Dowd and Sekulow posit that Mueller cannot legally demonstrate a compelling need to interview the president since the information to be obtained by such an interrogation has already been provided in the massive do ent production and testimony given by the witnesses voluntarily made available to Team Mueller. Counsel argue persuasively that, under applicable case law, without being able to prove such a compelling need in court, Mueller cannot require the president to appear for questioning.
In short, although I would have pursued a scorched earth policy, it is nevertheless true that the approach taken by John Dowd and his colleagues have placed their client in a very strong legal position should Mueller try to subpoena the president to appear before a grand jury. By laboriously reviewing the record in discovery, counsel have not only deconstructed the fic ious and fatuous claims against the president, they have also provided a very clear and convincing first draft of a motion to quash any such ill-conceived grand jury subpoena.
Equally important, counsel reference the October 16, 2000 Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel led A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution. This long-accepted and well-established opinion, which is binding on all elements of the Justice Department including Team Mueller, states unequivocally that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would uncons utionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its cons utionally assigned functions. In other words, as a matter of fundamental cons utional law, a sitting president cannot be criminally charged or prosecuted. Certainly as a former FBI Director and long-time denizen of the Justice Department, Mueller must have been aware of this prohibition.
https://spectator.org/team-muellers-...sidents-scalp/
Reply With Quote
