Mueller Impanels a Grand Jury

Lawyers say this latest legal problem for Trump is serious. Jail time serious.

About time. One of the most obnoxious claims during the election campaign was asserting (evidence-free) there was some scandal about the Clinton foundation, which has done massive good works around the world, and which the Clintons contribute to. Meanwhile the Trump "foundation", which Trump barely contributes to, was buying artwork to be installed in Trump properties, bribing at least one AG (in Florida) to drop a lawsuit against Trump, and not doing any charitable work that anybody's ever noticed. Fucking scumbag doesn't quite cover my opinion of Trump.

Will The Donald ask The Vlad to extradite these twelve criminals on the 16th?

Even Dickhead Gowdy agrees with me.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Will The Donald ask The Vlad to extradite these twelve criminals on the 16th?

I saw a headline this morning which basically had Trump saying "I never thought of that".

If he asks -- which is doubtful -- Putin's response would be very instructive.

He CLAIMS the Russian government had nothing to do with the hacking.  So, in theory, he should be happy to turn over these Russian CPB agents.  But they're known to have ties with Russian military, which of course is a branch of the Russian government.  So he probably wouldn't turn anyone over (they might turn state's evidence).

Which would leave both Vlad -- and The Donald -- in a very public, very sticky pickle.

Mueller & Rosenstein have been very clever so far, giving Trump enough rope to hang himself without coming out with any presidential indictments. As I stated earlier, the investigation probably has enough detail to invalidate the 2016 election, which would provoke a constitutional crisis. The only option may be to set traps for the Moron-In-Chief knowing that he's dumb enough to fall for each and every one of them.

The Moron-In-Chief is now trying to rewrite the law.

Mueller should have a field day with this Bozo (after January 20).

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think it’s entirely possible that not only has Mueller uncovered felony behavior which would send most of the Trump Administration to jail, but he MAY have uncovered evidence of election fraud or tampering which would invalidate the election. Descending the line of succession would create utter chaos.

I made a bet with Mrs. NoCo that Nancy Pelosi would be ascending to the presidency (by rights of succession) before year's end.

Anybody care to join the bet?

The new House Dems are cooperating with the Mueller investigation. What a concept.

As Mueller probe winds down, House Trump investigation powers up

Here's my theory.  The House Intel committee gets classified behind-closed-doors briefings from Mueller's SCO.  With his agreement/suggestion, they are taking PARTS of his findings and opening public investigations into his areas of inquiry, to soften the blow to our democracy and prepare the public for sweeping indictments of almost everyone in charge.  Trump's administration is going to jail, en masse, and maybe even the election was rigged.

Pelosi will be president by December.

Adam Schiff wrote:

I can understand why the idea of meaningful oversight terrifies the President. Several of his close associates are going to jail, others await trial, and criminal investigations continue.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The alt-right blogosphere is now buzzing with the meme that it would be inappropriate for Mueller's probe to investigate the president's financial dealings from 5 or 10 years ago.  Obviously there is great fear that Mueller will find money laundering and Foreign Practices Act violations and indications that Donald's "multi-billion dollar empire" is actually a couple hundred mil leveraged to the hilt.

Unbeweavable. How do these creeps sleep at night?

Lindsay Graham may have to adjust his thinking when the "coup" comes from the Justice Department and is overwhelming in its evidence and sweeping in its scope.

How will he react when a Democrat ends up in the White House?

Well, hopefully it won't matter. He'll be wearing an orange jumpsuit too.

Mueller probe may wrap next week

About time, if true, and not a moment too soon.  Now will it be bombshells, with orange jumpsuits all around, or will it be disappointingly noncommittal?  Only time will tell....

On Rachel Maddow last night she speculated that with all the Russian collusion indictments so far being funneled to the New York Southern District Court, it's possible that THEY will issue any indictments to administration officials in the matter.  This is significant, because 1) as a state court, Trump's pardon power has no effect on what they do, and 2) as a state court, they are not bound by the DOJ opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted while in office.

