Okay, wait... Mueller was hampered by the DoJ's rule about indicting a president.

[grumpyduck]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that, if the DoJ is part of the Executive Branch (which it is), and the AG is appointed by the president (which he or she is), that for the DoJ to have such a rule, regardless of precedent, would constitute a conflict of interest.

Any lawyers here care to chip in?

[NewJeffCT]

1. It's been around since the days of Nixon

and was reaffirmed under Clinton by Janet Reno's DOJ

Ken Starr has reportedly prepared an argument in favor of indicting a sitting president, but I think the GOP took the Starr Report and ran with it rather than waiting for indictments to play out

[grumpyduck]

3. Okay, but if the AG was nominated by POTUS and reports to him,

wouldn't it still be a conflict of interest?

[NewJeffCT]

4. Technically, the DOJ

is supposed to be an independent arm of the Executive Branch

[tymorial]

6. This is correct and it's why Barr acting as Trump's personal lawyer is such a huge problem

[grumpyduck]

7. Yeah, "technically."

In this case it's not.

[uponit7771]

2. You're right and one of Barr's arguments against the DoJ rule but the CONSTANTLY lie and say Mueller

... said he didn't charge because he didn't find evidence to vs the DoJ rule.

[grumpyduck]

5. I would think Congress looking into it

would go right along with the system of checks and balances.

May not happen with this Congress, but maybe next time Congress can put pressure on DoJ to change it.

[StarfishSaver]

8. It may seem that way, but no

The executive branch is free to set its own policies for governing its actions.

And until now, the DOJ has always behaved like an independent arm of the president of the government and not as the president's personal law firm. Now, not so much.

Perhaps if the policy were created specifically for Trump, there'd be an argument that this is a conflict of interest. But since this is a standard policy for all presidents that has been in place for decades, it's not really a conflict.

[marylandblue]

9. The policies were created specifically for Nixon and Clinton to shield them against the possibility

that Cox and Starr would in fact indict them. Cox believed he could but chose not to because he thought it would intefere with current trials and he did not expect a blanket pardon. Starr believed he could but knew the House would impeach, so chose not to. Mueller is the first one who didn't think he could indict. Cox and Starr were operating under different regulations, so maybe that's part of it.

Seems to me we need the Independent Counsel law back, spelling out that the President can be indicted, but with safeguards to prevent the excesses under Starr. Whether that would be Constitutional is something for a future court to decide.

[yonder]

10. I'm no lawyer as well, but your point makes sense to me.

And it's a much better argument than that flimsy conflict of interest charge tRumps lawyer tried hanging on Mueller for leaving a tRump-owned country club.