Giuliani’s entire role is to spread disinformation - a soundbite for the followers that they can hold on to and then a walk back that they will never hear.
I’m not ignoring anything. The entire article is premised on Giuliani’s statement about Mueller’s statement which turned out to not have happened.
There’s never been a waste of time or a bad meeting in any broad effort made by a group of more than 2 people, right? Your “conclusion” is utterly laughable, unsupported by facts and directly contradicted by other facts.
From the article:
Every time I read this, I wonder the same thing:
If the POTUS is impeached successfully and removed from office, couldn’t charges be brought then? Surely the crime doesn’t go away?
Or if his term expires without re-election?
Not sure if this is an update to the article or what - but the article goes on to state this -
Because inability to indict negates the crime - this ‘team’ is beyond absurd.
Isn’t that how the whole “unindicted co-conspirator” legal euphemism came about?
The fact that Mueller has come to the conclusion that he can’t indict a sitting president means that that conversation has come up among him and his staff. Is that a conversation that Mueller and his team would have if there wasn’t evidence Trump was involved in criminal activity? I mean CNN did say this: “That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller’s team has compiled.” Ah, so Mueller is just tossing that out to Trump’s legal team for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
But why would Bob Mueller inform Trump’s attorneys that they can’t indict a sitting president if there weren’t a real reason for them to do so? You telling me that Bob Mueller is just off-handedly informing Ty Cobb et al of longstanding, yet completely irrelevant, Justice Department guidelines? Did Mueller also inform them of the guideline that all food in the DoJ fridge needs to be labeled with a name and date or it’ll be tossed out every Friday?
No one informed Obama’s attorneys that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Just sayin.
…No, Trump’s Lawyer said that Mueller said that. And what have we learned about the Trump administration?
Oh right. Trust nobody.
As someone who works in an office where the fridge is aggressively cleaned every Friday, thank you for the laugh!
Regarding the will they/won’t they on the indictment issue, I am reminded of the words of Captain Sullenberger as portrayed by Tom Hanks: Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time. To exaggerate for effect, do we suppose that if Trump really did shoot someone dead in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue he would not be indicted for that?
He certainly wouldn’t be impeached.
So if a crime happens in a forest and no one is there to witness it, does it result in an indictment? No wait, if a crime is committed in a forest and no one is indicted… meh, I need to work on this.
I rather doubt anyone on Mueller’s team told Giuliani that they were not going to indict L’il Donnie. If Giuliani came up to me soaking wet and told me it was raining, I’d look outside before getting my umbrella. Someday his picture will be in the dictionary next to the word “unhinged”.
I think Mueller is appalled by the unprecedented corruption in this administration and its blatant disregard for the law. It is true that a sitting president has never been indicted, but it is by no means clear that one cannot be. If ever a situation demanded it, it would be this one.
At most that’s an opinion from the Justice Department, not a ruling from the Supreme Court, and isn’t binding on states either.
Agreed (emphasis added).
Talk about your constitutional crisis. What happens when the president refuses to accept the indictment? Impeachment certainly has its limitations, but that seems like the way to go. Impeach, and then indict.
Missed the edit window. Impeach, remove from office, and then indict. If you can’t do that, the next election isn’t that far away.
But the point was that hacking the DNC servers doesn’t appear to have been discussed at this meeting.
[There seems to be some confusion here. In case you might be misconstruing my words, when I wrote “possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature”, I did not mean “possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature [than DNC emails]”. Rather, “possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination [which is also] of a much more serious nature [than DTjr trying to get opposition research from Russian government-connected sources]”.]
Here’s a really interesting graphic from Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, a contributor to 538 and other publications. She lays out the timelines and number of indictments generated by all special prosecutors going back to Watergate. It really shows how quickly the Mueller investigation has been moving. Mueller has gotten more indictments in the first year of any special prosecution since Watergate. The other thing this graphic shows is how looooong these things usually take. Watergate dragged on for four years, and Whitewater for seven! The Henry Cisneros investigation went on more than eight years, the last five of which turned up no indictments. The investigation into the Valerie Plame leak took three years, and that was nowhere near as complicated as the Mueller investigation. I want the investigation to be wrapped up soon, too, because I want Trump drummed out of office with all speed. But it’s likely to take fucking years. 
This depends on the assumption that Papadopoulos didn’t tell the campaign about the hack, doesn’t it? He knew well before June 9.
Even if it’s illegal, how dare you slip animbedded (sic) informant into my campaign to figure it out!
I think that’s how he is planning on kicking off his 2024 campaign.