Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bresue

(1,007 posts)
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:12 PM Jun 2017

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question: If Mueller indicts anyone, which court would he try them in? (Original Post) bresue Jun 2017 OP
Probably the federal district court for D.C. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #1
Is that where the Nixon trials were? bresue Jun 2017 #3
Yes. Judge John Sirica was the presiding judge. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #5
Thank you. bresue Jun 2017 #6
Federal courts usually don't permit trials to be televised. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #11
good questions.... chillfactor Jun 2017 #2
Yes, very confusing... bresue Jun 2017 #4
Subpoena him to testify again, then hold him in contempt marylandblue Jun 2017 #7
If he is found to be in contempt...is he fired or does he go directly to jail? bresue Jun 2017 #10
Being held in contempt of Congress doesn't get a person fired automatically. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #13
Some of the Watergate defendants were tried at the same time. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #8
And can Trump fire the judge? Generic Brad Jun 2017 #9
No, absolutely not. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #12
I'd like to know why the hold up? Jacquette Jun 2017 #14
Prosecutors have to build a case before proceeding. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #17
That is wearing....thin. Jacquette Jun 2017 #19
Have you ever been involved in a federal investigation of a white collar criminal case? The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #20
I see damage being fdone Jacquette Jun 2017 #21
I get that. But I don't know how to make it happen any faster The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #22
Logically I get what you're saying. Jacquette Jun 2017 #23
I agree! Drip, Drip, and Drip....but the sink is not getting full... bresue Jun 2017 #24
You also have to consider there may be no case to bring justiceischeap Jun 2017 #25
Mueller's appointment is explicit. Calista241 Jun 2017 #29
Probably Alexandria Va. which has been looking into the 2016 election Historic NY Jun 2017 #15
I had read that the Grand Jury was already in place in VA... kentuck Jun 2017 #16
Yes it has. Historic NY Jun 2017 #18
Louise Mensch has reported that indictments were issued in EdVA a month ago Not Ruth Jun 2017 #26
Would it not be wonderful if we got verification of that? bresue Jun 2017 #27
The Marshal of the Supreme Court told Trump that he was under impeachment last month Not Ruth Jun 2017 #28
Are you actually posting this un-ironically? tritsofme Jun 2017 #30
Issued by whom, exactly? WHO indicted whom??? jmg257 Jun 2017 #31
Claude Taylor reports obstruction, unjust enrichment and 2 years to prosecute Trump Not Ruth Jun 2017 #32

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
5. Yes. Judge John Sirica was the presiding judge.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:21 PM
Jun 2017

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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
11. Federal courts usually don't permit trials to be televised.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:35 PM
Jun 2017

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.

chillfactor

(7,590 posts)
2. good questions....
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:15 PM
Jun 2017

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.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
7. Subpoena him to testify again, then hold him in contempt
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:26 PM
Jun 2017

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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
13. Being held in contempt of Congress doesn't get a person fired automatically.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:43 PM
Jun 2017

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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
8. Some of the Watergate defendants were tried at the same time.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:28 PM
Jun 2017

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.

Generic Brad

(14,276 posts)
9. And can Trump fire the judge?
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:28 PM
Jun 2017

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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
12. No, absolutely not.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:36 PM
Jun 2017

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

 

Jacquette

(152 posts)
14. I'd like to know why the hold up?
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:47 PM
Jun 2017

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?

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
17. Prosecutors have to build a case before proceeding.
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:53 PM
Jun 2017

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.

 

Jacquette

(152 posts)
19. That is wearing....thin.
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:15 AM
Jun 2017

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.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
20. Have you ever been involved in a federal investigation of a white collar criminal case?
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:32 AM
Jun 2017

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.

 

Jacquette

(152 posts)
21. I see damage being fdone
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 02:00 AM
Jun 2017

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.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,996 posts)
22. I get that. But I don't know how to make it happen any faster
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 02:02 AM
Jun 2017

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.

 

Jacquette

(152 posts)
23. Logically I get what you're saying.
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 02:25 AM
Jun 2017

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.

bresue

(1,007 posts)
24. I agree! Drip, Drip, and Drip....but the sink is not getting full...
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:17 AM
Jun 2017

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!

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
25. You also have to consider there may be no case to bring
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:26 AM
Jun 2017

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.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
29. Mueller's appointment is explicit.
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:49 AM
Jun 2017

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.

Historic NY

(37,461 posts)
15. Probably Alexandria Va. which has been looking into the 2016 election
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:51 PM
Jun 2017

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

kentuck

(111,111 posts)
16. I had read that the Grand Jury was already in place in VA...
Tue Jun 13, 2017, 11:53 PM
Jun 2017

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

 

Not Ruth

(3,613 posts)
26. Louise Mensch has reported that indictments were issued in EdVA a month ago
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:31 AM
Jun 2017

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

bresue

(1,007 posts)
27. Would it not be wonderful if we got verification of that?
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:44 AM
Jun 2017

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.....

 

Not Ruth

(3,613 posts)
28. The Marshal of the Supreme Court told Trump that he was under impeachment last month
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 07:48 AM
Jun 2017

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.

tritsofme

(17,442 posts)
30. Are you actually posting this un-ironically?
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 08:43 AM
Jun 2017

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

 

Not Ruth

(3,613 posts)
32. Claude Taylor reports obstruction, unjust enrichment and 2 years to prosecute Trump
Wed Jun 14, 2017, 08:15 PM
Jun 2017

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question: If Mueller indi...