They don’t. Mueller will file a confidential report to the acting AG about whether or not indictments are warranted. His appointment did allow him to bring those indictments himself. Whether the AG chooses to publish that report is not Mueller’s lane or a legal requirement of his appointment.
That’s really the point , indictments. Not public investigations and reports.
Starr did not do that; he presented his porn novel directly to the House.
But indictments are only for criminal charges, right? What if Mueller finds evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the President? I had the impression that they can’t file criminal charges against him, it just has to be an impeachment.
It seems like if he just files a report with Sessions, Congress may need to know what’s in it, but Sessions could just choose to sit on it.
OK I get that. I took a quick look at Jaworski, Starr, Fitzgerald:
Jaworski: Appointed by the AG, issued a report
Starr: Appointed by some 3 judge panel, issued a report to the House.
Fitzgerald: Appointed by <drum roll> Acting AG James Comey (Ashcroft recused), didn’t issue a report, said what you said - indictments speak for themselves, we don’t talk about anything else.
So I can see where Starr might be different, but how about Jaworski vs. Fitzgerald, were they operating under different charges?
OMG, how petty! For those who doubt anyone could actually be that petty, here’s the page: https://judiciary.house.gov/subcommittee/full-committee/
I looked at the Wayback Machine to see if this is some sort of longstanding tradition; apparently the page with photos of all goes back only to 2016. But this 2005 page shows both the ranking Republican and the ranking Democrat in color:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050124012528/http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx
That was during the 108th Congress: both the Senate and the House had GOP majorities and there was a GOP Presidency, of course. Guess Republicans of that era were less spiteful than are the Republicans of today.
Just out of curiosity–if someone is pardoned, it insinuates guilt (for the sake of my question let’s presume anyone who already has been or will be pardoned were in fact guilty of what they were being investigated). That being the presumed case, can charges or any sort of evidence/proceedings still come out exposing their guilt, regardless of being legally pardoned?
I guess my question is if someone is pardoned, will we ever have a proper avenue to review the case against them to determine their specific wrongdoing?
In this country, the method of determining guilt is a criminal trial, where the government presents facts establishing the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is permitted to present evidence establishing his innocence or casting doubt on the government’s proof.
An investigation outside a trial lacks the sort of adversarial testing we rely upon.
But 20/20 could put together an investigation. That’s not a “proper avenue,” but it might be persuasive.
But a pardon prevents a criminal trial.
But the question wasn’t about the actual trial-- just charges. That is to say, would a court have the audacity to charge someone with a crime “just because”, knowing that a pardon had been issued, and there could be no trial. I’m thinking not, but is there anything actually preventing a court from doing that if the judge were inclined to do so?
My understanding is that it does not just insinuate guilt. It is an admission of guilt on the part of the pardoned person. Hence the reason that the fifth amendment no longer applies to a pardoned individual; they are already guilty and cannot therefore incriminate themselves.
A court would not bring charges, a prosecutor would. In federal cases via a grand jury and in state court eventually through a grand jury or some type of preliminary hearing. If President Pence pardoned Trump for something, any federal prosecutor would be bound to recognize the pardon and its effects through this presidential directive via the directive itself from the chief executive and through the control of the U.S. Attorney General.
A state prosecutor would not be bound by a federal pardon, but the issue for them would be making a case that a state law was violated by Trump and that the particular state court has jurisdiction over the case because the crime was committed within the state in which the case arises.
:smack: Yes, you are right, of course.
What, specifically, would bind them to that? Like I said, I doubt that any prosecutor would, but is there something in the pardon or some directive they are bound by that would, literally, prevent them from doing so?
Yes. The pardon insulates the pardoned from a trial, an effect similar to the “stand your ground” legislation in Florida that provides that once self-defense is established the target of the investigation may not be subjected to a trial.
Are you asking what would happen if a court attempted to ignore that rule?
Supreme Court caselaw prevents them – so now we’re asking, in effect, what the process is if a court simply ignores that law?
Then the accused would file an interlocutory appeal for a higher court to order a halt, or for a writ of mandamus to accomplish the same end.
And if the higher courts ignored the appeals/writ requests, then ultimately the Supreme Court would either speak, or decline to speak, to the issue. And if they decided differently, then I guess there’d be new case law made.