A report from The Hill has finally set the record straight and cleared up all of the lies going around about whether or not Special Counsel Robert Mueller could ever indict President Trump. The answer is no.
John Marston, a contributing opinion writer for The Hill said that the Department of Justice has a longstanding policy that criminally prosecuting a sitting president is “unconstitutional.”
This is a very strong and mountainous statement that shows how the special counsel being an entity of the DOJ is subject to departmental policy and supervision, cannot overcome it.
But the experts like to posit: maybe that DOJ policy position is wrong (it has not been tested in court), and so what if the special counsel went rogue? The problem there is that visible federal prosecutors do not go rogue in violation of DOJ policy. It does not happen.
Perhaps more critically, though, prosecutors such as Mueller, who gather evidence and thereafter only seek charges that they believe can stick all the way through trials and appeals, necessarily must face all practical realities and limitations. So here is a more practical, down-to-earth answer on charging President Trump: It is not going to happen. This is not a constitutional or politically motivated statement; it is a prosecutorial one.
Mueller simply does not have enough evidence to prosecute President Trump and isn’t going to press charges without that evidence.
“Any prosecutor knows that reaching the top of the chain in a significant conspiracy (i.e., “collusion”) case is incredibly rare and that doing so requires the equivalent of a perfect game. A cooperator, or even a series of cooperators, is nothing more than a hitless first inning, given that humans are notoriously biased and unreliable. In the best of cases, a cooperating witness is a turncoat motivated to save his own skin. In the worst of cases — with which every prosecutor has dealt at some point — the witness takes the stand and is either too scared or confused to be believable, or denies critical facts or prior statements, leaving the government to impeach its own witness in a desperate attempt to save its case,”explains Marston.
Much has been made of the fact that some individuals have signed cooperation plea agreements in this investigation, but the reality is, those agreements do not tell us anything about what the people know or will say about Trump’s actions — and even if they have said Trump engaged in illegal acts, without significant corroborating evidence, those witness statements standing by themselves are essentially worth nothing in the decision to charge a case.
Given that flipped criminal cooperators are not enough, a prosecutor in a fraud or corruption case will, at a minimum, want strong and consistent documentary proof of both intent/knowledge and actions taken, and strong proof that the target individual is the one behind those documents.
The difficult reality in significant organized conspiracy cases is that the boss at the top naturally does not leave a trail like this. If damning documentary evidence existed, the special counsel’s office undoubtedly would have found it — and likely would have taken some significant action by this time.
It’s extremely unlikely that the special counsel would sit on incredibly clear evidence of crimes and not at least prepare a report to Congress on an expedited basis to seek to relieve us of an active provable international conspirator in the White House.
No remotely reasonable federal prosecutor would bring a case, much less a case against a top-of-the-chain boss, without a terrific answer to this question: How great is the evidence? In the case of the Russia investigation, it seems the evidence is not sufficient.