Yesterday Kellyanne Conway floated the possibility that Mueller's investigation could close out without even delivering a final report but I have to think this is Trumpian magical thinking.  Mueller is much more studied and serious than that.  He wouldn't have wasted the past 22 months if there was nothing to deliver.

And once his findings are made public -- or even if they're only delivered in classified briefings to the House Intelligence Committee -- heads will begin to roll.

I suspect.

And hope.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Which raises the interesting constitutional question: if BOTH Trump and Pence are indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors, does Paul Ryan assume the presidency?

I would assume not, since being indicted -- even convicted -- is not automatic grounds for removal.  That old 2/3 vote for impeachment is still the only process for removing a president.

And/or vice president.

And this Congress will not be impeaching anyone.

The unindictability of the president is by no means settled.  Rachel tonight delivered an hour-long Special Report on the 1973 basis of this, and in 1973 this DOJ policy was formulated SPECIFICALLY to get Spiro Agnew removed from office before Nixon was indicted, because Spiro was facing ten counts of felony indictment of his own,unrelated to Watergate, but having to do with an ongoing bribery and kickback scandal.  The DOJ didn't want to remove one bad actor (Nixon) only to have another bad actor (Agnew) inherit the office.

Pelosi, and Schumer, and various other Democrats involved, all have said they believe the president CAN be indicted.  This legal issue has never been tested before.

But, if the president is indicted, and stands trial for federal crimes, will he remain in office?  Is an impeachment the only way to remove him?  An impeachment would require 20 Republicans to vote against him in the Senate.

I suspect -- without any proof -- that one of the reasons Mueller's report has been so delayed is that his SOC has been looking into this question, and has finally come up with an answer.

Hopefully, the answer is that no US citizen is above the law.  If a federal employee is found guilty of a felony, they can and should lose their job (and security clearance).

Regardless of who they are, or what office they hold.  

THAT would be the only reading of statute that preserves the Rule of Law.

I read somewhere yesterday that the rule about not indicting a sitting President might be true at the Federal level, but New York doesn't have any such restriction. And on QorA today, somebody commented that what Trump fears most is a RICO indictment for fraud, based on all the criminal shit that the Trump Organization has done over the last 35 years (mostly money-laundering). A lot might skate by due to statute of limitations concerns, but not all of it. And Trump's direct fingerprints don't have to be on the cash to get him ensnared in RICO - that's how they get the heads of crime families (and is something Mueller is well-familiar with).

NoCoPilot wrote:

Mueller probe may wrap next week.

DOJ made a rare public statement today: "Not this week.  Not next week either."

Heavy sigh.

Quote :

Petition by Darin Peacock
Austin, TX, United States
2,491 Supporters

Make the Mueller Report in full available to the American public!

We, as American citizens, deserve to know the full truth about these grave investigational issues concerning our President of these United States whether the truth is good, bad, or ugly so that we can preserve liberty and justice for all. We, the American public, as citizens and taxpayers demand to see the full investigational report for full transparency.

You might as well start a petition to lower the force of gravity, so everybody finally loses some weight.  Not everything in a democracy is up for public vote.

NoCoPilot wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Mueller probe may wrap next week.

DOJ made a rare public statement today: "Not this week.  Not next week either."

Maybe this week. I'm not holding my breath.

Or not.

John Dean wrote:

“I just don’t see a wrap on it at this time,” John Dean, a central figure in the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard M. Nixon, said on CNN.

Dean also speculated that the White House itself could be generating rumors that the report was about to come out. Then when it doesn’t, it’ll seem like the investigation is being dragged out.

Well I’ll be damned. The report was delivered to AG William Barr at 5:05pm Washington time.

Now up to Barr to release details.

Now up to DOJ to issue any indictments.

Coincidentally, I am wearing this t-shirt today.

