HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No more indictments might...

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 07:51 PM

 

No more indictments might just be a brilliant move by Mueller

Think about how they've said Mueller has overstepped his mandate. If the rest of the indictments come from SDNY and others they won't be able to make the case indictments about his foundation and taxes, etc. are improper because they came from Muller. Coming from regular prosecutors with obvious jurisdiction they are solid.

88 replies, 12807 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply No more indictments might just be a brilliant move by Mueller (Original post)
bitterross Mar 2019 OP
JI7 Mar 2019 #1
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #2
LiberalFighter Mar 2019 #4
OliverQ Mar 2019 #13
PTWB Mar 2019 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #22
former9thward Mar 2019 #75
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #79
former9thward Mar 2019 #83
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #84
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2019 #31
Eyeball_Kid Mar 2019 #82
FellsPointLib Mar 2019 #3
blm Mar 2019 #5
former9thward Mar 2019 #76
rzemanfl Mar 2019 #6
ZZenith Mar 2019 #8
FellsPointLib Mar 2019 #36
ZZenith Mar 2019 #39
FellsPointLib Mar 2019 #40
ZZenith Mar 2019 #53
ahoysrcsm Mar 2019 #67
ahoysrcsm Mar 2019 #68
pnwmom Mar 2019 #9
Generic Brad Mar 2019 #28
pnwmom Mar 2019 #33
mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #29
pnwmom Mar 2019 #35
mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #42
pnwmom Mar 2019 #43
mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #44
pnwmom Mar 2019 #45
mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #52
pnwmom Mar 2019 #55
mr_lebowski Mar 2019 #56
pnwmom Mar 2019 #57
JonLP24 Mar 2019 #66
JonLP24 Mar 2019 #65
triron Mar 2019 #50
lunatica Mar 2019 #18
bdamomma Mar 2019 #34
FellsPointLib Mar 2019 #41
lunatica Mar 2019 #61
UniteFightBack Mar 2019 #20
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #23
Rural_Progressive Mar 2019 #25
pnwmom Mar 2019 #63
Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2019 #7
videohead5 Mar 2019 #10
ancianita Mar 2019 #12
Quixote1818 Mar 2019 #15
UniteFightBack Mar 2019 #21
theboss Mar 2019 #47
Peace06 Mar 2019 #49
triron Mar 2019 #59
Amaryllis Mar 2019 #11
Lulu KC Mar 2019 #17
calimary Mar 2019 #16
czarjak Mar 2019 #19
Pepsidog Mar 2019 #24
meadowlander Mar 2019 #62
Pepsidog Mar 2019 #72
dumbcat Mar 2019 #74
Pepsidog Mar 2019 #85
allgood33 Mar 2019 #64
Pepsidog Mar 2019 #71
lancelyons Mar 2019 #78
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2019 #26
moondust Mar 2019 #27
bdamomma Mar 2019 #30
MadDAsHell Mar 2019 #32
theboss Mar 2019 #48
totodeinhere Mar 2019 #58
Hoyt Mar 2019 #37
Pepsidog Mar 2019 #38
DirtEdonE Mar 2019 #46
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2019 #51
Azathoth Mar 2019 #60
DirtEdonE Mar 2019 #70
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2019 #80
DirtEdonE Mar 2019 #86
lancelyons Mar 2019 #77
triron Mar 2019 #54
wishstar Mar 2019 #69
avebury Mar 2019 #73
InAbLuEsTaTe Mar 2019 #81
BlueFlorida Mar 2019 #87
OliverQ Mar 2019 #88

Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 07:52 PM

1. and no ability to pardon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 07:53 PM

2. SDNY is federal, so those crimes are pardonable, but crimes charged by

the Manhattan DA, being NY State crimes, are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:06 PM

4. He can't pardon himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:27 PM

13. Says who? Brett "I Love Beer" Kavanaugh will totally let him pardon himself.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:28 PM

14. Is that true ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:44 PM

22. Nobody has ever tried so it's unknown,

but most legal scholars seem to think a president can't pardon himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:25 AM

75. No, "most" don't say that.

The opinions are very divided on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #75)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:39 AM

79. Citations, please? I haven't seen many who think it can be done, and a lot who can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:57 AM

83. Of course you gave no citations either.

No I am not going to spend several hours going through the internet getting together legal opinions on the matter (actual legal opinions -- not talking points on a cable show or someone making a political statement).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:36 PM

31. Fat Donnie seems to think otherwise.

From CNN in June 2018:

Trump: 'I have the absolute right to pardon myself'

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump asserted Monday that he has the right to pardon himself but suggested that he won't use that power, adding that the special counsel investigation is "unconstitutional."

