THREAD. WHAT TO MAKE OF GIULIANI'S CLAIM THAT MUELLER SAID HE CAN'T INDICT TRUMP.
1. Don't forget the context: it's pretty incredible that we are having a conversation involving law enforcement officials about whether Trump can be indicted. That's astounding.
1. Don't forget the context: it's pretty incredible that we are having a conversation involving law enforcement officials about whether Trump can be indicted. That's astounding.
2. And don’t forget the source: Giuliani. He’s not exactly a stickler for details.
3. Context may really matter here. Why did Mueller say this? Is it because Trump’s lawyers said they were thinking of taking 5th Am priv against self incrimination, and Mueller said there can be no "incrimination"?
4. If so, the DOJ policy against indictment of a sitting President may actually hurt Trump, and be an argument against his ability to stay silent. It might be a way to ferret out truth.
5. The reporting is clearly incomplete. The Special Counsel regs, which I drafted, do NOT say DOJ policy must always be followed. They say that a Special Counsel can ask Acting AG (Rod Rosenstein) for permission to depart from DOJ policy and rules.
6. If Mueller has the goods on Trump, as I’ve said before, I think he will ask Acting AG to indict. The regs put a thumb on the scale in favor of Mueller doing so. If Rosenstein says no, it triggers a report to Congress-both majority and minority parties.
7. Otherwise, there is not necessarily such a report about these matters. The Special Counsel regulations dispensed with the "final report" requirement in the Independent Counsel Act. Reports are permissible, but not mandatory (but they are when Special Counsel overruled).
8. So I do not see this story as good for President Trump, in any way. END
