Why do you assume she’s talking? Like I said, Manafort had a plea deal too, but he was just running interference. She very well might plea and then lie her ass off to further confuse any investigation.
How do you suppose they knew Manafort was lying?
Rhetorical question. They already knew the truth.
Do you imagine it will be any different with Butina?
I agree with Sage Rat. If she’s actually cooperating, she’s not going back to Russia, ever. Her Russian overseer, Alexander Torshin, has already “retired” rather hastily with no details given as to his current whereabouts.
Our DOJ is not ignorant of the peril in which Butina will find herself if she is deported back to Russia.
I had misunderstood your point. But, yes, she might be pleaing just to get a quicker deportation and might not be in any sort of cooperation agreement.
Though, that said, in order to plea she will have to sign a document that affirms her crimes. And those crimes will include a description of having worked with X and sent money to Y and so on. Just by pleaing she is, in essence, talking. The various documents and aspersions that the government has made go from being innuendo to proof of criminal activity by not just her but also by X and Y. Her guilty plea can be used as evidence in the prosecution of X and Y. X and Y, in their criminal trials, can’t say that,* surely*, Butina was just developing ideas for a spy novel or whatever, when you look at her notes, because she has declared in court that those are real notes about real payments.
So, even if she does not cooperate, and we’re left with only the evidence that we already had against her, it does at least provide a certain bonus heft to that evidence when used against others.
Whether or not Putin would murder her for having done that, I don’t know. But if I was her, I’d cooperate and get a nice new life in Oklahoma or somewhere.
We just don’t know. Putin could be done with her and trump and just chuckle along as he watches trumps ‘empire’ burn.
Swimming with sharks only safe if your a true shark and not a puffer fish.
I believe at least one source — the Daily Beast? — has said that Ms Butina has signed a “full cooperation” agreement, though I don’t recall with whom. It could be a feint (à la Manafort), but I rather imagine that whichever prosecutor is involved will be on high alert for such a ploy.
On the other hand, it’s quite possible that she’s gotten wind of Torshin’s “retirement” and decided that “a nice new life in Oklahoma or somewhere” is preferable to the welcome she could expect on return to Holy Mother Russia — even though she would have to check her doorknobs and teapots on a regular basis.
Railer13, it’s traditional that a President be sworn in by a justice of the Supreme Court, but it’s not actually a requirement. It could be anyone who can administer oaths, which covers quite a lot of ground.
Yep, I realized that as I was entering my post. It’s tradition that the Chief Justice does this task at the inauguration, but it’s not required. Lyndon Johnson was sworn in by a Federal judge in Dallas, Sarah Hughes.
And a notary public is qualified to administer an oath. So technically my daughter could swear in the President, I guess.
Also, IIRC, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, a Justice of the Peace.
if the president can’t be prosecuted while in office then he can commit crimes if the statute of limitations is short for those crimes. He can in essence just run out the clock by staying in office unless he’s impeached and removed.
Your memory serves you correctly. Coolidge’s father, in addition to being a Justice of the Peace, was also a notary.
William McKinley was shot in Buffalo, New York, in September of 1901 and died there 8 days later. Teddy Roosevelt was present when McKinley passed away, and Roosevelt was sworn in by a District Judge for the Western District of New York.
And here’s an interesting fact about Teddy Roosevelt’s first term: He assumed the office of the Presidency just 194 days after McKinley had been inaugurated, but nobody filled the office of the Vice-President for the remainder of his first term. Charles Fairbanks was his running mate in the 1904 campaign and became the vice-president in 1905, but from September of 1901 until March of 1905, there was no vice-president of the United States.
This was addressed by the 25th amendment to the Constitution. ‘In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.’
(end hijack)
Same thing when Garfield was killed in office - Chester Arthur had no VP from 1881 to 1885.
I knew all that lasagna couldn’t be good for him.
(Sorry, sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s been that kind of a week…)
also from twitter:
“SDNY announces a non-prosecution agreement with the parent company of the National Enquirer. “AMI admitted it made 150k payment in concert with candidates presidential campaign…AMI admitted its purpose was to suppress woman’s story as to prevent it from influencing election””
pretty sure this money was for McDougal
It’s my understanding that, under some circumstances, the clock is effectively paused for statutes of limitations. The exact circumstances vary by jurisdiction, but the general idea is that the clock does not run while the perpetrator cannot be brought to justice for one reason or another. The relevant laws almost certainly don’t mention the specific case of Presidential immunity to indictment, but they might still be written broadly enough to encompass it.
An excellent article in National Review by a former FEC Chairman. The entire piece is worth a read if you care about “the other side” of the argument.
Again, the entire piece is worth a read.
Let’s just also put his remarks in context: the author is on the extreme end of the campaign finance system debate, the sort who would say that Citizens United is nothing more than a good start to total deregulation of all political campaigns. He would prefer a system where billionaires on either side of the aisle could give unlimited amounts to candidates, where corporations or unions could buy campaign ads and completely obscure who paid for them, and so on.
I’m NOT saying he is uninformed. I’m saying he comes from the position of presuming that any campaign finance laws are inherently bad.
Echoing what Ravenman said, the writer of that article - while a genuine former FEC chief - is a person who was hired by Bill Clinton, likely because he was the sort of crank to make illicit campaign spending feasible to get away with by removing all limits and reporting requirements.
It’s sort of like getting Scott Pruitt to write about the state of the climate and billing him as a “Former Chief of the EPA”, to give him credibility. Technically true, but it avoids the mention that he was a trick hire by someone with no intent of appointing a reasonable nor sane candidate.
Going back to the article, his whole premise is pretty well destroyed by the case of John Edwards. Obviously, people can go to jail for paying off their mistresses. If you base your personal legal choices on op-eds rather than based on what the courts will do, you’re probably going to regret your decisions.
That said, it is true that Trump can make the argument that he would have paid off Stormy regardless of whether he was running for office or not, to keep the information from getting to Melania or whatever. And if he could make that argument successfully, then he would be in the clear.
But it’s real hard to make that argument when someone has pleaded guilty and gone to jail for having done it for you for the purpose of campaigning, not to keep it secret from Melania.
This is really all that needs to be said. The fact that a crime was committed has already been established. Whether or not Trump was a co-conspirator is the only thing that remains to be seen, and consider we already have him on tape acknowledging the payments, I don’t see how he comes out of this clean.