"As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!" the President tweeted.

---------------------------

Accepting a pardon requires the recipient acknowledges his or her guilt, however, and since Donnie Two Scoops has never admitted to doing anything wrong about anything else in his life, pardoning himself might be antithetical to his self-preservation instincts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:52 AM

82. The idea is absurd. It's as if Trumpy can declare himself a king, and we're all his subjects. But...

worse for Trumpy is that he will NOT be able to pardon anyone who is indicted through RICO laws, because he will be a principle defendant in any indictment-- through his campaign and/or his Trump Organization. Pardoning anyone in a RICO case would also mean that he'd have the ability to pardon himself. Consider that a high court would have to rule on such a case. The high court would have to conclude that a president AND his co-conspirators are immune from prosecution for any crimes. That is a ticket for complete anarchy and chaos, that anything resembling the RULE OF LAW is no longer operable. Any court ruling favoring the abandonment of the Rule of Law would mean that the entire Constitution is not valid.

Ruling in favor of immunity would mean that the government is, for all intents and purposes, dissolved. This means that ALL PRIVATE AND BUSINESS CONTRACTS HAVE NO GOVERNMENT BACKING IN LAW. It's quite an assertion, but that would be the logical consequence of a high court allowing Trumpy's assertions to stand.

That this issue is even being discussed is beyond the pale. That Trumpy brings these issues to the fore is an indication of how fragile the Constitution really is. It takes a lot of political power and will to simply assert that the Constitution has validity and stability BECAUSE Trumpy and his Administration is so saturated with corruption and malfeasance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:03 PM

3. His real crimes are at the federal level, though

 

...and much like in Fitzmas, they aren't being prosecuted. Mueller is a lifelong Republican. I'm amazed so many Dems trust him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:08 PM

5. He has decades of real crimes. Mueller sent evidence of crimes he FOUND to SDNY

and other relevant jurisdictions.

This is the beginning, just as expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:28 AM

76. If he had "decades of real crimes" why has no one prosecuted him?

Obama and Clinton had DOJs in power for 16 years. Why nothing? Why has the state of NY not prosecuted anything? Trump has been a resident and doing business there his entire life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:09 PM

6. Welcome to DU. Glad you decided to post after all this time.

I could never remember a password that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rzemanfl (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:16 PM

8. One post in six and a half years!

Displaying remarkable restraint, I’d say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZZenith (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:45 PM

36. what's your accusation exactly?

 

That I'm some kind of GOP troll or something? Sorry you can't deal with a fellow democrat who has a 0.0000000000001% difference with your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:53 PM

39. I am certain our differences are much greater than that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZZenith (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:21 PM

40. Like what?

 

I am upset there are no indictments. You are not. Yet you are the one accusing me. Fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #40)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:56 PM

53. So you made more than one post in six and a half years?

Because that is what I was “accusing” you of.

And my wife has a greater than 0.0000000000001% difference with my opinions, so I am sure yours and mine differ even more.

Take it easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZZenith (Reply #8)


Response to ZZenith (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 07:43 AM

68. Hello.

Some just lurk, no reason to reply when someone else has already said it.

Edit, thanks for adding +2 to my post count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:16 PM

9. Trump can't be indicted under Justice Dept. policy. This isn't Mueller's fault.

And this is nothing like Fitzmas. There have been 37 indictments, including guilty pleas from half a dozen people very close to the President. And Roger Stone's trial won't even be till November.

And Stone's indictment says that someone directed a top campaign official to ask Stone for info about future Wikileaks drops. That someone could very well be Donald Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:32 PM

28. Can't this policy be changed by an Attorney General?

It's not a law. It's not in the Constitution.