NoCoPilot wrote:

 Now will it be bombshells, with orange jumpsuits all around, or will it be disappointingly noncommittal?  Only time will tell.....

Friday mornng, Mrs. NoCo lying in bed next to me, said "You know, the Mueller report, when it drops, will probably satisfy nobody.  It won't indict the whole Trump Administration, so Democrats will feel short-changed.  But equally it'll probably cast a lot of doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's election, so Republicans will feel like it attacks his administration."

Today William Barr is supposed to release his summary.

I suspect Mrs. NoCo hit it on the head -- lots of hard-hitting evidence of collusion, but nothing actionable.  Trump's cloud will get darker and murkier, but won't begin raining on him.

And I also expect further charges from SDNY on financial improprieties against the Trump Organization (already hit with a $5.6 million fine) and Trump's family.  It make take two years but I see jail time and/or huge fines in everyone's future.

A Pelosi presidency -- alas -- probably not

As Mrs. NoCo surmised, the Mueller Report satisfies nobody.

I could accept that Mueller's SCO did not find indictable evidence of collusion with the Russians.  Russia tried mightily to interfere with the 2016 election because they're deathly afraid of Hillary Clinton.  Putin would not want to be subservient to a woman.

They hacked the DNC.  They hacked the DCCC.  They hacked John Podesta.  They created millions of fake social media accounts and bought thousands of fake social media ads.  They succeeded in bringing Hillary's campaign down a couple of ticks.

I can believe they reached out to Trump's campaign early in the process, and kept them apprised of what they were doing.  Did Trump encourage them?  Did Trump direct them in any way (other than publicly encouraging them?). Did Trump promise them anything in return for their election help?

I could accept he did not.  I could accept he was a passive recipient of Putin's terror of a Clinton Administration.  Because frankly that fits right in with Trump's business practices -- pay for nothing you don't have to.

William Barr's 4-page summary of the Mueller Report is EXACTLY what you'd expect from him based on his pronouncements before he was appointed.

We will not know unless or until the full report is released whether his summary is accurate.  He MUST know the consequence for being inaccurate would be immense, so I tend to believe it's probably within a reasonable doubt of being accurate.

I always said the Russian collusion investigation is the least of Donald Trump's worries anyway.  SDNY has him on a dozen financial crimes already, and Congress has a half dozen more impeachable offenses they're working on.  The Mueller Report is dispensable.

Rachel raised a salient point in last night's program, which I just listened to this morning on Alexa (another good use for Alexa).

To wit: In 1974 Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworkski submitted a 53-page report to Congress, laying out the facts on Nixon's obstruction of justice.  Jaworski specifically declined to make a decision on whether or not these facts, taken in total, constituted enough evidence to charge the President with OoJ.

Perhaps Mueller was following Jaworski's precedent.  Perhaps he intended to lay out the facts, pro and con, and let Congress decide if the evidence rises to the level of impeachability.  

Perhaps also the legal uncertainty over whether a sitting president CAN be indicted caused Mueller to pull back from going ahead and issuing indictments.  Perhaps he's leaving that for other bodies -- Congress, SDNY -- or perhaps he's leaving that for a future time when this president is no longer in office.  In other words, he may be being circumspect.

So it may have been as surprising to Muelller as it was to us, the public, that Trump's chosen appointee -- who was chosen as AG primarily on his written opinion --  his singular and unique position -- that a president cannot obstruct justice simply because of the fact that he holds the office of president -- it may have surprised Mueller to read that Barr declared that Mueller's evidence did not rise to the level of a crime.  Barr took it upon himself, rather than relying on the courts or Congress, to weigh Mueller's facts and declare Trump free of any wrong-doing.

So if -- ... when ... -- the full report is made available to Congress and/or the public, we'll see if Barr inserted his own unique opinion, or if he is in fact following the law.

As much as I'd like to be DUN WIDDIT, it ain't over yet.