Mueller Won’t Indict Trump if He Finds Wrongdoing, Giuliani Says
WASHINGTON — The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, will not indict President Trump if he finds wrongdoing in his investigation of Trump campaign links to Russia, according to the president’s lawyers. They said Wednesday that Mr. Mueller’s investigators told them that he would adhere to the Justice Department’s view that the Constitution bars prosecuting sitting presidents.
The disclosure provides the greatest clarity to date about how Mr. Mueller, who is also investigating whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the inquiry itself, may proceed. If he concludes that he has evidence that the president broke the law, experts say, he now has only two main options while Mr. Trump remains in office: He could write a report about the president’s conduct that Congress might use as part of any impeachment proceedings, or he could deem the president as an unindicted co-conspirator in court documents.
Mr. Mueller’s stance could serve as political relief for Mr. Trump, whose presidency has been under the cloud of the investigation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly called it a “witch hunt.” A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a question about how the president reacted to Mr. Mueller’s viewpoint on indictment.
Advertisement
On Thursday morning, the president noted the anniversary of the special counsel investigation.
“Congratulations America, we are now into the second year of the greatest Witch Hunt in American History,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Twitter post.
But the question of whether the president can be indicted is unsettled. Many legal experts and current and former Justice Department officials believed that Mr. Mueller would follow the conclusions of Justice Department lawyers, who argued during both the Nixon and Clinton administrations that an indictment would interfere with the president’s constitutional responsibilities and powers to run the executive branch.
Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, said the special counsel’s office displayed uncertainty about whether Mr. Trump could be indicted. “When I met with Mueller’s team, they seemed to be in a little bit of confusion about whether they could indict,” Mr. Giuliani said. “We said, ‘It’s pretty clear that you have to follow D.O.J. policy.’”
You have 3 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The TimesMr. Giuliani said that one member of Mr. Mueller’s office acknowledged that the president could not be indicted. Two or three days later, Mr. Giuliani said, Mr. Mueller’s office called another of the president’s lawyers, Jay Sekulow, to say that prosecutors would adhere to the Justice Department view.
“They can’t indict,” Mr. Giuliani said. “They can’t indict. Because if they did, it would be dismissed quickly. There’s no precedent for a president being indicted.”
It is not clear why Mr. Mueller has decided that he will not seek Mr. Trump’s indictment. A spokesman for the special counsel declined to offer clarity about the assertions of Mr. Giuliani, who since being hired last month by Mr. Trump has repeatedly made statements that were later clarified. In his most notable misstep, he mischaracterized how payments were made by Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to a pornographic film actress who has said she had sex with Mr. Trump. The president has denied her accusation.
Advertisement
Mr. Mueller’s apparent willingness to follow the department’s view that sitting presidents may not be indicted may have a direct effect on the most pressing decision facing Mr. Trump about the investigation: whether to sit for an interview with investigators. For months, Mr. Trump’s lawyers and Mr. Mueller have been negotiating the terms of an interview.
Several current and former members of Mr. Trump’s legal team have expressed their belief that if Mr. Trump has no criminal exposure, then he has no reason for him to agree to be interviewed.
“Sitting for an interview is just riskier and could create more exposure, so why risk it if there is no criminal issue?” said John Dowd, who until March was Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer for the special counsel inquiry. “The president is extremely busy and it will take — given the 49 questions — months to prepare him, and they’re not worthy of the distraction.”
“The special counsel’s office has the answers,” he added, referring to the reams of documents the White House has handed over, “and if they want more, they can ask for them from the president’s counsel. He’s too busy a guy.”
But the president himself has shown eagerness to be questioned. Mr. Dowd quit over their opposing views on the matter.
If Mr. Trump refuses to be interviewed, Mr. Mueller could subpoena him to answer questions in front of a grand jury. Mr. Giuliani said that if Mr. Trump cannot be indicted, he does not believe Mr. Mueller can subpoena him. “We would say they can’t,” Mr. Giuliani said. Mr. Trump’s lawyers believe that the only topic on which Mr. Mueller could seek to subpoena the president would be for information he personally had about obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller, who was appointed a year ago Thursday, does not appear to have gone that far in his views. But the fact that he has decided he will not indict the president before he has finished investigating the case strongly suggests that his reason has to do with the rules, apart from what the evidence turns up.
Advertisement
While nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, and no court has ever ruled that they are temporarily immune, lawyers with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel have twice concluded — once during the Nixon administration, and again during the Clinton administration — that the Constitution bars prosecuting presidents.
