[EL] “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook in SDNY as Well”

Mon Apr 22 14:40:31 PDT 2019

The question of whether Mueller is bound by OLC opinions is separate from
whether DOJ's litigating arms are bound by OLC.

My understanding is that the Federal Programs Branch, and by extension the
U.S. Attorneys, are not bound by OLC.

In the Emoluments Clause litigation, DOJ has taken a position that is
somewhat at odds with an OLC Opinion. Specifically, OLC has taken the
position
<https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2009/12/31/emoluments-nobel-peace_0.pdf>
that the Foreign Emoluments Clause "surely" applies to the President. DOJ
stated in SDNY that "the government has not conceded that the President is
subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause." They have maintained that
position since 2017 in several courts.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/10/25/doj-shifts-position-the-government-has-not-conceded-that-potus-is-subject-to-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/

There is, at least here, some daylight between OLC and DOJ's litigation
arms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com
*Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610393287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1610393287&linkCode=as2&tag=joshblaccom-20>*
*Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power*
<http://amzn.to/2aqbDwy>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:32 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> I believe that this is somewhat contested
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/05/presidential-indictment/560957/
>
> https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity
>
>
> Rick Hasen
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2019 2:26 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* RE: “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook
> in SDNY as Well”
>
>
> I was confused because OLC opinions are not guidance, they are legally
> binding on the executive branch, including SDNY.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2019 5:21 PM
> *To:* Pildes, Rick; Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook
> in SDNY as Well”
>
>
>
> I was referring to a situation where SDNY decides to indict despite the
> earlier guidance while Barr is still AG.  It was not clearly written.
> Sorry.
>
>
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2019 1:40 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* RE: “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook
> in SDNY as Well”
>
>
>
> In Rick’s piece, I’m confused about this paragraph – President Trump could
> only be indicted after he leaves office, in which case Barr will not be the
> AG.
>
>
>
> Although SDNY has *some* independence, there is no reason to believe that
> a decision to indict the president would not go through Barr, especially
> given long-standing DOJ policy, relied upon by Mueller, that a sitting
> president cannot be indicted (or even accused directly of crimes). Barr
> cannot be trusted to be fair, and even if he were in a close case, he would
> side with the president.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2019 12:38 PM
> *To:* Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* [EL] “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook
> in SDNY as Well”
>
>
> “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the Hook in SDNY as Well”
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D104789&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=fQVGAJuTXXxb6LGdpThD58zkS-5ekv4eisrkKgDN6t8&e=>
>
> Posted on April 22, 2019 9:35 am
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D104789&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=fQVGAJuTXXxb6LGdpThD58zkS-5ekv4eisrkKgDN6t8&e=>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=eIEeXf5Awjd3haXue0E5-H1Mb43i8ETJRtczvfLe3KU&e=>
>
> I have written this piece
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__slate.com_news-2Dand-2Dpolitics_2019_04_mueller-2Dreport-2Dhush-2Dmoney-2Dstormy-2Ddaniels-2Dtrump-2Dcohen-2Dsdny.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=ncGisj-mSq7c81EnaLxZHodhsoaHm7TSN67XaxqZ6Ss&e=>
>  for *Slate*. It begins:
>
> *Since the announcement of special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to
> not indict President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice or any members
> of Trump’s family, critics of Trump who still feel some of his actions may
> have amounted to crimes seem to have put all their eggs in a new basket:
> the Southern District of New York. These Trump opponents now seem to be
> hoping that the Justice Department’s branch in the SDNY, which secured a
> plea deal from Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, will come
> after Trump’s family for financial improprieties and perhaps Trump himself
> for potential campaign finance violations. But based on what we have
> learned from the Mueller report, which was released on Thursday, and how it
> has been handled by Attorney General William Barr, it is time to lower
> expectations for the SDNY to act, at least as it pertains to the
> president’s potential criminal liability while in office….*
>
> *Like the situation with Trump Jr., there might be questions about the
> president’s willfulness to violate campaign finance laws. Although
> Trump had tweeted
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_realDonaldTrump_status_195584554290003969&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=dXRyHye4ntqnQXm_a3K7pF5MrrgakRGtFkdzosIRcaM&e=>about
> the similar John Edwards case at the time Edwards was on trial, that might
> not be enough for prosecutors to conclude that they might be able to prove
> to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he was violating the
> law by making payments to a mistress during a campaign without reporting
> it. And just as Mueller’s team did not call Trump Jr. to the grand jury, it
> did not get to personally interview the president or get him before the
> grand jury. It relied on written answers from Trump, vetted through his
> lawyers. So it may be very hard to prove willfulness without getting more
> from the president himself.*
>
>
> * And as with the foreign opposition research case against Trump Jr., the
> hush money payments case against Cohen—and thus Trump—relies upon a
> contested legal theory. It is true that the Edwards case is precedent for
> prosecuting this as a crime, but there is a reasonable counterargument that
> these payments should be treated as personal, and not campaign-related.
> Cohen might have pleaded guilty to these crimes rather than fight them
> raising these potential defenses because he was already pleading to other
> charges and saw no point in contesting these, which allowed him to attack
> the president as a co-conspirator in a criminal enterprise. At the very
> least, there is an argument that to avoid the problem of overzealous
> prosecutors, the better course
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D102839&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=SWtmtZxsSOU36eOGwSdT1D_9HCVoltMeyIWe1S6NaG0&e=> is
> to leave criminal prosecutions of politicians in political cases to the
> most clear-cut cases of criminal liability.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D104789-26title-3D-25E2-2580-259CThe-2520Mueller-2520Report-2520Makes-2520It-2520Clear-253A-2520Trump-2520Is-2520Off-2520the-2520Hook-2520in-2520SDNY-2520as-2520Well-25E2-2580-259D&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=Vhx6QJ_lmIjQKLyz5BFCSe6PPXPRq5BJvy2RgXzcW9s&e=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D10&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=IlTjozldj3nT2mpPCTugRczp_1UIQjYRSuvH-fdwpek&e=>
> , campaigns
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D59&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=r8MWrtquT1VdRcCkuoCQJIsnAbfvqJPcbeXFpiy0Fts&e=>
> , chicanery
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D12&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=1zvsb4te0-8xvkdfaA42nboi1_rA6HHQBoLw-ZDOkU4&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=IRjI1u0nVGY8DlKHlK0gcs7OAryNCFNPzfaI3BwsXcU&e=>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=hkOcfcfmNZ2n_eHntKwAeJPds3hUgd07_iv8AekoUQ8&s=fEFPfg5hEsKgGgKdFiapGi0HdCMYPPy6mBeA2i8NhTg&e=>
>
> [image: signature_680319053]
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190422/409bd735/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190422/409bd735/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2933 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190422/409bd735/attachment-0001.png>