His arguments and explanations keep changing every time he opens his mouth, and he's been all over the map, but this is the latest direction he has slithered to:
1. The President cannot be subpoenaed. Ths is untrue - Thomas Jefferson was subpoenaed, as were Richard Nixon and Bil Clinton. If Mueller decides to compel Trump to talk to him with a subpoena, it will likely get kicked to SCOTUS but the precedents are in Mueller's favor.
2. The President can't be indicted. This is undetermined. As precedent, both Franklin Pierce and Ulysses S. Grant were arrested on civil charges while in office although nothing ever came from either incident. Indicting a sitting President has never been tested in court and there are legal arguments being made on both sides; SCOTUS would have to decide the question.
But the only one seriously talking about a potential indictment at this point is Rudy, and he seems to be doing it to frame his argument this way:
Trump didn't do anything wrong.
But even if he did, POTUS can't be subpoenaed and can't be indicted.
Therefore, Mueller is wasting time and taxpayer money over something he can't do anything about. This has taken too long and is costing too much.
Watergate took over 2 years, and Nixon resigned; Whitewater took 5 years, resulted in charges that had abs9lutely NOTHING to do with the original investigation but resulted in Clinton's impeachment. Mueller has been at this for only a year, and we still don't know what he has.
As for cost - Mueller's investigation has cost about $3 million to date and has so far resulted in 75 indictments and 4 guilty pleas. Contrast that with the $7 million spent on investigating Benghazi with 0 results, or the $80 million+ spent so far on Trump's golf trips.
In fact, with this administration, the absolute LAST argument you want to try to make is about how taxpayer money is being wasted by others... |
