right or in the middle) at those possibilities. 

And it's NOT over.

In reply to by NoDebt

nmewn el buitre Wed, 05/16/2018 - 21:00 Permalink

As for myself, I never bought into that divide & conquer BS that the enemies of America try to promote, we're actually much smarter than the euro-weenies give us credit for or Trump would have never been elected, Hillary was a known-known in that in that regard...divide & conquer.

Some might even say we are, exceptional ;-)

In reply to by el buitre

Oldguy05 nmewn Wed, 05/16/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

Divide and conquer has been tried.  BLM/KKK. White/Black/Latino/Asian. Left/Right. Conservative/Socialist/Communist. Christian/Jewish/Muslim. Wealthy/Poor. Etc. Their only problem is that people are seeing through the BS and it's not working as well nowadays. Obama was like the U.S. Lawrence of Arabia.

In reply to by nmewn

TBT or not TBT Leakanthrophy Wed, 05/16/2018 - 18:40 Permalink

It’s a continuing coverup for for a lot illegality and corruption committed by deep staters on behalf of the Obama regime and the Clinton corruption machine.   Mueller and Comey are among the guilty.     Brennan created a deep state machine for Obama to thwart Trump and ensure a third term of his oh so reversible executive actions and wicked appointees doing their damage.  

In reply to by Leakanthrophy

WTFUD nmewn Wed, 05/16/2018 - 20:10 Permalink

Trump has ZERO as far as we can see, people he can TRUST. It was Mitt Romney's bitch pick Nimrata Randhawa Haley for UN & Robert Gates- Condoleeza Chucky Rice put forward Tillerson of Exxon.

ALL OF THE ABOVE are ' War Hawks '

Now Bolton, Pompeo

Friendship & Trust are neither here, nor there, Keep Your Enemies Closer . . . . IT'S BUSINESS, which brings me to my last point -

The Only one constant is Wilbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur Ross, Rothschild's lieutenant.

Everything else is a Useful Distraction - There ain't gonna be Any Swamp Draining.

 

In reply to by nmewn

WhosJohnGalt Cognitive Dissonance Wed, 05/16/2018 - 18:36 Permalink

Sounds like a losing strategy to me, and I think they know it. Hence, the sudden "we're just about done here" news leaking out.

Who in their right mind isn't sick and tired of hearing about the totally fabricated, fake fucking "it was the Russians!!" narrative.  I mean seriously?

Even wrapping it up now is cutting it too close to the mid-terms IMO.  People who support this president are pretty fucking pissed about the "resistance" movement.  It's nothing but butthurt bullshit from the left who can't handle the 2016 loss like adults.

Hopefully the mid-terms sock it to them again. Bitches!

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

Canadian Dirtlump BabaLooey Wed, 05/16/2018 - 18:33 Permalink

Lately it looks like HITLERY is wearing the body equivalent of a house arrest ankle bracelet so maybe she's on borrowed time already. Alternatively, given it is probably a darth vader stye life support system, if we're fortunate, mephisto will come and collect since justice on this ethereal plane seems wanting when it comes to that festering demonic obese skeksi.

In reply to by BabaLooey