I think the OLC policy of not indicting a sitting President is the correct policy.

[kentuck]

After all, the DOJ is under the Executive Branch. They take their orders from the Executive Branch.

Under what authority could a single individual in the DOJ over-ride the responsibilities of the US Congress?

The Founders put the impeachment clause into the Constitution for a purpose. They set up the Congress as sole deciders on impeaching the President. The Senate would be the jury.

It would not be constitutional, just as Mueller said, for the DOJ to determine, or not determine, whether to indict or not indict a President.

There is only one constitutional way to get rid of a sitting President.

[marybourg]

1. Yes.

[Pachamama]

2. Yep - IMPEACH

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Here's the reasoning of the OLC. It would be good for everyone to read it

before opining on it: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Their conclusion has never been tested in court. However, in my non-binding opinion it adds some strength to the argument for impeachment.

[EffieBlack]

4. I agree that the policy is a correct one

However federal statutes of limitations should be amended to toll during a president's term so that a criminal president cannot hide behind this policy to avoid criminal liability upon leaving office.

[watoos]

5. The alternative would be for Mueller to do,

what Comey did to Hillary right before the election. She never had a chance to defend herself.

[delisen]

6. consider a case of a serial killer becoming president,

or a president who simply begins to murder political opponents one by one or in groups. How do we prevent such crimes or stop them?