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

Mon Apr 22 15:00:37 PDT 2019

What Rick said.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 5:59 PM Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:

> It’s important not to confuse the AG with the SDNY.  The AG has delegated
> his authority over legal interpretation to OLC and OLC opinions bind
> executive branch officials, including the SDNY – just as if the AG had
> issued that opinion himself.  But the AG can always reject an OLC view of
> the law, because the OLC exercises authority delegated from the AG in the
> first place.
>
>
>
> The SDNY does not have any power to reject an OLC interpretation of the
> law.  There is nothing contested about this, it’s the law, because by
> statute the AG has the power to “direct” all US attorneys.  See 28 USC Sec.
> 519.
>
>
>
> 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:* Josh Blackman [mailto:joshblackman at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2019 5:41 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* Pildes, Rick; Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] “The Mueller Report Makes It Clear: Trump Is Off the
> Hook in SDNY as Well”
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.justice.gov_sites_default_files_olc_opinions_2009_12_31_emoluments-2Dnobel-2Dpeace-5F0.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=ePlhdAOj8-dB5EkK-_X9hwHItXIOaUnSnp3vQTZtrNQ&e=>
> 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/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__joshblackman.com_blog_2017_10_25_doj-2Dshifts-2Dposition-2Dthe-2Dgovernment-2Dhas-2Dnot-2Dconceded-2Dthat-2Dpotus-2Dis-2Dsubject-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dforeign-2Demoluments-2Dclause_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=MN19pa6bWh4mIgeu1IO_wkYaH63zWtyXe2F9Uu3R_xo&e=>
>
>
>
> There is, at least here, some daylight between OLC and DOJ's litigation
> arms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Josh Blackman
>
> http://JoshBlackman.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__JoshBlackman.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=vOKrPFe5pDn46pgr5QqouLP9tBzb7z-ciDfvHu4cBQ8&e=>
>
> *Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_gp_product_1610393287_ref-3Das-5Fli-5Ftf-5Ftl-3Fie-3DUTF8-26camp-3D1789-26creative-3D9325-26creativeASIN-3D1610393287-26linkCode-3Das2-26tag-3Djoshblaccom-2D20&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=k74FcOSS5fsY0XZhlEiPnryGe_xBKXErAR7XGdRR5Ok&e=>*
>
> *Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__amzn.to_2aqbDwy&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=0GSG59NdrrMUfG2vafGDlQFeRc8htlyFTHlRn-mJvnc&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.theatlantic.com_ideas_archive_2018_05_presidential-2Dindictment_560957_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=d3YdL3yERcSQbJtfR16s96fEJZbHViCHbVfi7UAah6o&e=>
>
>
>
> https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.lawfareblog.com_mueller-2Dbound-2Dolcs-2Dmemos-2Dpresidential-2Dimmunity&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=Qa1EYuZyI_vNDLSo3lFeGiyK7FxG4fPdxxZAnGDiiwA&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=AvM01F_2x1noaYpJ5i8Znpx5QJEfS0lVychY5Zd-vyk&s=mpT9UVlLKDUkdVN8CK-KRrGKDM3ngYgN_Mfido7vy9c&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190422/367ffe7d/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/20190422/367ffe7d/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/20190422/367ffe7d/attachment-0001.png>