Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

Who says a president can’t be indicted? The OLC only, that’s who

Special Counsel Robert Mueller
The notion that President Donald Trump cannot be charged while in office for criminal offenses, the obstacle that apparently prevented Special Counsel Robert Mueller from indicting him, is a shibboleth.
The notion that President Donald Trump cannot be charged while in office for criminal offenses, the obstacle that apparently prevented Special Counsel Robert Mueller from indicting him, is a shibboleth.

Mueller’s soporific performance as an unwilling witness in a pair of hearings on July 24 in the House of Representatives addressed that issue. But Mueller, whose demeanor was akin to that of a child being dragged to the dentist after swallowing caster oil medicine, vacillated on whether that was the basis for the declination to pursue criminal charges of obstruction of justice against the president.

Marshall H. Tanick
Marshall H. Tanick
The reluctance to prosecute is derived from an extrajudicial, nonbinding, self-serving, outmoded memorandum written by second-tier personnel in the Department of Justice that has taken on an unwarranted mantle of legal probity. In fact, it is more vulnerable than venerable.

The concept stems from an opinion issued by a low-echelon lawyer in the bowels of a government body called the Office of Legal Counsel, known in the Beltway circles as the OLC. A unit within the Department of Justice (DOJ), it gives advice to the president and other executive departments, including DOJ lawyers who can’t figure out the answers themselves — sort of like a bench coach advising a baseball manager or a high school guidance counselor aiding an uncertain student. In some cases, the president has to approve the OLC’s actions; fat chance that one would rebuke the view that the president is criminally immune while in office.

OLC staff opinions are just that: opinions of staff. They do not have any judicial imprimatur or the force of law. Views expressed by the OLC are the functional equivalent of a sign in a company’s employee kitchen reminding personnel to stack dirty dishes and utensils in the dishwasher; they are precatory but hardly compulsory outside of that room or binding upon others who might be idling there.

Aura and awe

Yet the OLC’s artificial opinion that U.S. presidents, including the current one, are immune from criminal prosecution during their time in office has taken on an aura of tablets descended from Mount Sinai. It doesn’t deserve to be treated with such awe. It’s more of a golden calf than a sacred statement.

The opinion originated in September 1973, as the Watergate scandal was heating up, by President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department. Whatever its intent, its effect was to erect a barrier to hauling him into a criminal court, lessening his disgrace to that of an unindicted co-conspirator, leading up to his resignation on the eve of almost certain impeachment 45 years ago next week.

The indictment proscription came up again for internal Justice Department review in 2000, in the wake of the acquittal in the Senate of President Bill Clinton after he was impeached by the House of Representatives due to the Monica Lewinsky affair. Not surprisingly, his minions at DOJ re-affirmed the Nixon era opinion barring a sitting presidential indictment.

The prohibition has been trotted out again by the Trump administration, facing possible presidential impeachment, and imposed upon Mueller as a loyal DOJ employee.

Notice a pattern here: The initiative against indictment comes from the department that the embattled chief executive oversees and from subordinates to his own appointees within DOJ. Hardly an objective viewpoint. It couldn’t be a cozier — and more convenient — arrangement than if that baseball manager had his bench coach tell the umpire what balls and strikes to call.

Minnesota matters 

There are some analogous matters here in Minnesota that reflect the vapidity of the OLC opinion. The state attorney general from time to time has issued opinions on unresolved questions, often dealing with issues of local governance. Used infrequently these days, the opinions provide guidance, but are nonbinding and lack legal effect.

The state Department of Administration issues, upon request, “Advisory Opinions” concerning the Minnesota “Sunshine” laws, the Government Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. They, too, are not binding but may be taken into account in ensuing legal proceedings.

Both of these devices are apolitical and may be looked to by the courts in the event of litigation Not so the OLC opinion, which lacks both of these features.

Biased and baseless

The OLC opinion is not only biased, it’s baseless besides. It rests on two premises: 1) that subjecting a sitting president to an adverse judicial proceeding would impinge upon the separation of powers doctrine; and 2) it would be unduly disruptive by impairing the president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office.

Neither has merit, and both have been undermined by subsequent developments after the initial promulgation of the opinion.

There is nothing in the Constitution or any statutes that prohibit an indictment, and no court opinions support it, either. But there are some of each that contradict it, and they occurred during the Nixon and Clinton terms.

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorizes the vice president to temporarily take over the chief executive duties if the president is incapacitated. While it has been invoked sporadically for short-term matters, it is suitable while a president prepares for and stands trial for criminal offenses.

The measure was in its infancy and untested at the time the anti-indictment opinion was first promulgated during Watergate. But a different portion of it was used to fill the vice presidential vacancy when Spiro Agnew resigned because of criminal charges against him, elevating Gerald Ford from Congress to that position and ultimately to the presidency after Nixon’s resignation.

Thus, a tried and true mechanism exists to assure continuity of the presidential functions.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has undermined the rationales predicating the OLC no-indictment opinion. The justices in 1987, in the early stages of the Clinton-Lewinsky imbroglio, ruled in Clinton v. Jones that the president can be subject to a civil lawsuit while in office. The decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who died in mid-July, reasoned that being a defendant in litigation was not so “burdensome” to impede presidential duties and the separation of powers doctrine was not deemed a bar, either.

