The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Seriously?  She's part of the Gang of Eight.  They receive classified intelligence briefings from the Executive branch.  It's not a stretch.

Gang of Eight:

Schiff

Nunes

Burr

Warner

Pelosi

McCarthy

McConnell

Schumer

They get briefings regarding ongoing federal investigations from special counsels ?  Lots of issues there.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to Manafort, having compared the indictments (and there's some room for error here because the NY indictments are factually skimpy), I'm going to have a hard time believing that the NY indictment isn't dismissed for double jeopardy.  No one can claim with a straight face that residential mortgage fraud (NY crime) and federal bank fraud are not the same crime: bank fraud completely subsumes mortgage fraud, and the same seems to be true of the other crimes (conspiracy to commit bank fraud and falsification of recorfs).

The mortgage fraud alleged in the NY indictment and any bank fraud associated with that mortgage fraud were not included in the earlier indictment.  There is no double jeopardy. Manafort is a career criminal. A conviction for an instance of bank fraud does not prevent prosecution for other instances of bank fraud. 

You can't be convicted of murder twice for killing a single person, but if you kill 2 people on 2 separate occassions...

[triplehorn 2664]

45 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He's not going to be able to keep himself muzzled for the next 8 hours.

 

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

The mortgage fraud alleged in the NY indictment and any bank fraud associated with that mortgage fraud were not included in the earlier indictment.  There is no double jeopardy. Manafort is a career criminal. A conviction for an instance of bank fraud does not prevent prosecution for other instances of bank fraud. 

You can't be convicted of murder twice for killing a single person, but if you kill 2 people on 2 separate occassions...

You sure about that?  The indictment is vague as hell, but in the conspiracy counts, where there is detail, seems to be the same property and the same date range alleged in the federal.

I mean, we're talking Cyrus Vance here, not Robert Mueller.

[Junior Miller 1502]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's what white guys get for white collar crimes. 

For this reason... Fuck this country. 

[triplehorn 2664]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to Manafort, having compared the indictments (and there's some room for error here because the NY indictments are factually skimpy), I'm going to have a hard time believing that the NY indictment isn't dismissed for double jeopardy.  No one can claim with a straight face that residential mortgage fraud (NY crime) and federal bank fraud are not the same crime: bank fraud completely subsumes mortgage fraud, and the same seems to be true of the other crimes (conspiracy to commit bank fraud and falsification of recorfs).

Cy Vance appears to deserve some past criticism and caution seems warranted but here's some input from a former Fed and NY prosecutor:

--- On #3, because the jury hung and the defense sought a mistrial, those charges are highly likely *not* to be subject to #NYS's expansive "transaction test" for double jeopardy. /2

--- On #1 and #2, question is whether the federal counts and NY counts have at least 1 different element (they do), AND whether they were "designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil." /3

--- For falsifying business records, there's a very good argument (likely correct) that that charge was to prevent a very different harm/evil than federal bank fraud, since no federal analogue was charged. (Counterargument is false records charge requires "intent to defraud"). /4

--- For #1, bank frauds for which Manafort *was* convicted, it's a tougher road for @manhattanda. Argument that DA will have to win is that mortgage fraud was designed for different harm than bank fraud. /5

 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You sure about that?  The indictment is vague as hell, but in the conspiracy counts, where there is detail, seems to be the same property and the same date range alleged in the federal.

I mean, we're talking Cyrus Vance here, not Robert Mueller.

It is my understanding that the fraud occurred against different banks in this case.  However, I have read very few actual documents in any of the Manafort cases, and have relied on media reports, so you probably have more intimate knowledge than I do. 

