Sometimes you have to indict the guy to show that you’re serious. Unless they’re in actual risk of criminal penalties, they don’t have a ton of motivation to work with you. Additionally, it may be easier to execute a search warrant on someone rather than slowly pulling teeth to get the information you need.
No, it isn’t imcumbent.
Why can’t I ask it as a hypothetical? In fact, I did ask a similar question as a hypothetical during those discussions: I posited a Clinton campaign official interviewing Mar Lago employees and discovered that they were illegal immigrants being paid under the table, and using their testimony as part of an anti-Trump campaign ad. Surely, I said, it’s clear that this is a substantial assist to the campaign, by a foreign national, but equally clear it’s not a crime.
My prediction: Trump is being indicted.
Only because if it does happen, I will be able to say “I CALLED IT!”
Indicting a sitting president is fraught with all sorts of complications and unknowns. If Mueller wanted to go directly after Trump, he would provide whatever evidence he has to Congress so they can begin impeachment proceedings.
Oh, my goodness. I am certainly no arbiter of what sort of questions you can pose. You can pose any question you like in any form you choose, I imagine.
But isn’t it a bit of a stretch to say you posed it as a hypothetical? More of a, “Many people are saying…” type question. And while we libs are familiar with it, I’m not sure you can expect to be taken seriously with that approach unless you’re prepared to cite some evidence of Clinton’s campaign using the dossier. That’s all I meant, and I should have been more clear.
Doubtful it will start with Trump. I’m betting others on state charges which cannot be pardoned by the President. Leverage them toward state charges on Cheetolini, which he also cannot pardon.
The question would be what happens if state felony charges are levied against a sitting President. Obviously they couldn’t just walk into the White House and arrest him. Then we have the fun of whether or not Congress would impeach him if he is convicted of a felony, or more likely, multiple felonies.
I think Congress would be more likely to do so once they ram their onerously damaging tax bill through and he signs it. In the manner of “Ok, we used him to get our ‘pay off the rich’ package through, now let Pence pick up the pieces and see if he can pay off the religious right”.
I’ve heard there is actually a line of legal reasoning – by Kenneth Starr, of all people – that says a special prosecutor can indict a sitting president as an alternative to making a recommendation for impeachment.
I’m not familiar with the particulars. I’d be surprised if Mueller opted to use it and it would surely be litigated all the way to the SCOTUS. But considering this president’s propensity to disregard the rule of law; the likelihood of Mueller getting fired by him; the Republican Congress’s reluctance to do their duty, and some very real concerns about the lengths to which Trump might go in order to avoid facing consequences, the option may not be as far-fetched as previously thought.
Again, I doubt it, but it would be interesting as hell.
Constitutional crisis no matter what.
I posted this awhile ago.
This thing reminds me a lot about the last episode were Michael J Fox was officially a cast member in the show Spin City.
I think that, besides the message to be loyal and to be willing to be a fall guy for what you know it was caused by the naiveté of your boss (and Mike knew how important it was anyhow to help his boss to keep his position after he and the staff got rid of the bad influences), one message should not be lost: the politician did learn the lesson to avoid the mafioso that was influencing policy. It was, even though in fiction, an example of how shining light on conflicts of interest and suspicious connections is supposed to work in helping democracies to fight corruption in the near past.
Of course in real life nowadays I do not see anyone that is willing to take the blame, because Trump also has a knack for selecting people that are as conning (yes, not “cunning” but “conning”) as he is. They only are loyal to themselves. And unlike Winston (the naive boss of Mike) Trump is not naive, he is too close to corruption. He is still looking to get close to undemocratic thugs, undemocratic leaders and other unsavory people that are not really thinking much about the well being of the USA.
In essence, I do think that the effort of forcing Trump to RTFM of what a president of the USA is supposed to be or to learn how to at least avoid bad connections or the appearance of bad conflicts of interest is a very worthy effort indeed.
That, and this helps us to find who are the rascals that continue to look the other way when they see the reprehensible behavior of Trump. It helps us to toss them out in the next elections.
My guess would be Manafort, probably plus a couple others few people have heard of.
I’ve read that Mueller likes to start on the outside (small fish) and work his way up, which argues against a Manafort at this stage of the game. But I think he risks the administration saying “see? Nothing there!” if all he announces at first are members of the Obscurati. And I think he’d prefer not to do that.
Both Manafort and Flynn’s lawyers have categorically denied they have been notified of an upcoming indictment this Monday.
Possibilities:
- The reports are wrong, and there are no indictments coming
- The lawyers (one of them, at least) are lying
- It’s Flynn Jr., going to be indicted to get Dad to roll
- Given his Friday night freak out, it’s Roger Stone
- It’s Trump
- Mueller wants to arrest someone, as he is worried about a flight risk
Any betting sites where I can put a dollar down on Hillary? I could use a gazillion bucks, buy Belgium, maybe.
Why would they be notified? They’d have to tell their clients, who would then be able to “prepare” (flee).
Maybe here: http://politicalbetting.com/
It’s British, but they’ll probably take your money.
I found the site when I was searching for information on what odds bookmakers were giving WRT likely Mueller targets. Couldn’t find anything. Maybe someone else can.
Does the FBI have the authority to bring state charges against someone? Perhaps one of our legal experts can answer that one.
No. But then the FBI has no authority to bring federal charges against anyone.
The role of the FBI is to assemble evidence for the US Attorney, who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury, similar to the federal grand jury sitting here for Mueller’s investigation.
As I suspect your intuition is telling you already, and probably what you meant by the question: a federal grand jury cannot possibly issue an indictment for state crimes.
Yes. Thanks for the answer and the correction of the question. That is exactly what I was thinking.
So, no state charges here. That is not to say that the states can’t start their own investigations if they are so inclined.
If I had to guess, it would be Manafort. He seems to be the key figure in this case whose last name doesn’t start with T. While he no doubt deserves a life sentence, the intent is to pressure him to flip and give testimony against a certain orange-skinned cretin.
My second choice would be Flynn, and it is quite possible that both will be marched into court tomorrow.
Don Jr. would be awesome if only to watch the Twitter meltdown that would ensue.
My non-serious pick would be Melania, for plotting to kill moose and squirrel.
Generally, in white collar crimes, the defendants atty’s are notified of indictments so they can get their clients to court on time. Arrests happen when the DA/SP believe there is a flight risk.
Felix Sater? if you’re gonna start flipping people, maybe a good idea to start with the guy who has a history of flipping.
Sure. And nothing prevents the FBI from walking into a state prosecutor’s office with a bunch of files and saying, “This may save you some time.”