A little light on Rudy's latest claim

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.

"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."

  CNN

I see some saying this is expected, because the Justice Department guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting president. I have seen other people arguing this case. I've also seen arguments that Mueller wouldn't indict anyway (and heard the same from Preet Bharara, who was a US attorney with the Southern District of New York until Trump fired him) - that his preferred move would be to report to the AG (or in this case Rod Rosenstein) for an impeachment referral.

But what I want to note particularly here is that this is coming from Rudy "he'll get his facts straight" Giuliani. It's no surprise that he would say something like this whether it's true or not. The whole (admitted) game here is to win in the court of public opinion. (And to make the public doubt Mueller's conclusions.) That's why Rudy was brought on - because Trump needed "better TV lawyers."

A lack of an indictment would not necessarily mean the President is in the clear. Mueller could issue a report making referrals or recommendations to the House of Representatives.

The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.

As to whether the special prosecutor's team told Giuliani (or Trump lawyers) that there would be no indictment, we won't know, because Mueller's team doesn't leak, and whenever anyone asks for anything, Mueller's spokesman politely declines to comment.

For additional analysis, check out this twitter thread:

2. And don’t forget the source: Giuliani. He’s not exactly a stickler for details.
3. Context may really matter here. Why did Mueller say this? Is it because Trump’s lawyers said they were thinking of taking 5th Am priv against self incrimination, and Mueller said there can be no "incrimination"?
4. If so, the DOJ policy against indictment of a sitting President may actually hurt Trump, and be an argument against his ability to stay silent. It might be a way to ferret out truth.
5. The reporting is clearly incomplete. The Special Counsel regs, which I drafted, do NOT say DOJ policy must always be followed. They say that a Special Counsel can ask Acting AG (Rod Rosenstein) for permission to depart from DOJ policy and rules. [ed: emphasis mine]
6. If Mueller has the goods on Trump, as I’ve said before, I think he will ask Acting AG to indict. The regs put a thumb on the scale in favor of Mueller doing so. If Rosenstein says no, it triggers a report to Congress-both majority and minority parties.
7. Otherwise, there is not necessarily such a report about these matters. The Special Counsel regulations dispensed with the "final report" requirement in the Independent Counsel Act. Reports are permissible, but not mandatory (but they are when Special Counsel overruled).
8. So I do not see this story as good for President Trump, in any way. END

And, I don't know where this person got her information, but I'll toss it in:



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Here's where she got that info.