As I mentioned before, there's a Catch-22 if they follow the regulations and rules literally. DoJ says that you can't indict the President, and neither are you supposed to publicly divulge any information surrounding persons not indicted. So you could have a situation where they have smoking gun evidence of Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue, but since he can't be indicted, they can't publicly disclose that evidence.
Time to stock up on popcorn
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Technically speaking? Yes. Since Day One, I have been of the opinion that Mueller would never seek to indict Trump, because he is a by-the-books guy, and that would go against DOJ official policy. Even if he did seek an indictment, and Rosenstein or Barr said no (based on the same policy), then Barr would have had to include a reference to that in his notification to Congress today. So it's very much possible that Mueller found evidence that Trump committed a crime, and declined to prosecute simply based on long-standing DOJ policy.
That said, there is no DOJ policy preventing indictments of Jr., Jared, Ivanka, etc. I think it's unlikely (with a few exceptions) that Trump committed any provable criminal offenses on his own, without the help of, especially, Jr. and Jared. Those few exceptions, of course, would include, say, obstruction charges related to the Comey firing. So it's not out of the realm of possibility. But I think - and I cannot stress enough that this is barely half a step above bald speculation - that it's quite possible, perhaps likely, that Mueller's investigation simply didn't uncover provable criminal conduct by the President.
I know a lot of Democrats will be disappointed to see Trump remain in the Oval. And, although they are quieter about it, quite a few Republicans are probably feeling a twinge of regret at missing out on President Pence. But the idea that this investigation would topple Trump was always - and remains - a longshot. Americans still have the best and least problematic option available for undoing the horrid mistake they made in 2016, and that option becomes available on November 3, 2020.
To be fair, those aren't actually regulations or rules, but rather internal policies. Comey didn't violate any regulations, for example, when he publicly explained why he didn't recommend prosecution of Hillary. My guess is, if there's a smocking gun in there, it will make it's way to Congress in due time.
Agreed. What I would like to see is enough evidence of shady, despicable shit being done to keep the House investigations front and center until election day.
Guarantee you Nancy Pelosi new exactly what was in the Mueller report when she said she wasn’t going to impeach Trump!
I think that, even if there isn’t any actionable crime uncovered, there will still be plenty of stuff in the report that will make Trump look bad.
And that may actually be the best possible outcome. Save the country the stain of having to impeach while ensuring there is no chance of reelection.
My sense is that Mueller's report needs to be read in conjunction with whatever the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York is investigating.
Mueller likely looked at the political situation, realized that the path for his team to bring charges against any others was limited and/or curtailed altogether, passed off the criminal stuff to the USDA SDNY, and issued his report . . . .
So Mueller's report ain't the end of this . . . in a way, it's just the beginning. Everything up to know has just been preparation.
Whether there's enough in Mueller's report to support impeachment is still unknown, and that's likely where the focus will be upon any public release of a summary of this report. If there is enough for congress to consider impeachment investigations, then that's one avenue that we'll be watching for the rest of Trump's presidency.
That said, what the USDA in the SDNY has may be where the real of future events will be.
Mueller likely looked at the political situation, realized that the path for his team to bring charges against any others was limited and/or curtailed altogether, passed off the criminal stuff to the USDA SDNY, and issued his report . . . .
So Mueller's report ain't the end of this . . . in a way, it's just the beginning. Everything up to know has just been preparation.
Whether there's enough in Mueller's report to support impeachment is still unknown, and that's likely where the focus will be upon any public release of a summary of this report. If there is enough for congress to consider impeachment investigations, then that's one avenue that we'll be watching for the rest of Trump's presidency.
That said, what the USDA in the SDNY has may be where the real of future events will be.
And don't forget the NYAG and NYCDA are just getting started. Trump's legal problems will not end when he leaves office.
I'm a Republican that might be loosely described as Never-Trumper, but collusion angle always seemed odd to me.
The Russians would never trust someone as undisciplined and prone to bragging as Trump in a joint conspiracy. It would be totally out-of-character for them to do so. Now in a kompramat-operation? Sure, but even then they tend to focus on peripheral players that lack oversight.
Now what we do know of the Trumps is that they tend to be very generous with those that do business with them as clients....that is to say, large entities who pay Trump money for services/property. On the flip side, Trumps are awful to those THEY pay for services. I could see given the Russians funding of Trump operations after the 2008 crash that the Trumps would be overly solicitous to the Russians, without any express prid-pro-quo. Now is it EXTREMELY shady? Yes. Impeachable? Probably. Illegal? Technically no.
