Mueller says charging Trump would have been unconstitutional. These legal scholars beg to differ.

By Greg Walters May 31, 2019

Source: Vice News

<snip>

It boils down to a Watergate-era memo from 1973 written by the DOJ’s internal Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC. That memo concluded that charging a sitting president with a crime would unduly interfere with the functioning of the entire executive branch.

The thing is, plenty of legal experts don’t actually buy that argument. They say the policy, and the memo from which it was born, represent an overly creative interpretation of the Constitution and probably wouldn’t hold up if challenged in the Supreme Court.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says directly that a president can’t be indicted,” said Ric Simmons, professor of law at the University of Ohio. “I think Mueller’s hands were tied. But there’s another question: Is the memo correct? I think it’s not.”

<snip>

And at least one candidate for president — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts — has pledged to reverse the Nixon-era memo if elected.

Much more at https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ywy54g/mueller-says-charging-trump-wouldve-been-unconstitutional-these-legal-scholars-beg-to-differ