Casual Friday are a policy. No eating at desks is a policy. Not being able to indict a sitting president is a policy. Policies can be changed at any time by those in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:36 PM

33. Yeah, so? MUELLER can't change it. And nobody ever thought William Barr was an ally.

He was the one who wrote the long letter to Trump about how bad it was that he was being investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:32 PM

29. You say this as if there's some law that makes this illegal ...

"And Stone's indictment says that someone directed a top campaign official to ask Stone for info about future Wikileaks drops" ...

Worst-case scenario, it just 'looks bad'. There's really nothing illegal about that.

Only way it's illegal is if you could show said campaign official was involved in getting the documents stolen in the first place. Or that they received the stolen documents. DNC docs are not protected by any sort of National Security mandate, so the theft is pretty run-of-the-mill, as is people talking about releasing them, or trying to find out what's in them.

The only real 'criminals' are the ones who stole them, and possibly anyone receiving them.

I think it's time to start accepting that Russia played this whole thing PERFECTLY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #29)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:39 PM

35. It would be illegal if, as many believe, Assange and Wikileaks are really a Russian operation.

Stone getting a heads up from them would be the "coordination" or "collusion" with the Russians to interfere with the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:48 PM

42. No, that's still not illegal ...

Why do you think Stone did NOT work for the campaign?

So he could do what he was needed to do, as a private citizen.

And we also don't know there's proof he ever knew WHO stole those docs. Though I personally suspect he was well aware, proving that he knew is pretty damn tricky. ANd even then, I'm not sure it matters all that much.

If he worked for the campaign and in some way offered recompense in exchange for the documents being released (thus still potentially only a campaign finance violation), or participated in their initial theft somehow, that'd be different. If all he ever did was say 'hey, can you tell me what in those docs you're releasing?' Not illegal. Even if he knew Russia stole them, it's likely still not.

"Colluding With Russia To Get Your Buddy Elected" is actually not illegal for a private citizen. A CAMPAIGN ... accepting foreign money/goods/services is. But he wasn't in the campaign.

Being 'some part of a process wherein damaging political docs stolen by Russian's were released by Wikileaks' is not likely something covered by existing laws. Should it be? Definitely. But WAS IT? I seriously doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #42)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:59 PM

43. Federal law prohibits ANYONE from soliciting from a foreign source anything of value for a campaign.

Roger Stone is someone. And the information sought was of "value."

It doesn't matter whether Stone is a private citizen, and it doesn't matter whether Trump paid him or not. If Trump was the unnamed person who directed his top campaign official to ask Roger to get valuable information from Wikileaks (as it says in the indictment), then Trump, the campaign official, and Stone all violated federal law.

https://www.justsecurity.org/62369/roger-stone-indictment-campaign-finance-law-crimes/

Background on the Law

Federal campaign finance law prohibits foreign nationals from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election—and also prohibits any person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution.

Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And federal regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”

Whether violations of federal campaign finance are criminal violations, or merely civil violations, depends on whether the violator acted knowingly and willfully. As explained in the Department of Justice manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, campaign finance law violations “become potential crimes when they are committed knowingly and willfully, that is, by an offender who knew what the law forbade and violated it notwithstanding that knowledge.”

And the federal criminal code prohibits “caus[ing] an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be” a federal crime, as well as aiding, abetting or commanding commission of a crime.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #43)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:07 PM

44. So MAAAYBE Roger Stone could be in trouble. But he's not even indicted for it, is he?

Russia WANTED to release this stuff, so Stone didn't have to do a f***ing thing to 'aid, abet, or command'. He was a passive actor (as far as anyone knows) WRT to information being released, and apparently just asked 'whats in it'.

He didn't have to solicit, he didn't have to ask anything be 'provided', which by definition would mean he would 'take receipt of' in some way. How are you going to prove that 'knowing what some document says' ... has monetary value?

Fact is, having Wikileaks release this shit was BRILLIANT.

This ABSOLUTELY, SLIPS PERFECTLY through every friggin crack in the law. That's what I'm trying to tell you, pwnmom.

You're reading all of what you posted the way you want to, and I totally understand ... but what you're asserting ... is not what it says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #44)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:13 PM

45. They're not done with Roger Stone. No one has any idea what he's going to admit to

in the process of getting a plea deal. Remember what happened with Manafort? First they got him on one set of charges and then they got him on another set. The same thing could happen with Roger Stone.

