HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question: If Mueller indi...

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:12 PM

Question: If Mueller indicts anyone, which court would he try them in?

Also, would he do the trials simultaneously or one at a time? There has been so much speculation on indictments and coming down from different courts, that these are confusing.

32 replies, 3882 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 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Question: If Mueller indicts anyone, which court would he try them in? (Original post)
bresue Jun 2017 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #1
bresue Jun 2017 #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #5
bresue Jun 2017 #6
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #11
chillfactor Jun 2017 #2
bresue Jun 2017 #4
marylandblue Jun 2017 #7
bresue Jun 2017 #10
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #13
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #8
Generic Brad Jun 2017 #9
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #12
Jacquette Jun 2017 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #17
Jacquette Jun 2017 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #20
Jacquette Jun 2017 #21
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #22
Jacquette Jun 2017 #23
bresue Jun 2017 #24
justiceischeap Jun 2017 #25
Calista241 Jun 2017 #29
Historic NY Jun 2017 #15
kentuck Jun 2017 #16
Historic NY Jun 2017 #18
Not Ruth Jun 2017 #26
bresue Jun 2017 #27
Not Ruth Jun 2017 #28
tritsofme Jun 2017 #30
jmg257 Jun 2017 #31
Not Ruth Jun 2017 #32

Response to bresue (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:15 PM

1. Probably the federal district court for D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:16 PM

3. Is that where the Nixon trials were?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:21 PM

5. Yes. Judge John Sirica was the presiding judge.

IIRC he was the Chief Judge for the D.C. federal district court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:24 PM

6. Thank you.

I am not sure if Nixon's trials were live on TV, but I am sure these will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:35 PM

11. Federal courts usually don't permit trials to be televised.

The Watergate trials were not (Nixon himself was never tried), and even now the only federal trials that are televised are civil trials under a pilot program in a few districts. Cameras aren't allowed in courtrooms in federal criminal trials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:15 PM

2. good questions....

I have pondered those questions myself....I would think, however, that cases would be tried in a federal court and one at a time.....just my guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:18 PM

4. Yes, very confusing...

I wonder what the Senate committee can actually do to Sessions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:26 PM

7. Subpoena him to testify again, then hold him in contempt

if he asserts blanket executive privilege again. Then the courts would decide if such a privilege actually exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:33 PM

10. If he is found to be in contempt...is he fired or does he go directly to jail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:43 PM

13. Being held in contempt of Congress doesn't get a person fired automatically.

That would be up to whoever hired them in the first place. What happens is that the contempt citation gets referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who refers it to a grand jury. So it isn't a simple matter. The penalty could be between one and twelve months in jail and a fine of $100 - $1,000.

Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress - the only executive branch official in history.

"In October 2011, 7,600 pages of documents were released that Issa claimed may have indicated Holder was sent memos in regard to Operation Fast and Furious earlier than he at first claimed, contradicting Holder's sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in which he said he only recently became aware of Operation Fast and Furious in the first half of 2011. In April 2012, Issa announced that his committee was drafting a Contempt of Congress resolution against Holder in response to the committee being "stonewalled by the Justice Department." On June 19, 2012, Issa met with Holder in person to discuss the requested documents. Holder said he offered to provide the documents to Issa on the condition that Issa provided his assurance that doing so would satisfy the committee subpoenas and resolve the dispute. Issa rejected the offer. .. On June 20, 2012, the Oversight Committee voted 23–17 along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress for not releasing documents the committee had requested....

Although this vote was not directly relevant to gun legislation, the National Rifle Association announced that they would be scoring the contempt vote, due to Holder's previous stances on gun control legislation, placing political pressure on Democrats that wished to avoid repercussions from the gun lobby. On June 28, 2012, Holder became the first U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt. He was held, by a bipartisan vote, in contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255–67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure, 2 Republicans voting against the measure.The remaining Democrats refused to vote and marched out of the House, led by Nancy Pelosi, as a means of protesting the actions of Republicans. Holder responded to the vote, describing it as "the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided and politically motivated investigation in an election year....

President Obama and the Justice Department declined to prosecute the attorney general on the contempt charge citing executive privilege."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:28 PM

8. Some of the Watergate defendants were tried at the same time.

It kind of depends on whether the defendants in a trial arising out of a collective crime or conspiracy would be relying on contradictory evidence - sometimes they will move for separate trials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:28 PM

9. And can Trump fire the judge?

Why am I even asking? He'd try that even if he didn't have the authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Generic Brad (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:36 PM

12. No, absolutely not.

I think even he knows he can't do that. He would just whine about how SAD and UNFAIR the judge is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:47 PM

14. I'd like to know why the hold up?

 

What's stopping the indictments from being handed out? I know they have to go through hoops for DT but what about Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, the sons, Ivanka. Lewandowski, Page et al?

What possible reason can there be for them to still be free as birds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jacquette (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:53 PM

17. Prosecutors have to build a case before proceeding.

When you're dealing with complex situations involving government or political people it will take time. And they wouldn't be in jail pending trial anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 12:15 AM

19. That is wearing....thin.

 

They are not starting from ground zero.They have been listening to DT since at least summer '16. They have been listening to Kislyiak since he 1st stepped foot on American soil.

They have been listening to these people for over a year, some even longer. They have computer records. Banking records. Recordings of them colluding to swing the election to DT. Recordings of them agreeing to change American policy re sanctions for an oil deal with Russia.

And no one pays. Not even the ones not in gov't. Not even the small fry on the periphery. Except one. Poor little Reality....Now her? Her they snapped up quickfast and disappeared her into some black hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jacquette (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 12:32 AM

20. Have you ever been involved in a federal investigation of a white collar criminal case?

I have. My client got tangled up in a check-kiting scheme as one of the victims, as well as a defendant in a related civil case. It wasn't a big case as those things go, but we had to deal with an FBI investigation and a grand jury, and even though it was small potatoes for the FBI, the whole thing took about a year. The process is SLOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:00 AM

21. I see damage being fdone

 

and I can't help but think they are too leisurely with this to the detriment of the country. Real policies are being put in place by unscrupulous rogues.

It's all very well for Comey & Co to make sure every i is dotted; they are not facing the loss of healthcare. Or maybe they don't care about swimming in piss water because the EPA is being gutted. They, like many who have no problem with the slow pace, live in the Other America. You know...where the 1% live and nothing has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jacquette (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:02 AM

22. I get that. But I don't know how to make it happen any faster

and I doubt the investigators are just dawdling and goofing off. If they don't make sure every i is dotted they run the risk of losing their case or having it thrown out on appeal, and now we're worse off than ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:25 AM

23. Logically I get what you're saying.

 

I'm just losing hope. I don't have the certainty you have that it will be fixed or set right, not anymore.
I'm sick of of this. Of worrying and stressing and of being afraid.

It's as if the country is falling apart, losing it's collective mind and degenerating into violence and hate. And the people we look to for answers, the msm, politicians...they're treating it as some intellectual legal exercise btw combatants, some Sharks vs Jets (google if you're a millenial!) shit.
"Well in 1973 when Nixon" or "What will the Committee's response be to..".

This is not business as usual, not Watergate and I am terrified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jacquette (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:17 AM

24. I agree! Drip, Drip, and Drip....but the sink is not getting full...

Sometimes I wonder if Special Council ask only one question a day, then rest or naps the rest of the day. All we see is Dump boasting how he is getting away with crimes...and no one is stepping in to stop this idiot. Very frustrating! Even my dumpster friend agrees...it is frustrating. Rubs want him to be exonerated...in a hurry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jacquette (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:26 AM

25. You also have to consider there may be no case to bring

I think that's unlikely for Flynn and Manafort but the others are up in the air.

I'm of the opinion that what, if anything, brings Trump et. al. Down will not be related to Russia as we now understand it.

I think it's going to do with money laundering in his real estate biz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:49 AM

29. Mueller's appointment is explicit.

He's to investigate:

1. Any links and/or coordination with the Russians and the Trump campaign
2. Matters that arise from this investigation
3. Matters related to 28 CFR 600.4a. (Which means if anyone tries to interfere with the investigation, he can go after them for obstruction, perjury, etc.)

The special prosecutor cannot just go off and investigate or prosecute anyone for whatever he wants.

Any organized crime ties to Trump are buried DEEP if they haven't come out already. Organized crime and similar RICO cases can take years to build and prosecute. Some have taken over two decades to bring to arrest and trial. And Trump has buried all his businesses in lawyers since the 80's.

The political class is not going to tolerate an investigation that lasts Trumps entire term.so get ready for disappointment if you want Mueller to prosecute Trump for uncovered mob ties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:51 PM

15. Probably Alexandria Va. which has been looking into the 2016 election

but he can use any Federal court in the country.... he has been in with the Us Attorney in Alexandria for meetings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:53 PM

16. I had read that the Grand Jury was already in place in VA...

and the case could be presented to them at any time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 13, 2017, 10:54 PM

18. Yes it has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:31 AM

26. Louise Mensch has reported that indictments were issued in EdVA a month ago

 

Which I think is in Virginia. They were originally sealed, but she reported that they were unsealed this week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Ruth (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:44 AM

27. Would it not be wonderful if we got verification of that?

What is the hold up of announcing indictments by Mueller...just venting here...getting very frustrating! Dump keeps gloating how he is not under investigation.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 06:48 AM

28. The Marshal of the Supreme Court told Trump that he was under impeachment last month

 

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Multiple sources close to the intelligence, justice and law enforcement communities say that the House Judiciary Committee is considering Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States.

Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump.

It was reported this week that Mr. Trump had texted Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn the message ‘Stay strong’. This might be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate a witness, sources say.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein met with the House Judiciary Committee this week in closed session.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Ruth (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:43 AM

30. Are you actually posting this un-ironically?

Because this "Marshal of the Supreme Court" business is for a lack of better term....batshit crazy nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Ruth (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:47 AM

31. Issued by whom, exactly? WHO indicted whom???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bresue (Original post)

Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:15 PM

32. Claude Taylor reports obstruction, unjust enrichment and 2 years to prosecute Trump

 

Trump is formally being investigated for obstruction of justice, the AG of multiple states have access to a spreadsheet showing that Trump has unjustly enriched himself by over $26 million, and it might take 2 years to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread