Ken Starr Ramps Up Attacks on Mueller: His Report Has ‘Over 1,000 Footnotes. I Mean… Why?’
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ken-star...es-i-mean-why/
“There are over 1,000 footnotes. I mean… why? The point of this report is simply to say why I prosecuted or why I didn’t prosecute. This is not a term paper,” he continued.
and the hits keep on coming.
Mueller’s Preposterous Rationale for Tainting the President with ‘Obstruction’ Allegations
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...n-allegations/
In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.
this article also doesn't let Trump off the hook.
he says the sitting president should be indicted anyway with a sealed indictment so as not run afoul of statue of limitations.
More to the point, it makes no sense that a president should be spared indictment under seal. This is how the Justice Department routinely deals with cases in which (a) a crime must be charged to prevent the statute of limitations from lapsing, but (b) the indictment should not be publicized for some good policy reason (usually, because the accused is at large and, if put on notice, could flee and destroy evidence). The OLC guidance’s objective is simply to delay prosecution in deference to the chief executive’s weighty responsibilities; it is not supposed to put the president above the law by giving him a statute-of-limitations defense that would not be available to the rest of us.
he raises a good point about the impeachment clause. there was no DOJ at founders time. so, there woldn't be any official at the federal level to do that. it was expected that if there was an indictment, it would come from the states (presumablly the president's home state) and Congress would provide the necessary check with impeachment.
While there was significant discussion of impeachment when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787 (I outlined much of it in Faithless Execution), I doubt the Framers gave much thought to the timing of a president’s indictment. There were no federal prosecutors to speak of at the time (there was no Justice Department until 1870 and no FBI until 1908), and the federal Constitution would not have barred action by state prosecutors. The Constitution presumes it is Congress’s job to check a wayward president — and not a job to be delegated to a prosecutor.
Ken starr attacks meuler