I have no doubt that Vance wants a show trial, but that doesn't mean the charges have no merit. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

[HenryJames 67116]

 

[Anastasis 23699]

420 huh

 

[TexEx15 17914]

3 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Each side betting they know what will be in the report generally.  Will be interesting to see what happens if it is fully released.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Cy Vance appears to deserve some past criticism and caution seems warranted but here's some input from a former Fed and NY prosecutor:

--- On #3, because the jury hung and the defense sought a mistrial, those charges are highly likely *not* to be subject to #NYS's expansive "transaction test" for double jeopardy. /2

--- On #1 and #2, question is whether the federal counts and NY counts have at least 1 different element (they do), AND whether they were "designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil." /3

--- For falsifying business records, there's a very good argument (likely correct) that that charge was to prevent a very different harm/evil than federal bank fraud, since no federal analogue was charged. (Counterargument is false records charge requires "intent to defraud"). /4

--- For #1, bank frauds for which Manafort *was* convicted, it's a tougher road for @manhattanda. Argument that DA will have to win is that mortgage fraud was designed for different harm than bank fraud. /5

 

 

That is a poor analysis on almost every level. Guilty is not required on the face of the statute. Type of harm has little or nothing to do with typical DJ analysis. It's elements of the offense and evidence in support. Maybe NY state law is aberrational in that respect. 

Now if they address separate transactions from the federal indictment, that is a different kettle of fish. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31989]

Edit: it seems that perhaps NY courts do not interpret "same offense" in the constitutional way, but it also seems very unclear. Perhaps this is where there is some leeway for the prosecution. 

 

Also the dual sovereignty rule, which is I think a bad one, is currently under review at the USSC. You conspiracy nuts can go apeshit on whether Kavanagh and Gorsuch are going to rule "in Trump’s favor" with an uncharacteristically pro-defendant decision. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[suddenly shaggy 929]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Edit: it seems that perhaps NY courts do not interpret "same offense" in the constitutional way, but it also seems very unclear. Perhaps this is where there is some leeway for the prosecution. 

 

Also the dual sovereignty rule, which is I think a bad one, is currently under review at the USSC. You conspiracy nuts can go apeshit on whether Kavanagh and Gorsuch are going to rule "in Trump’s favor" with an uncharacteristically pro-defendant decision. 

Gorscuch maybe not, but Kavanaugh is a fucking toadie and will do whatever is in the GOP's best interests. That's why he was selected and why the GOP was willing to let a perjuring piece of shit on the Supreme Court. You know that just as well as the rest of us, but can continue to pretend otherwise if that floats your boat.

[triplehorn 2664]

In other news, in response to Trump trying to get Summer Zervos' defamation suit thrown out:

The decision means Trump may have to sit for a sworn deposition, currently scheduled for June.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by triplehorn

[Biff Tannen 46061]

So can we somehow claim in civil court that he's a treasonous asshole?  #notalawyer

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Gorscuch maybe not, but Kavanaugh is a fucking toadie and will do whatever is in the GOP's best interests. That's why he was selected and why the GOP was willing to let a perjuring piece of shit on the Supreme Court. You know that just as well as the rest of us, but can continue to pretend otherwise if that floats your boat.

I'm not pretending anything, but it's clearly fodder for the conspiracy nuts.  Eliminating the dual-sovereign rule is I think pretty clearly pro-defendant, there's no other way to spin that.  Kavanagh and Gorsuch are at least superficially pretty anti-defendant.  Superficially, you might think a conservative court would not eliminate it, but I am not 100% sure on that.  Either way, they are only two votes.

Edited March 14, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[notre dame joe 202]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Edit: it seems that perhaps NY courts do not interpret "same offense" in the constitutional way, but it also seems very unclear. Perhaps this is where there is some leeway for the prosecution. 

 

Also the dual sovereignty rule, which is I think a bad one, is currently under review at the USSC. You conspiracy nuts can go apeshit on whether Kavanagh and Gorsuch are going to rule "in Trump’s favor" with an uncharacteristically pro-defendant decision. 

Hey we agree on something!  I wonder if we agree that if the shoe were on the other foot (a red state attacking the associates of the sitting dem President) the justices would soon discover that Double J needs to be read back into the Constitution.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Hey we agree on something!  I wonder if we agree that if the shoe were on the other foot (a red state attacking the associates of the sitting dem President) the justices would soon discover that Double J needs to be read back into the Constitution.