Both the stigma of being charged with a crime and the burden of a trial — including a likely need to be in the courtroom at times — would undermine the president’s abilities to carry out his duties, preventing the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” as Robert G. Dixon Jr., then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in September 1973.
That theory — crafted by lawyers appointed by Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton — has been contested by some scholars. In particular, lawyers working for the special prosecutor in the Watergate case, Leon Jaworski, and the independent counsel in the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, Kenneth Starr, maintained that the Justice Department’s interpretation was wrong and that a president could be indicted while in office.
Those who think a president can be indicted have cited a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that held that a lawsuit against Mr. Clinton could proceed while he was in office, notwithstanding the burdens that it imposed upon him. They have also pointed to the 25th Amendment, which allows a president who is disabled from performing his duties be temporarily replaced by the vice president.
But Mr. Mueller appears to have far less latitude than either of those predecessors in how he chooses to interpret the law. The regulations that Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, cited when appointing Mr. Mueller say that he must obey the Justice Department’s “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies,” and Office of Legal Counsel interpretations of the law are generally binding on the department.
Moreover, neither Mr. Jaworski nor Mr. Starr ultimately tried to indict Mr. Nixon or Mr. Clinton. Instead, as a prudential matter, they let Congress decide, through impeachment proceedings, whether to remove those presidents from office on the basis of the evidence they had helped to gather.
As for the possibility of listing Mr. Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in court documents, Justice Department rules strongly discourage identifying people as uncharged wrongdoers “in the absence of some significant justification.” The rules, listed in the United States attorneys’ manual, do not explain what would make it necessary, but require higher-level approval to do so.
Because of those legal and those historical precedents, then, many legal analysts have assumed that even if Mr. Mueller uncovered sufficient evidence to indict Mr. Trump, he — with Mr. Rosenstein, who oversees his decisions — would most likely seek to refer the matter to Congress rather than seeking the president’s indictment, at least while he remains in office.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.
Advertisement
2668 Comments
+ + ++ +- All 2668
+
+- Readers’ Picks 1688
+
+- NYT Picks 37
+
+
+Steven De Salvo
+ + +Pasadena CA + +8 hours ago +Texas has virtually no gun laws. It's open carry. WHERE WAS THE "GOOD GUY" WITH A GUN? When am I going to start seeing positive results in these pro-gun states? Folks, I am not giving up on these pro-gun laws. I am going to wait and see.
+ + + + + + +Soxared, '04, '07, '13
+ + +Boston + +8 hours ago +Donald Trump’s grand plan to “arm teachers” is working, isn’t it?
+ + + + + + +Later today, he’ll tell the world, “I woulda gone in and disarmed the shooter.”
If a shooter wants to kill kids and/or teachers at a school, it’s going to happen. Until we decide that the Second Amendment is nothing less than a roulette wheel that’s spinning until the next executions by gunplay.
avrds
+ + +montana + +8 hours ago +How much more mass murder of our young people are you willing to accept in the name of your so-called freedom, America?
+ + + + + + +How many more deaths are you willing to accept before saying enough is enough? These young people are our future and for some inexplicable reason our so-called leaders will not act to protect them.
How many more?
Dan Stackhouse
+ + +NYC + +8 hours ago +As usual, this is terrible, and "thoughts and prayers" will do nothing to stop it. Since Republicans control all three branches of federal government, nothing is going to stop it at all, as they will not allow gun control to be improved. Mental health treatment being made more available would also prevent some of this, but they won't allow that either because it counts as health care, which they despise.
+ + + + + + +So, just like the last school shooting, and just like the next one in a week or two, this is absolutely awful and will not change at all until Republicans are out of power. If you don't like the thought of innocent kids being gunned down, vote against Republicans forever and always.
Bernie
+ + +Philadelphia + +8 hours ago +Now is not the right time to talk about gun control. We have to get through the "thoughts and prayers" stage first, next comes the "mental health" phase. Only after that...oh well by that time we will all have forgotten about the incident, just like we have done with all the other gun massacres. Heads back down in the sand, folks.
+ + + + + + +G
+ + +Green + +8 hours ago +I understand gun nut lobbyists work both sides of the fence,
+ + + + + + +But only one American political party has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they prefer money for their personal vacations, private schooling for their own children, and leaving behind a mighty and impressive inheritance, than they do for the mourners of victims of gun violence they'll never have to look in the eye.
The Democrats are the only chance at sensible gun laws in this country. Give them the Senate and the house in 2018, and pray your family in untouched by assault rifles until then.
Joe M.
+ + +Miami + +8 hours ago +You think "Thoughts and Prayers" will help?
+ + + + + + +They might, if you're praying for better gun control.
Jay Orchard
+ + +Miami Beach + +8 hours ago +My thoughts and prayers go out to the Parkland, Florida students who have had to learn the very hard way that their national campaign for action on gun violence unfortunately has not prevented further school shooting tragedies from occurring. Perhaps in light of the latest horror, Texas will reconsider its lax gun laws. Doubtful.
+ + + + + + +WL
+ + +Singapore + +8 hours ago +How many times can your heart be broken again and again before you get tired of self-inflicted heartbreak, America?
+ + + + + + +The rest of the world weeps and waits.
Ami
+ + +Portland, Oregon + +8 hours ago +The only way we're going to stop this madness is if we hold Congress accountable for doing nothing. Right now our politicians are so afraid of the NRA that they refuse to even have a conversation with law enforcement about what can be done to protect us from gun violence while still respecting responsible gun owners rights under the 2nd amendment. We have to make it clear that there will be consequences for continuing to do nothing more than offering thoughts and prayers.
+ + + + + + +I'm so very sorry that kids today don't know what it's like to grow up without the threat of school shootings hanging over their heads. School is hard enough without having to worry about being shot. The supposed adults have failed our young people.
Lissa
+ + +Virginia + +8 hours ago +I guess this is the tacit bargain American's have made: We are willing to sacrifice our young people for the sake of a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment.
+ + + + + + +We will, however, regulate the possibility of human life through increasingly narrow options for abortion.
Crude, but I guess we will be forced to have babies only to see them killed at school, or by police, or...
MJ
+ + +Minneapolis + +8 hours ago +On the website of my local television station, they're reporting the school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, an active shooter in a Twin Cities suburb, a man arrested for firing weapon in a Trump Miami golf club, and that police are trying to track the owner of a loaded handgun found by a 7-year-old who subsequently shot himself in the head and died - in the suburb next to mine.
+ + + + + + +This world brought to you by American politicians and irresponsible gun owners. Maybe we should be looking at their mental health.
Opinioned!
+ + +NYC + +8 hours ago +So.
+ + + + + + +Where is the good guy with a gun who’s supposed to stop this tragedy?
Oh right, that was just a marketing ploy.
Remember, an American who believes in the 2nd amendment can carry a gun to any school but not in the White House, the Houses of the Senate and Congress, and any branch of the Judiciary.
Why? Because guns kill. Politicians know this. But they would rather sacrifice schoolchildren than their wallets flushed with donations (read: bribes) from the gun industry.
So much winning, folks! So much winning.
CEC
+ + +Pacific Northwest + +7 hours ago +Okay gun people, in preparation for your inevitable circling of the wagons around Americans' right to bear arms in response to this latest mass shooting, let's just get this said right out front: Nobody's talking about eliminating the second amendment. Please, dear God, for once try to understand that the rest of us just want some sane laws to be enacted so these mass killings become rare instead of commonplace. When it's our turn for a mentally deranged person in our town to lash out at humanity, we just want it to be nearly impossible for that person to have access to guns at all. And if they do manage to get a gun, we want strictly enforced laws to make it impossible for that deranged person to acquire the means to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The vast majority of your fellow Americans don't think that's too much to ask of our spineless lawmakers.
+ + + + + + +kay
+ + +new york + +7 hours ago +Absolutely tragic. These are becoming weekly events. We need serious gun containment in this country or kids will continue to be murdered at will. Raise the age and requirements for being a gun owner already! The NRA talking points sound comedic at this point. Don't vote for anyone taking NRA money because they will do nothing to change the status quo.
+ + + +Phyllis Melone
+ + +St. Helena, CA + +7 hours ago +My daughter lives in the Houston area and must be constantly alert to her surroundings at the shops, supermarket, pharmacy, concert venues and all school functions. TX has no gun laws and hidden carry exists through-out the state in schools as everywhere else. Both Senators and all Representatives from TX should be required to visit the sites and all funerals of victims of this wild west deadly attitude they harbor. It isn't enough to send prayers and thoughts which have no affect on them. Texans, wake up to your situation and vote these rascals out!
+ + + + + + +Upstate New York
+ + +NY + +7 hours ago +The good guy with the gun was shot. This just proofs the point that in a stressful situation, with the sympathetic nervous system in overdrive and the adrenalin flowing, it is difficult to aim and hit a fixed target never mind a moving object.