I've said for a while the Mueller findings will likely be infuriating to both sides. For the Left, probably not enough indictmentsto be at Watergate level scandal. On the Right, likely enough embarrassing/immoral/unethical conduct to pose a political problem with swing voters. Trumps bigger liabilities reside in the SDNY and other jurisdictions, but at least on some level, he may have dodged the knockout blow from Mueller, though I think Mueller will still take a good chunk out of his political capital.
The Russians would never trust someone as undisciplined and prone to bragging as Trump in a joint conspiracy. It would be totally out-of-character for them to do so. Now in a kompramat-operation? Sure, but even then they tend to focus on peripheral players that lack oversight.
Now what we do know of the Trumps is that they tend to be very generous with those that do business with them as clients....that is to say, large entities who pay Trump money for services/property. On the flip side, Trumps are awful to those THEY pay for services. I could see given the Russians funding of Trump operations after the 2008 crash that the Trumps would be overly solicitous to the Russians, without any express prid-pro-quo. Now is it EXTREMELY shady? Yes. Impeachable? Probably. Illegal? Technically no.
I've said for a while the Mueller findings will likely be infuriating to both sides. For the Left, probably not enough indictmentsto be at Watergate level scandal. On the Right, likely enough embarrassing/immoral/unethical conduct to pose a political problem with swing voters. Trumps bigger liabilities reside in the SDNY and other jurisdictions, but at least on some level, he may have dodged the knockout blow from Mueller, though I think Mueller will still take a good chunk out of his political capital.
Are those investigations spawns of Mueller's investigation? If so, then what I said applies to them also. If not, then they're simply independent of Mueller's work.
I'm not sure if there was any official connection. I got the impression that NY's interest arose directly from the Manafort and Cohen prosecutions, but it could have been more inspiration than any sort of actual "spawning."
Nice post. I am interested in why you concluded that Trump's connections with the Russians are "technically" not illegal.
The reason I'm asking is that with the DOJ's policy that the president cannot be indicted - at least not for violations of federal law, by the DOJ - there isn't any basis for concluding that no criminal activity occurred just because no indictments are forthcoming from the Special Counsel's office.
They don’t need to release anything. The Dems won’t want them to release anything. They want the mystery,
and hyperbole. Anyway, the House has already taken the baton from Mueller and initiated the next two yrs of investigations.....and beat goes on......LOL
Well, for one I would love to have the entire report released. My bet would be that there's a less than 1% chance that Trump would be fully absolved of illegal/criminal activity.
I was only referring to the potential illegality related to Russians funding of Trump operations, which is one of the provable links between Trump and Russia. It wouldn't be technically illegal for Trump to be nice to the Russians through policy decisions for financial transactions that that predated his campaign. It would be illegal to do the same for transactions during the campaign...or promises for future projects after his Presidency.
Now again, if I was forced to bet money, I'd lean on the side that Trump may have done some illegal activities with the Russians...money laundering, FARA, RICO, FCPA, etc....none of those would surprise me. But in the narrow question of collusion/conspiracy, it doesn't surprise me that Mueller hasn't connected dots.
That would always be true. The crime would be conspiracy. Not collusion
I’ll give Trump, Meadows & the like for defining the issue as collusion- a MUCH higher bar to clear than conspiracy. Again, that’s the actual issue.
Well crap Lucy, you of all people should know the answer to that one. Do you feel a little groggy? Need a nap in the afternoon? I think we have cracked the code!
Some will be underwhelmed whilst others will be overwhelmed by the Muller Report. I will prefer to just be whelmed.
Like I said they don’t need to release anything because the Dems have taken up the baton.
That’s true too. It’s a shame the GOP wasn’t the least bit interested . When it all plays out it will be interesting to see how many of them have Russian ties . Looking at you Lindsey Graham.
Yep, and if Mueller follows guidelines DOJ can't disparage people that they haven't/wouldn't charge, so that stuff may never come out unless the guidelines get waived or the full report leaks. Also possible there's underlying documents/research that would be chargeable, but isn't in the report due to DOJ policy being that 1) we can't charge the President and 2) we can't disparage people we won't charge.
Per Representative Eric Swalwell, Mueller will be subpoenaed before congress to provide it with the reports contents. Mueller may not feel he can provide congress with that information without the DOJs consent. Trump may want to start walking back some of his statements about Mueller.
