• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump

Photo by DonkeyHotey | CC BY 2.0

Soon Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will have a choice to make–whether to indict Donald Trump for either some underlining crimes or for obstruction of justice.  Mostly press and legal speculation has centered on whether a sitting president can be indicted.  This is an easy question that a federal court has already resolved affirmatively.  The real questions are whether he should be indicted, both from the point of view of probable cause, and second, from the point of what would have the biggest impact upon Trump and his presidency.  If Trump is lucky, he should hope for an indictment as opposed to being named an unindicted co-conspirator.

Not withstanding Rudy Giuliani’s demands or declarations that the Mueller investigation will stop soon, it is likely that at least the initial investigatory phase of his work is soon  coming to an end.  This first phase is fact gathering, looking to at the scope of Russian involvement I the 2016 elections and whether Donald Trump, his campaign, or members of his administration or even his attorney Michael Cohen cooperated with them or broke any laws.  This criminal investigation sweeps in payments to Stormy Daniels and probably other activities too that allege other countries might have  broke US laws.  But then there is the secondary investigation addressing obstruction of justice and whether again Trump, his campaign, or his administration did anything to impede a federal criminal  investigation.  Actions by Mueller, including efforts to question the president, point to an investigation near completion.

Phase two involves a grand jury.  Will Muller seek indictments for others, including the president?  No one knows, and media speculation is simply that.  No indictments for anyone, including Trump himself, for either primary offenses or obstruction of justice are possible.  Much depends on what evidence Mueller finds and presents to a grand jury and what they decide.

But assume for now that there is evidence that Trump broke some criminal laws, can he be indicted?   Trump supporters say no, pointing to the February 1974 grand jury decision against Richard Nixon that he could not be indicted, thereby listing him as an unindicted co-conspirator along with several individuals who were actually charged. Mainstream media is almost rabid in speculation over this question, but what everyone is ignoring is how this issue was effectively resolved by President Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974 when he pardoned Richard Nixon.  In issuing the pardon Ford said that it covered   “Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”

A presidential pardon made no sense if Nixon could not have been indicted, and Ford understood that.  It would not have been issued if it were clear that the president  could not be charged with a crime.  Look at the language of the proclamation–“As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor.”  There is no sense in this language that the president could not be indicted, it was simply taken as a possible fact.

Moreover, in Murphy v. Ford, 390 F.Supp. 1372 (1975), a federal district court judge upheld the pardon.  It declared that “The fact that Mr. Nixon had been neither indicted nor convicted of an offense against the United States does not affect the validity of the pardon.”  The court did not even flinch in considering whether the president could be indicted because if he could not be then the pardon made no sense and the judge probably would not have heard the case.  The point is that both Gerald Ford and a federal judge, subsequent to a grand jury non-indictment of Nixon, concluded that the president could be criminally liable, effectively have resolved this debate.

But assuming that the Nixon pardon has addressed this issue and Trump could be indicted, what then?  Scenario one is that this analysis is wrong and Trump supporters are correct that he cannot be indicted.  If that is the case, it creates a different problem for the president.  Individuals who cannot be indicted for crimes, such as when they are issued immunity from prosecution, lose their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and therefore can be compelled to testify.  Trump could be forced to talk and not be able to refuse a subpoena.  U.S. v. Nixon,  418 U.S. 683 (1974), involving whether Nixon could refuse to hand over the Watergate tapes to a federal prosecutor, resolved the issue that presidents cannot refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a federal judge in a criminal matter.  Scenario two, Trump is simply named an unindicted co-coconspirator.  If a grand jury concludes he cannot be indicted then again he loses his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

However, even more damaging is if a grand jury says Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator, then what next for the president? The president cannot have a trial to be acquitted.  He is effectively declared guilty without any recourse to a trial to force the government to prove its case.  The damage to his presidency and the pressure on Congress to act, especially if it came on the heels of the 2018  elections would be overwhelming.  Trump and his supports might well hope that a jury does not conclude there is evidence to indict but opt not to; this scenario could well be worse than a possible indictment.

More articles by:

David Schultz is a professor of political science at Hamline University. He is the author of Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

Weekend Edition
May 24, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Rob Urie
Iran, Venezuela and the Throes of Empire
Melvin Goodman
The Dangerous Demise of Disarmament
Jeffrey St. Clair
“The Army Ain’t No Place for a Black Man:” How the Wolf Got Caged
Richard Moser
War is War on Mother Earth
Andrew Levine
The (Small-d) Democrat’s Dilemma
Russell Mokhiber
The Boeing Way: Blaming Dead Pilots
Rev. William Alberts
Gaslighters of God
Phyllis Bennis
The Amputation Crisis in Gaza: a US-Funded Atrocity
David Rosen
21st Century Conglomerate Trusts 
Jonathan Latham
As a GMO Stunt, Professor Tasted a Pesticide and Gave It to Students
Binoy Kampmark
The Espionage Act and Julian Assange
Kathy Deacon
Liberals Fall Into Line: a Recurring Phenomenon
Jill Richardson
The Disparity Behind Anti-Abortion Laws
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Chelsea Manning is Showing Us What Real Resistance Looks Like
Zhivko Illeieff
Russiagate and the Dry Rot in American Journalism
Norman Solomon
Will Biden’s Dog Whistles for Racism Catch Up with Him?
Yanis Varoufakis
The Left Refuses to Get Its Act Together in the Face of Neofascism
Lawrence Davidson
Senator Schumer’s Divine Mission
Thomas Knapp
War Crimes Pardons: A Terrible Memorial Day Idea
Renee Parsons
Dump Bolton before He Starts the Next War
Yves Engler
Canada’s Meddling in Venezuela
Katie Singer
Controlling 5G: A Course in Obstacles
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Beauty of Trees
Jesse Jackson
Extremist Laws, Like Alabama’s, Will Hit Poor Women the Hardest
Andrew Bacevich
The “Forever Wars” Enshrined
Ron Jacobs
Another One Moves On: Roz Payne, Presente!
Christopher Brauchli
The Offal Office
Daniel Falcone
Where the ‘Democratic Left’ Goes to Die: Staten Island NYC and the Forgotten Primaries   
Julia Paley
Life After Deportation
Sarah Anderson
America Needs a Long-Term Care Program for Seniors
Seiji Yamada – John Witeck
Stop U.S. Funding for Human Rights Abuses in the Philippines
Shane Doyle, A.J. Not Afraid and Adrian Bird, Jr.
The Crazy Mountains Deserve Preservation
Charlie Nash
Will Generation Z Introduce a Wizard Renaissance?
Ron Ridenour
Denmark Peace-Justice Conference Based on Activism in Many Countries
Douglas Bevington
Why California’s Costly (and Destructive) Logging Plan for Wildfires Will Fail
Gary Leupp
“Escalating Tensions” with Iran
Jonathan Power
Making the World More Equal
Cesar Chelala
The Social Burden of Depression in Japan
Stephen Cooper
Imbibe Culture and Consciousness with Cocoa Tea (The Interview)
Stacy Bannerman
End This Hidden Threat to Military Families
Kevin Basl
Time to Rethink That POW/MIA Flag
Nicky Reid
Pledging Allegiance to the Divided States of America
Louis Proyect
A Second Look at Neflix
Martin Billheimer
Closed Shave: T. O. Bobe, the Girl and Curl
May 23, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Belligerence of Empire
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail