It also quite strongly crosses the red line Trump set. Almost like they’re challenging Trump to fire him.
Which brings to my mind a question that I have no idea what the answer is: Can a state prosecutor subpoena someone’s federal tax returns? If not, can a federal prosecutor share what he subpoenas with a state prosecutor?
Funny y’all should mention that.
“The White House’s latest fallback: Who cares if Trump colluded with Russia?”
Could the NY attorney general’s office just straight up hire mueller should he be fired by the fed?
Ok, plea deals for lesser charges then. That’s the implication of what he says.
Thanks for taking the time to share your reasoning. I’ve reached some similar conclusions but not all, and offer a few reasons why:
Re Sessions, it’s not up to him. It’s up to Rosenstein. Sessions has nibbled around the edges of violating his recusal, but I think his peril has finally been writ large in his mind, based on Mueller’s actions so far. An example: When a few addle-minded Fox “News” Republicans sent a letter demanding that he initiate a DOJ investigation into Hillary Clinton over the ginned-up Uranium One deal, Sessions responded that he would look into it and proceed if merited by the facts. He buttressed this position during recent questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, making it quite clear with his tone that he didn’t find the allegations credible and that an investigation was unlikely to ensue. What that tells me is, he’s scared of Trump – but he’s more scared of Mueller. I don’t think he will do anything serious to cross Mueller.
I certainly have concerns about Christopher Wray and continue to withhold any final judgment about him. There was a little-noticed story by Reuters where one Thursday evening in September, Wray made a pronouncement that he saw no evidence of White House interference in the Russia probe. That bothered me a lot, because it stinks of a loyalty pledge to Trump. But the FBI is a large organization with a lot of career personnel. I expect Mr. Wray has been well schooled since his appointment into just how receptive those folks are to kowtowing to a rogue occupant of the Oval Office who refers to their institution as being “in tatters.” Wray may be able to help Trump a little, but in the end, I expect he’ll consider his own longevity within his office and let the FBI do its job. He also has long-standing ties to Mueller and Comey. I see him as an opportunist, and we can assume where his loyalty will ultimately be pledged.
As for the texting couple, no doubt Trump will try to make something big out of that. It’s his go-to defense. But there’s nothing to show that the agent was remiss in doing his job in any way, and in any case, Mueller promptly addressed the issue as soon as it was discovered through an internal audit. Can’t do better than that.
I’m not sure congressional Republicans have become more loyal to Trump, though I understand the point you are making. But I don’t think it’s loyalty. It’s fear of the unknown. Right now, they’re hanging in because Teh Base™ is all they’ve got. Trump/Bannon control that for the moment. But as the mid-terms draw near, the constant drip-drip-drip of indictments, pleas and arrests begin to move public opinion in a meaningful way, Republicans will be forced to reevaluate their stance. I think they’ll abandon Trump without so much as a backward glance when it becomes clear where the investigation is headed.
I agree with you that Trump becomes more unhinged and uncontrollable the closer the investigation gets to him personally. He is an impulsive dumb ass who always caves in to his most base urges, much to his own detriment. But he’s pretty boxed in. Rosenstein isn’t going to fire Mueller, so Trump has to start by firing Rosenstein – and then go down the list until he finds a willing Bork. That would trigger some rather seismic results.
I’m not saying Trump won’t try it. Like you, I expect he will at some point. But I imagine it’s still fresh in his mind what happened the last time he tried something so stupid. He got Mueller.
One last point: Mueller is a smart feller. He knows his being fired is a potential. I am quite confident he has safeguarded his investigation to the greatest extent possible to carry on with or without his presence. And nobody knows how many sealed indictments and/or pleas he already has.
But Bharara agrees with McCarthy about that.
As previously quoted: “When we had evidence against somebody and wanted them to flip, we made them plead guilty to every bad act that they had ever done,” Bharara said. “Especially if we were later gonna be alleging other people had engaged in that activity as well.” And he even gave the exact same reason that McCarthy did.
They both said that the way it’s done is the guy pleads guilty to all the charges (or at least to charges related to all crimes being alleged by the prosecution). McCarthy clarified that the way the plea deal works is that the guy gets a lower sentence on those charges. But both are saying the way it’s not done is to have the guy not get charged at all with crimes that he committed and then have him incriminate others on those same crimes. Which is what people are saying is being done here.
Again, Mueller might do things differently than these two. But they are saying the same thing (which goes against the claim of certain people that McCarthy’s position was partisan tripe).
How do you know Mueller doesn’t have sealed pleas by Flynn to those charges? How long before he made the Pappadopoulos plea arrangement public? There’s nothing that compels Mueller to make all his plea deals public of which I’m aware, and there are a lot of strategic reasons why he wouldn’t.
I have no idea. Maybe he did. I had earlier introduced McCarthy’s position, and having seen Bharara back that up, I thought it was worth noting. That’s all this is about.
But one thing I do find interesting about your theory is that you didn’t introduce it earlier in this thread. Like, when people were trumpeting the fact that Flynn got such a good deal as proof that he must be really really delivering the goods on Big Time Trump People. That would have been a good time for you to pop in with your suggestion that maybe he didn’t get such a good deal after all, having also pleaded to an assortment of other charges in sealed pleas, therefore that implication doesn’t hold. If you did, though, I must have missed it.
Thoughts?
Why should I introduce speculative theories into a thread unless or until someone is speculating about them, as you did? And what makes you think Flynn isn’t going to eventually get that sweetheart deal?
I spoke to what is directly in front of us at this point in time: Flynn entered a plea of guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. You’re the one hanging your hat on McCarthey’s argument that if only one plea is in the public’s eye, it must be the only plea that exists.
I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes of Mueller’s investigation. But I can make an informed guess that Flynn may have entered conditional pleas to all other charges. Those plea arrangements may be sealed at the present time and withdrawn if he complies with Mueller’s expectations, or entered into the public record if he doesn’t. I never saw anything in McCarthey’s discussion that allowed for that possibility. Apparently, you didn’t, either.
Manafort’s bail conditions seemed pretty tenuous even as they were granted. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t end up in the pokey for this. Should have settled for the ankle bracelet.
Thank you! I’m going to try and listen to it this afternoon, spare Crotalus some typing time. 
It doesn’t seem as though you read my post, even though you quoted it.
As I noted, the notion that Flynn had only pled guilty to one charge was not introduced by me - it was introduced into this thread by several people, who were using it to prove that Flynn must be implicating Trump people big time. I was responding to that. If you disagreed with this implication, you should have commented when it was first introduced, not at the first indication that it might not serve your agenda.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow says there have been no bank records subpoenas.
I think Mueller ought to ask the judge to authorize the construction of a large kennel, and put Manafort in it. Mueller’s boys can come by occasionally to put a leash on him, let him out just long enough to shit on his front lawn, and then put him back in.
As a good friend to our canine companions in this world, I must relay that they do not find the comparison flattering.
LOL, too good for him… but on a serious note, I wonder where defendants facing federal criminal charges are held pending trial? I can’t seem to craft Google search terms that yield results.
I do know this: Judges don’t take kindly to flagrant disregard of their gag orders. I hope Manafort has stocked up on a few soaps on a rope.
Trying to calm their client.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real good day!”
I don’t know who McCarthy is, I just used the term “partisan tripe” because that’s what you use when confronted with facts you don’t like, although my usage should not be construed as being for the same purpose.
I really don’t give a shit about arguing this for six pages, some of us have jobs, so try to keep up. Mccarthy says they charge the most serious crime and that’s proof that the most serious crime was lying to the FBI. He doesn’t mention that there are often lesser pleas for whatever reason, just that this is how it’s done period.
One could assume that lesser pleas happen too, but that would mean McCarthy’s claim that the Flynn plea is proof that nothing else happened couldn’t be true. That’s what makes his article dishonest.
So which is it? We actually know, even without thinking about pleas. McCarthy, using all the logic from above, claims it’s proof that Mueller is only investigating obstruction. Yet, Mueller is now going after Trump’s bank records, which wouldn’t be related to obstruction.
If you think Preet said the exact same thing, get an MRI.
Oh, I just saw that they’re claiming the bank record thing isn’t true, so that may not be an accurate example. Just use logic instead.