The act of asking for upcoming info from Wikileaks is soliciting. And information can be shown to have value.

Roger Stone and Trump aren't as brilliant as you think they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #45)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:53 PM

52. Okay, information can have 'value' but this is campaign FINANCE law we're dealing with

Which means $$$ are very important.

And assigning a non-zero $ value to this 'info' is potentially more difficult than you think here. How much $ was that info worth, would you say?

See my point?

You can't put a number on it. That's a problem.

Also, for all we know Assange just did what was expected of him and proffered the info 'hey Rog, next release is August 29, might be interested to know it has some stuff about how Hillary and DWS screwed over Bernie in the primary!'.

Then boom Stone didn't 'solicit' anything. But even if he asked, you still have to prove he knew that this info was provided by the Russian government. And THEN show, it had $$$ value.

Yet Stone could've also said "Boy I never wanna know where you got THAT info!'. Assange: 'Don't worry, I'll never tell you'.

I think Trump's not that bright, but Stone has been involved with this shit FOREVER. He's knows EXACTLY how to pull this off ... he knows all the laws, and how to not expose himself in an operation like this.

Fact is he's not indicted for campaign finance violations. If your interpretation was correct, and there was evidence he broke the laws you laid out ... why isn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 12:21 AM

55. You're assuming that the FBI wasn't taping the Russians and Wikileaks and their conversations

with Americans like Stone. I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 12:29 AM

56. Good talk, and obviously I'm hoping for the best, but I'm pessimistic ...

Way I see it, at minimum, you gotta be able to show Stone KNEW Russia was the source of Wikileaks docs, and even then, it's a tough case. And to prove the unnamed Senior official broke the law, Stone has to have told THEM the info came from Russians. And that's an even tougher case.

If you can prove Stone or better yet someone at the Campaign, like Parscale, ever actually RECEIVED, physically or via email, any stolen docs or other things of value from Russians, while knowing they came from Russians ... THEN you really have something.

By simply having knowledge of 'what Wikileaks was going to do', or 'vaguely what was in the docs' ... is just not enough. Even if he asked, it's not enough.

And again I'm back to ... why wasn't he indicted for any collusion-related 'stuff'? Esp. now that Mueller's done, it's hard to come up with an explanation for 'why not', don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 12:36 AM

57. The things of value didn't have to come from Russia. Wikileaks and Assange are also foreign sources.

Also, a US attorney for the DC district is co-counsel with Mueller. She can just take the case over -- in the DC district. This case isn't close to being wrapped up yet. The trial isn't even till November -- plenty of time for Stone to decide to cooperate.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/16/robert-mueller-roger-stone-paul-manafort-225162

But Stone had steadfastly denied any contact with Russia or WikiLeaks. That’s a lie, Mueller’s new filing says. Citing evidence obtained in “dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release,” it claims Stone communicated with WikiLeaks — referred to as “Organization 1” in the filing — and Guccifer 2.0, a Russian intelligence alias used to spread the data stolen in the hacks.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5740797/2-15-19-US-Stone-Related-Case.pdf

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT S. MUELLER III Special Counsel

JESSIE K. LIU U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 04:58 AM

66. The Steele Dossier said Russia went to a third party for plausible deniability of their involvement

I'm pretty sure DCLeaks was a Russian operation but not sure if Wikileaks is a Russian operation though Assange certainly did work with them as well as Roger Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 04:55 AM

65. I agree with your last sentence (as well as everything else you say)

Russia certainly played us perfectly and now we are left feeling confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:42 PM

50. Saw on MSNBC that prominent NY prosecutors said sitting POTUS could be indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:37 PM

18. He has a very long history of being upstanding, honorable and trustworthy

There’s every reason to trust him.

There’s more to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:37 PM

34. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:27 PM

41. I dunno...

 

that he is a lifelong Republican means more to me. I don't trust them. Not one. Not ever. My fear is that he's the kind of Republican who will brush serious crimes under the rug for the sake of "institutional stability". I fear he's the kind who knows there were real crimes but decided the implications of indictments were too dire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #41)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:43 AM

61. Your Concern is noted.

Enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:41 PM

20. New York State and the City of New York say otherwise. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:46 PM

23. The State of New York has plenty of crimes that are just as serious.

One thing they are looking at is tax fraud, and even their double jeopardy rule wouldn't get Trump and his spawn out of that. And state prisons tend to be nastier and more squalid than federal prisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:06 PM

25. If you dig in deep

You'll discover that Mueller has spent his lifetime enforcing the law and to do that he has avoided partisanship as much as humanly possible. The man is a straight shooter who believes in the rule of law and that when ideology prevails over justice we are doomed.

We would have been hard pressed to have a better man running this investigation regardless of the initial at the end of his name.

PS. Donnie O is a lifetime criminal, plenty of crimes committed at all levels of jurisdiction, pretty sure you can even find laws he's broken internationally. Plenty to go around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FellsPointLib (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 03:06 AM

63. The NY crimes are just as real and the prisons there are much less hospitable.

Trump might end up wishing he had only broken Federal laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:15 PM

7. We are not finished with tRump yet. And nobody talking has seen the report!


There is a lot more water yet to flow under the bridge.

Thanks for OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:17 PM

10. Or no new indictments might

Mean the indictments have already happened and they are under seal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:27 PM

12. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:30 PM

15. According to this there are no more indictments under seal

Special counsel Mueller has no sealed indictments as Russia probe ends: NBC News
Special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation and will not file any more indictments in connection with his inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, NBC News reports, citing a senior U.S. law enforcement official.
There are no sealed indictments.
It is possible that leads uncovered during the special counsel's inquiry and handed off could lead to charges brought by state prosecutors or other parts of the Department of Justice.
Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/special-counsel-mueller-has-no-sealed-indictments-as-russia-probe-ends-nbc-news.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:42 PM

21. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:18 PM

47. Sealed indictments don't stay sealed this lpng

 

There are people here who still think there is a sealed indictment with Rove’s name on it,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:38 PM

49. Or no new indictments might mean

Yes, I think you are right! All the trumps involved and kusher (can't bring myself to capitalize their names) already have sealed indictments. Mueller's way of not getting them tied up with double jeopardy law and/or pardons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 01:05 AM

59. Someone here said it's reported there are no sealed indictments.

Don't know how anyone would know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:26 PM

11. Mueller is a phenomenally brilliant strategist. He does nothing randomly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amaryllis (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:35 PM

17. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:34 PM

16. I don't know. I hope YOU'RE right and I'm wrong.

I still remember how much we were looking forward to “Fitzmas” - and desperately-craved justice from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for bush/cheney/rove.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/5565-a-liberals-carol-we-wish-you-a-merry-fitzmas%3famp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:38 PM

19. STILL...

Betting on Bob!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:46 PM

24. I hate to say this with all my heart and soul but unless there are some huge revelations in the

report this will be, I bite my tongue as I say it , a nothingburger. I hope and pray I am wrong, but looking at it from Mueller’s perspective there had to be indisputable, beyond reasonable doubt evidence to charge the criminal president. Looks like there is tons of evidence but not enough to take the extraordinary step of indicting a president. We have all been once again conned by the media who has enjoyed incredible rating. Young reporters getting Pulitzer’s for what? Looks like a nothingbuger. Excuse me, I must now take my leave to vomit and choke on my own words. This criminal president is going to get away it’s it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:54 AM

62. No he isn't.

Congress is going to subpoena the underlying evidence and drag every single one of these treason weasels through hearings until they crack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meadowlander (Reply #62)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:41 AM

72. I hope so. But I'm afraid Americans have a short memory and in 2 years this will be old news.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #72)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:12 AM

74. No, we keep the hearings going in Congress all the way

to the election. There is plenty of fodder to investigate and drag out until Nov 2020. This will NOT be old news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #74)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 11:40 AM

85. Amen. I hope for all our sake I am 100% wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 04:36 AM

64. It's already a "something burger." Trump has been exposed to the world. He is not who he has said

 

he is. He is unpatriotic by all standards, almost illiterate, an audlterer, a racist, a bigot, and a pathological liar. Once he is out of office his fantasy life will be over. His brand is ruined. And, he has exposed the GOP for the fake patriots and conservatives they pretended to be. This 2020 election will be MEGA important and all those progressives who sat out or voted third party in 2016 owe it to humanity to get out and defeat the GOP and Trump in 2020...no matter whom they want, they must vote for a Democrat until next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allgood33 (Reply #64)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:39 AM

71. True but didn't we all ready know he was con man. If this is it, then it's

a waste of 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:33 AM

78. The only problem is since the DOJ has a policy of not indicting a president.

 

The only problem is since the DOJ has a policy of not indicting a president, the end game of Mueller's investigation COULD NOT have been to produce and indictment of the president. That would have been a waste of time since its not permitted by the DOJ.

