...
Grand Jury testimony is possibly in Mueller's interest, as the Grand Jury can then be motivated to issue an indictment, which doesn't have to be approved by Mueller's boss(es).
The indictment of the President, then, doesn't become a question of whether the Justice Department can indict a sitting President. It becomes whether a Grand Jury indictment can go to trial while a President is in office. Given the place of the Grand Jury in the Constitution, I'd be cautiously optimistic that a GJ indictment *can* go to trial.
The first linked opinion piece believes that Mueller will not indict Trump because by DOJ rules he is not empowered to do so, and that Rosenstein is only authorized to pass on any findings from Mueller on to Congress and/or to make the report public (if Rosenstein deems this to be in the best interest of America).
So even if SteveMDFP is correct that a Grand Jury can indict Trump, that would assume that the members of the Grand Jury have very strong characters. Therefore, I now really like the idea that Sessions new DOJ guidelines make much easier for Mueller to work with say the State of New York to seize any Trump assets associated with RICO matters (see the second linked article):
Title: "There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/even-if-trump-is-found-guilty-mueller-wouldnt-be-the-indictment-decision-maker/551753/Extract: "Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.
He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee.
What can Mueller do if he finds evidence of criminality involving the president? He can and will (as authorized by Department of Justice regulations) file a report on his findings with the attorney general (or, since Attorney General Sessions is, in this case, recused, with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein). Rosenstein will then be faced with the important decision of whether and how to make that report public—whether to convey it to Congress or not; whether to release it publicly or not. The regulations are so vague (they say only that he “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions”) that they, in effect, give Rosenstein plenary discretion to do whatever he thinks is in the best interest of the country.
So, every time you read about the threat to fire Mueller, remember this—the critical actor in most future scenarios is not Mueller, but Rosenstein. Knowing Rosenstein personally, I have high confidence that he will make what he thinks is the best decision for the country—the same may not be true of his replacement (or of the replacement attorney general, should Sessions be fired). That, of course, is why the highly dubious “secret memo” prepared by House Republicans reportedly targets Rosenstein—even though he is a Trump appointee who advocated firing Comey, Trump supporters fear he will follow the rule of law.
Wisps of information in the wind suggest a far different, deeper concern. The president’s finances have always been suspect. Some have thought them resting on shaky foundations. Ongoing investigations have looked to his banking and investments as well as those of his closest family. Several of the special counsel’s prosecutorial hires specialize in money-laundering cases—an odd specialty for an election fraud/computer-hacking case (which, basically, is what the Russia investigation amounts to). Perhaps, just perhaps, it is that investigation that has motivated the president’s response."
&
Title: "Trump Could Now Face Possible Asset Seizure By Mueller While Still President, Legal Expert Explains"
http://www.bluedotdaily.com/trump-could-now-face-possible-asset-seizure-by-mueller-while-still-president-legal-expert-explains/Extract: "Sarah Smith – another legal expert who spent over 20 years in government ethics law – said that a new directive made by Trump’s Department of Justice makes it easier for prosecutors to seize assets before trial and before a conviction in criminal cases.
This will all have to be overseen by the judicial system, but Trump’s own administration may have just provided any easier way to seize Trump’s money in the process."
