The DoJ guideline that prohibits indictment of a sitting president:

[kentuck]

It is a long and tedious document.

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

[Karadeniz]

1. I read the first sentence or two.I assume the main thrust was stated there:

Indictment would completely interfere with a presidents ability to perform. Sooo, perhaps in such a circumstance, we need a procedure for the veep to assume those duties. What was not discussed in the little I read is why the DOJ assumes that an indictment would be less constricting than an impeachment. Why could a president function throughout an impeachment but not under indictment. Any ideas?

[Blues Heron]

2. guidelines were meant to be broken

I say we do it now.

[Botany]

3. It is an idea not case law

[marylandblue]

4. It's not a guideline, it's not a policy, it's a legal opinion

From a DOJ office who, among other things, provides legal advice to the White House. So what kind of advice do you think the White House wanted?

On edit: Even lawyers seem to misunderstand what this is, so it's not surprising it gets mischaracterized in the media all the time.

[UniteFightBack]

5. It's even filed in the internet under "opinion" ...something tells me that if we had a corrupt Dem

prez we'd find a way around this opinion.

[Igel]

6. The claim is also that this wasn't behind the Barr/Rosenstein thinking.

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

We're free to believe whatever we like, of course.