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/art...port-Barr-Eric-Swalwell-subpoena-13711043.php
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/art...port-Barr-Eric-Swalwell-subpoena-13711043.php
Why would he need to walk anything back? Are you now suggesting that Mueller, the guy that the left painted as a beacon of integrity, would not tell the truth because someone he was investigating said something about him he didn’t like?
I find it especially delicious how much the left WANTS all these allegations to be true. Screw what it would have done to America to have a Russian Spy as President.... as long as you get what you want at the end. See I think it is obvious you would trade a Trump conviction for keeping America in tact because your side sees no value in our republic. You want it to change. It ain’t....
Now we get to watch the left turn on Mueller and stomp their feet, in juvenile anger over the next several weeks. Bottom line is if there was anything there, he would be prosecuted. No way he could stay in position if he did anything like the left cooked up.
The Libs filed a lawsuit to release the data Last Night! This is not about the truth. By the way Repubs have stated that the info should be released according to the LAW. What a novel point of view.
Mueller is a straight arrow but the way he has been attacked by Trump his disgust with him may be reflected in his testimony, if he is permitted to give it. Meanwhile back in Moscow things couldn’t be going any better for Vladimir. Mueller filed charges against those individuals whom he felt he could make against; it doesn’t mean Trump is clean but given how he has led his life I believe he is capable of about anything.
BTW it’s your guy who is talking about his armed biker buddies going all Brownshirt on the rest of us if he is challenged.
I don’t think Trump was limiting the gun action to only politicians. It’s just anyone who might get in his way.
Enjoy the assist you are getting from the media. As they eat their own (most recent Lara Logan of 60 minutes) the control will slip. We have a guy who will fight it all... academia and the press are big big big problems in our society right now and I think after he is re-elected it will be open season.
The media isn’t reporting it fairly and evenly...you know this. Enjoy it won’t last.
So once again, you are upset over what he said..... and you equate that to the republican assassination attempt? This is why you are losing.... you do know that right? He has absolutely cleaned your clocks. I’m enjoying it.....thank you may I have another is your guys motto....
Batter up
My how we forget...
Coast Guard Officer Accused of Racist Mass-Murder Plot, Kept ‘Hit List’ of Democrats and MSNBC Hosts
https://www.thedailybeast.com/coast...ot-kept-hit-list-of-democrats-and-msnbc-hosts
Specific journalists and others appear in Hasson’s search history, the filing claims, including: MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes, Joe Scarborough, and Ari Melber; Sens. Richard Blumenthal—or “blumen jew,” in Hasson’s writing—Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker; Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ilhan Omar; CNN’s Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Van Jones; as well as prominent Democrats Beto O’Rourke and John Podesta, and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Hasson’s searches also included “what if trump illegally impeached,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “best place in dc to see congress people.”
Hasson’s searches also included “what if trump illegally impeached,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “best place in dc to see congress people.”
Having a president threaten mass killings and civil war is unprecedented and it just shows that there is only one important person and every one else can just die ala Bob Knight for not supporting him. It’s amazing that you see all this as winning by Trump and not as the destruction of our democracy. Maybe we could solve a lot of these concerns if we just tightened up the guns laws. I’m sure you would endorse this as sensible solution.
They already disclosed some of that in the filing that called Trump "Person No. 1."
I'm more concerned about the statute of limitations expiring before he gets out of office, so that he can't be indicted even after he leaves office. Lawyers, how does that work?
If someone waits to indict him based on the theory that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and the SOL runs out while he is in office, the prosecutor will argue before the court that the SOL "tolled" while he was president. Tolling is a legal theory that the running of a SOL can be "paused" for various reasons. Ironically, this means Trump's lawyers would then be put in the position of arguing that the SOL should not have tolled, because the President could have been indicted, contrary to what they would argue if an indictment were actually handed down now.
As far as I know, there is no precedent in any jurisdiction regarding tolling because an official is outside the reach of law on account of his office, but I suspect most courts would view the argument favorably. One of the traditional reasons for tolling is that a defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the courts; this is why, for example, fugitives cannot count on the SOL running out before they are caught. Temporary executive immunity from prosecution could probably be seen as an analogue of this reasoning.
You apparently aren't listening to your president:
In an interview with Breitbart, Trump stated “I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/03/15/trump-i-have-the-police-the-military-and-the-trump-bikers/
