Would Barr have broken the OLC guideline if he had thought Trump guilty?

[kentuck]

The OLC guideline that says a sitting president cannot be indicted?

If so, what would he have done?

Would he have done anything differently from Mr Mueller?

Would he have referred it to Congress?

How is it possible that the DoJ cannot find a president guilty but they can find him innocent? In such an investigation, both choices are part of a process and should be given equal weight, in my opinion.

[vlyons]

1. No, he would defend Trump

He knows, all the Republican Senators and Congressmen know, EVERYBODY KNOWS, that Trump is guilty as sin. They don't F'ing care! All that matters to them is staying in power so as to rig the system to keep the money rolling in. They are all evil morally degenerate criminals and traitors, masquerading as patriotic fine Christian people.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. I think he already did break the guidelines. Barr has lied repeatedly, and has wrapped himself ...

into a never ending loop. Barr says that the DOJ can't indict rump, but that rump is innocent! What is rump innocent of?

I agree w/ you kentuck, that it seems contradictory

[unblock]

5. republicans have no problem breaking guidelines when it helps republicans.

look at comey taking his statement clearing her and adding editorial commentary slamming her.
look at comey declaring an investigation "re-opened" and blasting that publicly before ascertaining if there even was any new evidence.
look at comey making sensational, politically sensitive news about a non-event within 60 days of an election.

[unblock]

3. better question, would he have indicted obama or hillary if they were president

of course, barr wouldn't be attorney general in such a scenario, but that's beside the point.

if republicans had huge evidence supporting an indictment of a democratic president and impeachment was apparently ruled out for partisan reasons, i can't imagine that they wouldn't be screaming for both, doj "policy" be damned.

[louis-t]

6. His defenders have spent the day asking why

they aren't going after Obama and Hillary. So, of course repugs in general, who are still demanding prosecution of former SOS and president, would have demanded indictments.

[unblock]

7. technically, that's a different question.

the republican position is that a sitting president somehow has a unique exemption from indictment for the duration of their time in the oval office.

that doesn't apply to hillary at all, or obama now that he's out of office.


but it's not hard to imagine that (a) they would have wanted an indictment of any sitting democratic president and (b) they'll still object to any trump indictment even once he's no longer president.

[struggle4progress]

4. "Make your problem go away: the fix is in as soon as you call Consigliere Barr!"