While that case only involved a civil suit for money damages, its rationale would seem to apply to a criminal cases as well, although a conviction and ensuing imprisonment could maim a president’s ability to govern, unless Cabinet meetings could be held in a prison cell. But that’s where the 25th Amendment comes in, again, allowing the vice president to take over, even permanently in the event of long-term presidential incarceration, unless a convicted president were to be placed under house arrest, the habitat being the White House.

Myth and mirage 

Despite these flaws, it’s unlikely that any future Justice Department would have the temerity, or courage, to depart from the OLC opinion to the detriment of the head of its administration.

Nevertheless, the no-indictment-while-in-office opinion has minimal legal footing and even less factual foundation. It is myth based upon a mirage.

Rather than being revered, it should be reversed.

Marshall H. Tanick is a Twin Cities constitutional and employment law attorney and historian.


If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)


Comments (10)

  1. Submitted by Charles Holtman on 08/01/2019 - 10:17 am.

    Thank you, Mr. Tanick. Since the beginning, I’ve wondered about the sanctity conferred on what is described as an internal memo without legal status, internal DOJ guidance that can be rethought at any time.

    It has been an equally grand mystery why, to my awareness, not one of the learned men and women punditing in our august media has questioned the assignment of holy writ to this memo. Where the effect of the memo is, as we now see, to allow a president to sell out his people and country for the sake of his own ego and wallet, one would think that our best and brightest would mount a little pushback on the gossamer exemption from the law that is all that clothes this naked emperor.

  2. Submitted by joe smith on 08/01/2019 - 12:04 pm.

    Mueller said the OLC had no influence on his decision NOT to indict President Trump. When over 2 nights of debates and 20 plus Democratic candidates do not mention Mueller report, you know that hoax has run its course.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 08/01/2019 - 12:37 pm.

      Where do you get the idea that OLC had no influence on Mueller’s decision? Apart, that is, from something Attorney General Barr said, or a “joint statement” out out by the Justice Department and the Special Counsel’s Office.

      Here is something from the Washington Examiner:

      “The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said at that time. “The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation.”

      • Submitted by joe smith on 08/01/2019 - 07:30 pm.

        RB, wrong again. Mueller corrected his statement to say after 21/2 years of investigation they could not determine that President Trump committed any crimes. Hard for some to get off of the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative but as I stated, that hoax is over.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 08/02/2019 - 12:14 pm.

          They did not make that determination because it was pointless in light of the OLC opinion. Mueller’s team did not even start the inquiry regarding prosecution. In fact, Mueller came as close as he could to saying he believed Trump is guilty of obstruction.

          Spin it however you like, Mr, Smith. Donald J. Trump is not just an ordinary crook and grifter. He misused the power of the presidency to obstruct an investigation. Only the pathologically gullible could agree with Trump that he was “exonerated” by Mueller.

  3. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 08/01/2019 - 02:29 pm.

    That would be a very slippery slope indeed.

    If a President can be indicted, what would prevent the President from being indicted for purely partisan reasons? Or, say a President is despised by media and and corporations and banks and so many in the Federal Government, or to say it more clearly, hated by the rich and powerful – wouldn’t that make a potential indictment a soft coup?

    Be careful what you wish for…

  4. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 08/01/2019 - 03:09 pm.

    “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” RM

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 08/01/2019 - 04:06 pm.

      And why did he not make that determination? Hint: It wasn’t because he was innocent.

      I refuse to believe that anyone could still be clinging to the notion that the Mueller report clears Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, or if it found that his campaign did not receive aid from Russian sources.

  5. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 08/01/2019 - 04:15 pm.

    Mr. Tanick:

    Could the Southern District of New York, which seemingly has multiple referrals from Mueller for further investigation, simply decide to flex its’ muscle and indict anyway?

    Or would the process be shut down by main justice before it even gets started?

  6. Submitted by Linda Zambanini on 11/05/2019 - 03:57 am.

    Thank you so much, Mr. Tanick, for your excellent article regarding the illegitimacy of the OLC Memo. I have repeatedly heard news commentators, even lawyers on TV (usually the Republican ones) state as an absolute fact that the President cannot be indicted because of the OLC memo – as if it’s a law. Frequently they even say it’s a “law”! And almost never do the news moderators ever correct them when they state this as a fact! It makes me crazy!

    Worse yet, was the statement by Robert Mueller himself in his House Judiciary Comm. testimony, which i will never forget. When asked by Rep Nadler about why he was unable to indict Trump, Mueller didn’t just cite the OLC memorandum, he stated that the OLC memo made it “unconstitutional” to indict the president! Here’s his exact reply copied from the transcript.:

    “You would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting President cannot be indicted – it’d be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

    I was shocked and pissed as hell, to hear Mueller – of all people – feeding the public such complete (Republican) propaganda and falsehoods! I imagined Nadler would immediately correct him …but no! Neither Nadler, nor any other congress member, corrected him – and and not one news commentator (after the fact) corrected this gross untruth fed to the public by Mueller! It’s no wonder we have so many brainwashed, ignorant citizens who support Trump when even Mueller can’t tell the public the plain truth about why he did not indict Trump!

    I would love it if in your future talks or articles about this topic, you would point out Mueller’s falsehood about the OLC memo making indictment “unconstitutional”. Thanks!

Leave a Reply