So the end game has to be to produce a report of the details and not indictment of the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:13 PM

26. Completely brilliant.

I guess Trump is right, that there was no collusion and he's going to get to sail through the next six years, merrily trashing this country and it's institutions along the way.

Just a little sarcasm there.

I expect the way I feel is pretty much the way decent Germans felt in 1937, as it became more and more clear that Adolf Hitler was a crazy man who wanted to conquer the world and didn't car what he destroyed along the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:23 PM

27. Yes, Mueller wasn't elected.

And Dump got X million votes. That means Mueller does not have the authority to hold Dump accountable. Is that your case?

That's the ridiculous scenario Dump postulated a day or two ago. TV lawyers guessed he was trying to shift all the power to hold him accountable to the Senate--where Trump Toadies will roll over and play dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:34 PM

30. hmm....

Mueller may be finished but there are other teams out there who are working behind the scenes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:36 PM

32. I'm tired of 8-dimensional brilliant chess moves.

 

I've lost track of how many disasters in the last 2 decades have been framed on DU as secretly brilliant in a desperate attempt to find anything good in something completely awful.

How about we just fucking win elections instead of this bullshit? I'm so tired of fucking losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #32)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:20 PM

48. Amen, Hallelujah, All That Jazz

 

I can’t wait until the Democratic platform calls for 11 Supreme Court justices....which trump appoints and McConnell confirms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadDAsHell (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 12:46 AM

58. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:50 PM

37. We can hope. But trump isn't going to go down on indictments regarding his foundation and taxes.

Maybe something will come up, but it appears some trump aides might go down.

If a state decides to prosecute -- assuming they think they can get a jury with no right wingers on it ready to camp out to cause a hung jury -- it could take years to even go to trial.

We have one sure way to remove trump from office, beat his damn worthless rear in 2020 -- Send him shamed and packing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:51 PM

38. Looks like a funeral at MSNBC. Maddow looks dumbstruck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:14 PM

46. mueller is a repubican

 

And what's the cardinal rule, kiddies? Repeat after me:

NEVER TRUST A GODAM REPUBICAN.

Thank you robert mueller for once again proving that point.

This is the end of the line folks. You can imagine all the ways mueller brilliantly evaded indicting all the fucking traitors in our midst but what mueller did waste two years while trump tore this country to shreds and now he doesn't even recommend any further indictments.

Stop all the wild speculation on what brilliant strategy has been unleashed here. mueller let the fuckers off the hook. It's just like Bridgegate was here in New Jersey - a crooked repubican federal prosecutor protecting crooked repubicans.

Give up already. The bad guys really have won forever. mueller was a two year diversion so that the repubicans could use that time to totally subvert democracy while they turned the USA into their dream of a one-party dictatorship.

One more time: mueller is a repubican and you can never trust a godam repubican.

That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirtEdonE (Reply #46)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:52 PM

51. Bullshit.

Everybody on DU loved Mueller until it started to look like he wasn't going to give us Trump's head on a plate. But then, as of this evening, he suddenly became Public Enemy #1. But somehow President Obama thought so highly of him that he asked him to stay on as FBI Director past his appointed term. And Bill Clinton had appointed him US Attorney for the Northern District of California during the '90s. I have never heard anybody but Trump accuse him of political bias - Trump says he's a compromised Democrat. So which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 01:16 AM

60. "I have never heard anybody but Trump accuse him of political bias" -- Let's not go *that* far

I recall more than a little suspicion going his way when he was Dubya's FBI Director testifying on Saddam's "links" to terrorism during the manufacturing of the Iraq War. Obama allowing him to stay on also wasn't a particularly conclusive testament to his impartiality since Obama spent much of his first term fitting himself for a stovepipe hat and living in an above-the-fray-Team-Of-Rivals fantasy. It took Obama some time to face the fact that political loyalties really did matter outside of campaign season.