I'm not a trump defender in any way, shape or form.  I am pro-defendant and anti-government in any criminal case. 

[Captainant 28392]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not a trump defender in any way, shape or form.  I am pro-defendant and anti-government in any criminal case. 

In this case being pro-defendant is pretty explicitly pro-trump, my dude. Pretty sure anti-government is also pro-trump, in line his "burn it all down if it doesn't enrich me" ethos

[TwiceHorn 31989]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In this case being pro-defendant is pretty explicitly pro-trump, my dude. Pretty sure anti-government is also pro-trump, in line his "burn it all down if it doesn't enrich me" ethos

They are not the same thing.

[triplehorn 2664]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

...used to conduct "altering operations."  So there's evidence of that, huh. 

This came up on this thread about 50 or so pages back when the subject of Anthony Weiner's laptop containing Clinton emails surfaced which directly spawned the sequence of events leading to the Rudy promoted October surprise and culminated in the Comey letter.  Recall his wife Huma testified that she had no understanding of how those emails landed on his laptop.  When you're talking about "altering operations" you wade into the territory of malware and other things getting planted on a hard drive.

Recall also actors like  Peter Levashov, the mastermind behind Kelihos botnet, who got apprehended in Barcelona and extradited to the US, and Yevgeny Nikulin, apprehended in the Czech Republic and also extradited to the US within weeks of the Weiner/HRC email laptop episode.

Yevgeny Nikulin was in the news last week where was evaluated for competency to stand trial after 2 years in federal custody in California, during which time he has gone mute when the subject of hacking comes up:

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by triplehorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dbeasy 15526]

otoh, for a person who's the third in line of succession in the event POTUS and VP aren't available, no one will be able to claim she was gunning for it if and when such a situation arrives.

Ok that is actually an interesting point.

[shnsajax 3605]

In other news, in response to Trump trying to get Summer Zervos' defamation suit thrown out:
The decision means Trump may have to sit for a sworn deposition, currently scheduled for June.
 
 

I can only imagine how tight his arms would be crossed during the questioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

so much for an imminent end to the investigation 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

so much for an imminent end to the investigation 

The investigations spawned from the Mueller Special Counsel Office will go on for at least another decade.  

However, the “Mueller Report” could be completed at anytime because the Mueller investigation is limited specifically to the 2016 election. 

[TwiceHorn 31989]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

so much for an imminent end to the investigation 

Now that's solid evidence that it's going to continue for a while.  I am somewhat curious if Mueller thinks he should "conclude" all of his prosecutions before submitting a report.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that's solid evidence that it's going to continue for a while.  I am somewhat curious if Mueller thinks he should "conclude" all of his prosecutions before submitting a report.

There is a national security aspect to the Mueller investigation that necessitates he wrap something up soon.  

If he doesn’t produce an informative document for the American people in time for the 2020 primary races, he has failed in his duty to protect the public from future attacks.  

The criminal investigations/prosecutions can go on well after a report is submitted.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[FondrenRoad 4378]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now that's solid evidence that it's going to continue for a while.  I am somewhat curious if Mueller thinks he should "conclude" all of his prosecutions before submitting a report.

Trump's shenanigans are a rabbit hole.  Discovery of one criminal act leads to discovery of the next.  Considering that it likely goes all the way back to Trump's father, a thorough and complete investigation could take a decade or more.  At some point, Mueller needs to draw a line and release.  He or others can continue to dig afterward.

Edited March 15, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Biff Tannen 46061]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There is a national security aspect to the Mueller investigation that necessitates he wrap something up soon.  

If he doesn’t produce an informative document for the American people in time for the 2020 primary races, he has failed in his duty to protect the public from future attacks.  

The criminal investigations/prosecutions can go on well after a report is submitted.

 

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Trump's shenanigans are a rabbit hole.  One criminal act leads to discovery of the next.  Considering that it likely goes all the way back to Trump's father, a thorough and complete investigation could take a decade or more.  At some point, Mueller needs to draw a line and release.  He or others can continue to dig afterward.

