Not staying it’s necessarily going to happen, but if, at the end result of the Mueller investigation, he concludes there is enough evidence indicating Trump should be tried for Obstruction of Justice (or some other crime), what does he do with that?
My understanding is that there is some disagreement about whether the President can be indicted by a Grand Jury or not.
Would the findings of the investigation be released to the public?
Does Mueller just turn over the findings of his investigation to the Attorney General (or maybe the Deputy Attorney General in this case since Sessions has recused himself) and it’s up to him to figure out the next move?
Does the House automatically get the evidence if they decide to draft Articles of Impeachment or do they have to do their own investigation?
Whether Mueller would attempt to indict the president (and proceed to argue all the legal issues that would entail) is unknown.
But regardless of what he does, his findings would be released in a Special Counsel report to the public, with any sensitive or classified information redacted. Congress could choose to use this information as the basis for articles of impeachment if they want.
Ultimately, Congress does not need Mueller’s report (or anyone else’s) to begin impeachment proceedings; impeachment is not a criminal process and Congress can impeach you for wearing ugly socks. But an official report with a detailed narrative of alleged lawbreaking and corroborating evidence would be potentially persuasive.
If a president found themselves in such a situation and were removed (or resigned) the DOJ could then proceed with a prosecution. Unless some bland milquetoast of a VP ascends to the presidency and pardons him. But let’s stay within the realm of plausibility.
Here is a Washington Post OpEd from last Summer written by the guy who argued during the Ken Starr tenure that the President CAN be indicted but in this article he says that the regulations that Mueller is operating under are more restrictive than Starr’s with regards to Grand Jury indictment.
Ken Starr was an independent counsel, which existed under a special law passed by Congress. Mueller is a special counsel, appointed by the DOJ per DOJ regulations.
There are no more independent counsels, because that statute expired a while ago. But Congress could revive the independent counsel if they choose. (Such as if Mueller were to be fired.)
But I don’t think Congress could revive the independent counsel without the President. Or more precisely, they’d have to override a veto if the President vetoed it. The office was created by a law that expired as you said.
My thought is that the House ain’t gonna do nothing unless the court of public opinion is so overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment proceedings as to force their hand.
That Mueller’s (redacted) findings will be made public is basically the crux of my original question wondering where his information ends up. I envisioned some sort of Indiana Jones style warehouse at the DOJ!
Both the White House and Capitol Hill are leaking like a damn sieve that’s been shot up by something that causes fourth dimensional holes. Twenty minutes after a redacted version is released the NYT or TWP will have it on their websites. If they don’t both have moles inside Mueller’s team AND the House Intelligence Committee, I’ll eat my cat.
It’s also possible that he finds something against one or more state laws, in which case he’s likely to pass that information along to the relevant authorities in those states.
According to Seth Abramson, either Mueller indicts Trump himself or if he feels that isn’t going to work due to presidential immunity, he makes a referral to the DOJ.
Also there is the issue of state vs federal charges. I know the Mueller team is working with the NY state AG to pursue charges against everyone, and I don’t know if Trump is immune from state charges as well as federal.
If presidential immunity is an issue, they may wait until 2021 to prosecute I’d assume.
If Trump is found to have committed a more, shall we say, “direct” crime, rather than a, er, “political” one (viz, West Palm Beach cops find a dead hooker in his Mar-a-lago suite vs. whatever Mueller uncovers), how does that play out in a practical sense? Do DC cops just show up at the White House with handcuffs?
Nope. Dual sovereignty. It’s even possible for dual sovereigns to prosecute different crimes arising from the same event, such as a Federal and a state prosecution arising from someone murdering a Federal official.
As experts since time immemorial have said, That Is A Very Interesting Question.
(Don’t you just hate that?)
It’s indisputable that Trump can’t pardon state crimes. Homicide is a state crime in, like, 99.9% of all cases. Therefore, there’s no legal sense in which Trump could save himself. He’d have to go on Twitter and demand the state governor issue a pardon, but there’s no mechanism he could use to force such a pardon to be issued.
So there’s no magic wand he can wave to make them go away, which means this becomes a political issue.
As far as how it actually turns out, does it matter which method is used? I thought most grand juries chose to indict since you only need 50% to agree.
So whichever method you use isn’t it pretty much guaranteed an indictment will happen if you want to indict for a crime?
It’s true that an indictment is usually issued, regardless of “route.” But every so often a prosecutor will use a grand jury as a rough approximation of a petit jury. If he has trouble getting an indictment, it’s a clear sign that conviction will be very difficult.
All felonies in the federal system require indictment by a grand jury, there’s no alternate route. Federal misdemeanors can be charged with a prosector’s information; as a duly appointed federal prosecutor, Mueller can do that himself.