For two years I've marveled at the sudden, uncritical, lemming-like embrace of Mueller by The Resistance™. The guy's a careerist political appointee who became FBI Director because Dubya's White House assured their allies he was a staunch "conservative Republican" and who now likely will return to a cozy private sector life in Republican-connected legal circles. The idea that he, or frankly any senior political appointee, prosecutor or not, is somehow above politics is an antiquated notion. I mean, come on. Chris Christie was a US Attorney too.

With all that said, I don't think there's any reason to believe Mueller didn't do his job professionally. But I have a strong suspicion we will eventually find out he was more than eager to hand off as much as he could to the DOJ and Congress in lieu of taking on a Republican administration himself. Whether he would have been more willing to get creative with a *Democratic* administration will probably be a subject of debate for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:11 AM

70. bullshit can be proven

 

we'll see who is right and who is bullshit in the near future.

See you then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:51 AM

80. I trust Mueller. If he didnt indict someone it wasnt because they were not obviously guilty

as all of the players are but he could not prove it completely.

Others will do the indicting in due time. Much more to see here and soon.

Remember if these were d's in the WH, DOJ wouldnt have to prove anything, they would all be out on their asses and in hiding. You wouldnt have to indict them. but in America cons get to ignore the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #80)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:23 PM

86. You know, I really want to believe mueller is trustworthy

 

But I really don't want to be disappointed again. And I've just been severely disappointed again.

If after two years of an investigation into the details of the news stories we've been hearing and the information that mueller supposedly dug up from myriad inside trump sources that we don't know about isn't enough to "prove it completely" then mueller simply doesn't want to prove it completely.

There is a freedom that comes from recognizing the bullshit, giving up hope and just realizing that no matter how bad in seems we're still in for the worst.

Try it. It's better than "fake hope".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirtEdonE (Reply #46)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:30 AM

77. Its possible that this is true.

 

We will have to see the results of the report to finally know.

If Mueller cant bring more than what the press has already explained to us, then its a travesty.

We already know that Trump worked with Russians and the entire lot of GOP lied about contacts with russians.

They lied and obstructed for a reason.

Will Mueller have found that reason or will he have failed to find that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 11:56 PM

54. Not buying. Why weren't Americans indicted for conspiring with the Russians??

Something is NOT RIGHT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 08:07 AM

69. Apparently the lying and stonewalling prevented Mueller from obtaining necessary evidence

Manafort and Stone have not cooperated and as experienced political operatives they seem to have acted in ways that left enough plausible deniability for Mueller to not have a strong enough case for indictments. Apparently investigators found no smoking gun evidence in Roger Stone's confiscated materials to prove conspiracy. Stone and Manafort both have been extremely skillful for decades at getting away with unethical dirty tricks in politics without getting nailed for criminality so seems we are lucky that Mueller's team at least nailed them both for some criminal behavior. All the players have insulated Trump from the beginning of campaign so he could claim no collusion.


I just wonder how soon Trump will pardon them in order to further diminish and discredit the entire probe and if he will pardon Stone before his trial. When the Mueller report findings are more clear, his Repub lawyers and political operatives will advise him on optimal time to pardon to minimize any fallout regarding appearance of obstruction that could increase impeachment chances. But as far as political fallout, his loyal base will be happy with pardons under pretext of unfair harassment by biased prosecutors and that Manafort has suffered enough. Then the dirty tricksters can get right back in action keeping Repubs in power the rest of their lifetimes even if they utilize help again from Russia or other foreign entities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:44 AM

73. I just hope that he passed any relevant cases to the relevant states.

States are not hampered by the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting President. Nor could Trump pardon anybody prosecuted by state or local jurisdictions.

If Mueller didn't go after Sr, Jr, Erick, Ivanka and Kushner there is no pesky double jeopardy issues either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 10:52 AM

81. Brilliant!!! Let the Traitor-in-Chief off the goddamn hook... Mueller's a fuckin' GENIUS!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:28 PM

87. I completely agree

 

Mueller always played 3-D chess when Trumpsters were playing tic-tac-toe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2019, 02:30 PM

88. This line is giving all the Trump supporters

 

bots, and trolls tons of ammunition to claim the entire investigation was a sham and Trump was innocent. Doesn't make sense for Mueller to announce that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread