Leftists have been salivating over the possibility that Robert Mueller's investigation will eventually result in President Trump being indicted on obstruction of justice charges for allegedly asking former FBI director James Comey to go easy on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. However, Mark Levin has proved that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot indict the president.
On his Monday radio program, Levin cited a DOJ memorandum from 2000 affirming the department's position in 1973 that the Constitution does not allow the president to be criminally indicted. In 1973, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum stating that indictment proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency," as criminal proceedings would severely handicap the president from performing his "onerous" and "unique" duties under the Constitution, thereby short-circuiting the entire executive branch.
"A criminal proceeding against the president is in some respects necessarily political in a way that criminal proceedings against other civil officers would not be," Levin read from the memorandum. "In this respect, it would be incongruous for a jury of only 12 to undertake the unavoidably political task of rendering judgment in a criminal proceeding against a sitting president."
Levin explained that the memorandum is arguing that it is incredibly difficult for 12 people on a jury and a judge to leave politics out of a verdict on a legal matter involving the president.
"They're concerned about a prosecutor or a jury or potentially even a judge having political biases," Levin said.
That concern stems from the fact that 12 people on a jury could nullify the results of a national election, a power so enormous that it's best left to Congress through the impeachment proceedings as outlined under Article I of the Constitution. After all, legal proceedings involving the president are by nature political, so it makes sense to leave such matters to Congress, a political body.
The memorandum also shot down the notion that the president could be indicted in office and then face criminal proceedings when leaving office, as this would create "a cloud over the man's head" that would make it more difficult for him to deal with "Congress and particularly foreign governments."
The 2000 memorandum eventually concluded that the DOJ would uphold the department's previous conclusion in 1973 that the president can't be indicted:
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
Therefore, as Levin explains, if Mueller decides to seek an indictment against Trump, it would be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Mueller's sole purpose, then, is to be an instrument in helping the Democrats eventually achieve their goal of impeaching Trump.
The full audio of Levin's analysis the memorandum can be heard below:
H/T: Conservative Review