+ + + + + + +Stricter gun control, like strict background checks, banning assault rifles, etc., is the only solution. Another solution is that every time the NRA opens a sentence with "the democrats are out to take your guns away" the answer should be "NO, we just want sticter gun control laws like strict background checks and the banning of assault rifles".
MGL
+ + +Baltimore, MD + +7 hours ago +Treating mentally ill people, much less keeping them safely placed in a care facility, is very complex process, but in the past we have tried. I know that a state mental hospital not far from me has closed. I wonder if, in the name of freedom, we permit these people to be homeless, to live on the street. Or an alternative “lock them up in jail”. Neither choice is humane. Parents need help dealing with children at home who behave strangely. But too many in our society don’t care enough to even notice how many dire situations there are. Despite our extraordinary wealth as a country, compassion doesn’t make billionaires open their safe deposit boxes. Freedom without responsibility? Doesn’t work.
+ + + + + + +Mal
+ + +UK + +7 hours ago +Another tragedy and my sympathies go to all affected, but again and again (and again) America from the President down will look for excuses and frantically chase other more voter-palatable 'reasons' rather than face the truth that is right in front of you all - that the sheer volume of guns and their ease of access is to blame. Bluff and bluster all you want, but there is no other credible explanation.
+ + + + + + +onlein
+ + +Dakota + +7 hours ago +It's time to shut schools down for the summer. Maybe forever--or until we get the shootings under control. No more school until we take steps like Australia did in 1996, buying back guns, reducing the chances of more and more and more school shootings. Enough already with the gun worship. We need to choose: kids or guns.
+ + + + + + +E. Johnson
+ + +Portland + +7 hours ago +I am a high school teacher on my prep period, and I’m completely incapable of grading the pile of quizzes in front of me. All I can do is read the news and wonder how I’m going to talk to my students about this. Again. Telling them “you’re safe here” seems a bit hollow. We can’t go on like this. We can’t go on like this.
+ + + + + + +Katie
+ + +Atlanta + +7 hours ago +Per Pew research, there are fewer guns per American household than there were 40 or 50 years ago. Yet, we have many more mass shootings now than then. What is different? We are producing too many people, particularly young males, who lack empathy, remorse, fear of consequences, impulse control, and, basically, a conscience. Why is that? Why are so many of our kids struggling with various forms of mental illness, from autism spectrum disorder to severe depression and anxiety and worse, when that was not the case when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s? Troubled teens did exist back then, but ask any tuned in parent of middle school or high school aged children and he or she will admit that there are an unbelievable number of “messed up” teens now that far outstrip the numbers they encountered back in the day. I see it. It’s frightening to interact with kids who seem sociopathic in their outlook. We are never, ever going to get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns that already exist in our society so we better start looking at what we can affect: supporting families with inexpensive, immediate, and sometimes mandatory access to long term mental health care for teens and young adults with mental health issues.
+ + + + + + +HPech
+ + +Provo, UT + +7 hours ago +The problem is that the more these incidents happen, the more we fight among ourselves. Instead of uniting and trying to figure out a solution through talk, we resort to vitriol and accusations against the "other side." We're all on the same side! We need to put our differences aside as a nation and talk about a solution with our relatives, neighbors, community, and eventually, the government.
+ + + + + + +Agent 99
+ + +SC + +7 hours ago +I remember
+ + + + + + +- where I was the day of the Columbine mass shooting
- where I was the day JFK was shot
- where I was the day MLK was shot
- where I was the day the Challenger space shuttle exploded
- where I was the day of the 1965 & 1977 NYC blackouts
- where I was on September 11, 2001
- where I was the day Nixon resigned
I can’t remember:
- where I was the days of the mass school shootings after Columbine because they have become a part of the American experience.
dpaqcluck
+ + +Cerritos, CA + +7 hours ago +Moving forward get the Parkland activist students together with students in Santa Fe TX. Kids throughout the US live in fear every day that a shooter is going to be murdering several of their classmates. Two young mothers that I talked to after the Parkland shooting expressed hatred of a country in which children in most schools must undergo live shooter training and be continuously reminded that school is a scary place to go.
+ + + + + + +These high school students see the problem. Their parents are numb in belief of the lies told by the NRA.
I'm in favor of guns too, open carry even, as long as it is the muzzle loading muskets that the writers of the constitution envisioned when they guaranteed that a militia be able carry arms.
2668 Comments
+ + ++ +- All 2668
+
+- Readers’ Picks 1688
+
+- NYT Picks 37
+
+
+