Both of these.  For my arbitrary timeline, he has two weeks to drop something big if we have a shot of removing him from office.  Otherwise I think we are relegated to relying on the 2020 election to vote him out.  Which I am losing faith the American people will do.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There is a national security aspect to the Mueller investigation that necessitates he wrap it up soon.  

If he doesn’t produce an informative document for the American people in time for the 2020 primary races, he has failed in his duty to protect the public from future attacks.  

The criminal investigations/prosecutions can go on well after a report is submitted.

Nothing about Mueller's appointment precludes any other entity from investigating or prosecuting or countering foreign intrusion into US affairs.  He is only specific to 2016 + Russia + Trump. 

It's not all on his shoulders, at least from a legal standpoint.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not all on his shoulders, at least from a legal standpoint

Correct but from a counterintelligence/NatSec standpoint it’s a little different.  

However, what Mueller has already released with regards to the Russians activities in the 2016 election (and the level of detail) could have been done to buy him more time. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31989]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Trump's shenanigans are a rabbit hole.  Discovery of one criminal act leads to discovery of the next.  Considering that it likely goes all the way back to Trump's father, a thorough and complete investigation could take a decade or more.  At some point, Mueller needs to draw a line and release.  He or others can continue to dig afterward.

I'm pretty sure he stopped messing with the "anything I stumble across" aspect of his jurisdiction shortly after indicting Manafort and Gates.  It would appear that Gates** continues to provide useful information for the explicit part of his mandate, e.g.  2016 + Russia + Trump. By involving SD NY in Cohen and the tangential Trump Org stuff, I think it's fairly clear from reading the tea leaves that he is not going down any Trump lifetime criminality rabbit holes.

**One thing though, that Mueller feels he needs to delay Gates' sentencing possibly indicates that he has not yet provided sufficient useful information to permit the government to recommend a downward departure.

[triplehorn 2664]

 

wrt the points being made above, a similar point was made early this week by "feathers" :

If they are separate matters, which I can comprehend, I wonder if Mueller's report could have already been submitted to the AG - like last Friday.  Does completion necessitate national interruption of live programming and trumpets ?  Is it conceivable there will be a lag phase between submission of the report to Barr and public disclosure of its completion ?

What would be the response from Trump if he was notified that the Mueller report was complete and had been submitted to the AG before the general public was aware ??

 

Would it be something like this ? :

 

 

 

Did you catch the new twist ?   "There Should Be No Mueller Report"  I can almost imagine he knows what's in it.  he's trippin' balls.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by triplehorn

[wildcat09 29559]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nothing about Mueller's appointment precludes any other entity from investigating or prosecuting or countering foreign intrusion into US affairs.  He is only specific to 2016 + Russia + Trump. 

 It's not all on his shoulders, at least from a legal standpoint.

Trump in the White House beyond 2020 would effectively do that. Even Donald Trump can't fuck up his attempts at subverting the DOJ and CIA forever. Give him enough time and he and his cronies will eventually infiltrate our domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to a sufficient degree that they can quash any investigations into him and his collaborators.

Edited March 15, 2019 by wildcat09

[TwiceHorn 31989]

It is true that the report is conceptually separable from any indictments or further action on existing indictments.

However, I think special/independent counsel/prosecutor precedent indicates a comprehensive (as opposed to interim) report after the conclusion of special counsel activities. Also, the current rule (prior SC/IC/IP investigations have mostly been under different rules or statutes) require the report to explain all prosecution/declination decisions, which would seem to require that all indictments contemplated be filed.  Also, under the current rules.there is no obligation whatsoever for the AG to share any interim report with Congress, whereas the AG must notify Congress of appointment, removal, and upon conclusion of the investigation and an implicit obligation to share those findings with Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is true that the report is separable from any indictments or further action on existing indictments.

However, I think special/independent counsel/prosecutor precedent indicates a comprehensive (as opposed to interim) report after the conclusion of special counsel activities. Also, the current rule (prior SC/IC/IP investigations have mostly been under different rules or statutes) require the report to explain all prosecution/declination decisions, which would seem to require that all indictments contemplated be filed.  Also, under the current rules.there is no obligation whatsoever for the AG to share any interim report with Congress, whereas the AG must notify Congress of appointment, removal, and upon conclusion of the investigation and an implicit obligation to share those findings with Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

No obligation for the AG to share an interim report, but implicit obligation to share findings with Congress upon conclusion.  From all the tea leaves over the past 3 months, we're supposed to be in that window of conclusion right now.  SC Rules per above also seem to require that all indictments contemplated in a final report be filed.

Now imagine if Mueller presents his final report to AG Barr which includes filed grand jury indictments of POTUS and his family.  That certainly might account for a delay in the report submission to Barr being made public for some short period of time.  Imagine the clockworks involved.  Conceivably, we might in that lag phase right now.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31989]

I don't think Mueller is going to indict Trump, even by sealed indictment.  I could be wrong, but he's just too much of a "company man" to flaunt the DOJ policy embodied in 24 Op. OLC 222.

Now, perhaps he follows Starr's lead and secures an opinion that a sealed indictment doesn't violate that policy and proceeds accordingly.  That I could see him doing.  That would be pretty cool.

[Dertyberd 394]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think Mueller is going to indict Trump, even by sealed indictment.  I could be wrong, but he's just too much of a "company man" to flaunt the DOJ policy embodied in 24 Op. OLC 222.

Now, perhaps he follows Starr's lead and secures an opinion that a sealed indictment doesn't violate that policy and proceeds accordingly.  That I could see him doing.  That would be pretty cool.

But could he file RICO charges against the whole campaign as a criminal org and include Trump? Could the SDNY? Because Trump was not individually indicted, but collectively does that fall under those DOJ guidelines? 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think Mueller is going to indict Trump, even by sealed indictment.  I could be wrong, but he's just too much of a "company man" to flaunt the DOJ policy embodied in 24 Op. OLC 222.

Now, perhaps he follows Starr's lead and secures an opinion that a sealed indictment doesn't violate that policy and proceeds accordingly.  That I could see him doing.  That would be pretty cool.

I disagree.  I think Mueller has the goods on Trump and his family that will shock the conscience.   That DOJ policy was penned by a guy who had Agnew in mind, not so much Nixon, and furthermore he had no intention for it to place a POTUS above the law.  It's never been tested and closer review renders it flawed and weak .  Mueller is a Marine, former Dir of the FBI, a true patriot, and brilliant law man.  Trump is a career lying cowardly abusive asshole who will not survive his own criminality.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

10 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

But could he file RICO charges against the whole campaign as a criminal org and include Trump? Could the SDNY? Because Trump was not individually indicted, but collectively does that fall under those DOJ guidelines? 

Trump is already named in indictments (Person 1, Cohen), but not explicitly as a co-conspirator (mighty close though).  But yeah that wouldn't violate the policy.  It doesn't matter whether it's Mueller or SD NY or D HI, the policy binds the entire DOJ.  Mueller is most likely to do something because of his independence from normal DOJ command structure. No regular US Attorney is likely to try an end-around the policy (and would likely be quickly stopped by the DOJ apparatus).

I really like the idea of sealed indictments.  It's a roadmap to impeachment and conviction and also probably the most convincing, irrefutable ground for commencing impeachment.  Also preserves the charges for post-presidency. I just don't know whether it will happen.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Dertyberd 394]

Kind of clearer, but I don't totally follow.  Anyway thank you for taking the time.  

I get the sealed indictment stuff and there is plenty of reason to believe that Trump is already named in one, but I think you answered my question.  The only person who could have the balls to indict Trump, even though he's a totally by the book guy, is Mueller.  Basically he's the only hope of the President being indicted while still in office yet he will most likely follow procedure.  

I was more curious about RICO (and being named) if, due to Trump not being indicted individually, but part of a group, it is that possible while being a sitting President.  I follow it for the most part.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 

[triplehorn 2664]

More signs of a daisy cutter w TrumpCo's name on it ready to drop:

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31989]

A little background on the current policy embodied in 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, which states: The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. October 16, 2000.

This was prepared by the OLC for the Clinton Administration.  The impeachment had concluded, as had the Starr investigation.  So, there was probably no "fear" at the time that Clinton would be indicted by anyone.  I think one thing that may have provoked this opinion was the expiration of the variously termed Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor Act, under which Starr operated.

The opinion builds on a Department opinion from the Nixon era, 1973, that isn't separately designated an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, that reached the same conclusion.

As has been referenced a number of times on this thread, Starr obtained an opinion from Professor Ronald Rotunda that the President could be indicted.  I think part of the reason Starr sought that opinion was that he was operating under the Independent Counsel law, which did not exist in 1973 (and no longer exists).  That law was believed to change the ordinary dynamics between a President and his own executive department, the congress, and the judiciary, because all were involved in the appointment and supervision of the Independent Counsel.  Starr then believed that circumstances were different than when the 1973 opinion was rendered.  And, in fact, the Independent Counsel law was a principal factor guiding Rotunda's opinion that the President could be indicted.

So, the Rotunda opinion was never adopted or acted on by anyone.  It was not prepared by the OLC and thus never bound the DOJ.  It was premised on an Act of Congress that is no longer the law of the land.

Mueller is operating under DOJ regulations that have about the same force as the OLC opinions.  They don't "change anything" the way the Independent Counsel law changed everything with respect to special counsels.

He does I suppose have the option of seeking his own opinion.  HOWEVER, and I missed this before, in the final footnote 38, the OLC opinion states that: Permitting a prosecutor and grand jury to issue even a sealed indictment would allow them to take an unacceptable gamble with fundamental constitutional values.

So that's probably out.  Fuck.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think all of Trump’s treasonous behavior will be described in detail in the Mueller report but Mueller isn’t going to indict him.  

If Mueller is being brutally honest, he should conclude Trump is either an unregistered or unwitting agent of the Russian Federation for reasons 1-99. 

It will be up to Congress to decide what to do with that. 

[triplehorn 2664]

41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think all of Trump’s treasonous behavior will be described in detail in the Mueller report but Mueller isn’t going to indict him.  

If Mueller is being brutally honest, he should conclude Trump is either an unregistered or unwitting agent of the Russian Federation for reasons 1-99. 

It will be up to Congress to decide what to do with that. 

I wonder what options, if any, Trump has to prevent the final Mueller report from leaving Barr's desk ?  If the final report is sitting on Barr's desk right now, it's too late to fire Mueller and pretend it was never generated.  Once it's in the hands of Congress, there's no burying it.  The depth of findings should all be laid out backed with extensive hard evidence.   

Yesterday, the Senate GOP (Lindsey Graham) blocked the House resolution passed to make the Mueller report public.  GOP complicity by not acting appropriately in response to the findings can't be allowed to progress beyond the next election.  It does little good if the report remains in the dark through 11/2020 and the ongoing GOP cover-up skirts electoral accountability.

[TwiceHorn 31989]

1 hour ago, Dertyberd said:

Kind of clearer, but I don't totally follow.  Anyway thank you for taking the time.  

I get the sealed indictment stuff and there is plenty of reason to believe that Trump is already named in one, but I think you answered my question.  The only person who could have the balls to indict Trump, even though he's a totally by the book guy, is Mueller.  Basically he's the only hope of the President being indicted while still in office yet he will most likely follow procedure.  

I was more curious about RICO (and being named) if, due to Trump not being indicted individually, but part of a group, it is that possible while being a sitting President.  I follow it for the most part.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 

Yes, it's possible.  He would not be named, though.  DOJ has a policy against naming unindicted co-conspirators.  He would be Person X, publicly, forever.  However, indicted defendants are entitled to know and that could leak.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Chooky 13337]

Question for TwiceHorn and other lawyers:

Would it be a good defense to respond to every inquiry from prosecutors with "yeah, well so is your face" every time no matter the context?