The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Chad Fuck 17566]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Meh. Van Der Zwaan gets 30 days, $20,000 fine. 

"You're a young man with your whole career ahead of you.  But you've been a naughty boy.  I hope you'll learn your lesson."

 

[David Dennison 18656]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Meh. Van Der Zwaan gets 30 days, $20,000 fine. 

That's a big deal.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

5 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

"You're a young man.  But you've been a naughty boy.  I hope you'll learn your lesson."

 

Here goes from Skadden to never practicing law again.  His punishment is more than what the judge says. 

[Chad Fuck 17566]

Someone will pick him up.  He's not losing his bar card permanently.  

[Nolacycling 893]

Still most of the people who work at the embassy and in other US offices in Russia are not spies or spymasters; most, in fact, are not even US citizens. They're Russian.

Of the 1,279 people who worked at the embassy in 2013, according to a 2013 inspector general report, 934 were locally hired.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

Someone will pick him up.  He's not losing his bar card permanently.  

he pled to a crime of moral turpitude for lying to the FBI and was sentenced by an Art. III judge.

he gone...

but his father in laws a Russian oligarch...i suspect he'll be fine.

[Chad Fuck 17566]

1 minute ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

he pled to a crime of moral turpitude for lying to the FBI and was sentenced by an Art. III judge.

he gone...

but his father in laws a Russian oligarch...i suspect he'll be fine.

Shit, didn't see that part.  OK, you guys are right, I'm wrong.

 

[SquishMitten 10401]

18 hours ago, Texas73 said:

There is/was an elementary school named Seton in Austin?

No. I assumed the first namedrop was some hospital. I guess it was an elementary school. Sooo... Pease, Porter, Crockett.

[hayden_horn 11360]

23 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Shit, didn't see that part.  OK, you guys are right, I'm wrong.

 

this guy clearly doesn't know how to operate on a politics board. 

posrep

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Meh. Van Der Zwaan gets 30 days, $20,000 fine. 

The most he was going to get was 180 days.

sending a billionaire related foreigner to prison for lying to investigators sends a clear enough message.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Also, he will be turned over to ICE for deportation once he gets out of prison 

[triplehorn 2664]

Prosecutors must have gotten something substantial from the oligarch's son-in-law to hold back on a fistful of superseding indictments:

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

But he’s not a cooperating witness.  Van der douche had nothing of value that Mueller didn’t already have.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

He pled guilty to lying to the FBI and the Special Prosecutor declined to make a sentencing recommendation to the court. Hot takes that this is a light sentence, given he could’ve been simply fined, are lazy

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Prosecutors must have gotten something substantial from the oligarch's son-in-law to hold back on a fistful of superseding indictments:

 

 

Seems to me to be the opposite.  “We are done with this guy. Let’s move on.”  Appropriate amount of resources deployed against a small fish.  

[triplehorn 2664]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

But he’s not a cooperating witness.  Van der douche had nothing of value that Mueller didn’t already have.

It sure looks like Mueller could have gone after this small fish a lot harder than he did, so there's most probably something gained in return that may not be so readily visible or obvious.

A consideration of significant importance I keep seeing discussed relates to Mueller striving to protect sources and methods, and generally masking disclosing information they have, and how and from where they got it, that would be valuable to targets in this expanding web.  

 

[Pods 7528]

I think that's exactly it. Mueller under charged this guy to keep the powder dry for the shots that really matter.

[triplehorn 2664]

Page 5 of van der zwaan's sentencing memorandum:  https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Van-Der-Zwaan.pdf

He's turned over taped conversations with Rick Gates and Person A (GRU agent Kilimnik) and emails he initially lied about to the OSC.

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[SKJ 1305]

4 hours ago, krutov said:

can you honestly say that if trump had permanently reduced the number of russian diplomats down to 395 and then the state department had complained to the media that this resulted in a critical shortage of us staff in russia when the russians mirrored that, that you wouldn't call trump an idiot for that too?

my point is you hear a superficial poorly researched story and you jump to the conclusion it supports your bias against trump.  now you are invested in that take and digging in to defend that position when you do not have a fucking clue whether it was a good decision or a bad one by trump.  that is exactly what fake news is intended to do.  what's the difference?

i have zero idea why trump didn't reduce the number permanently.  perhaps it was a fuck up.  my point is that with 5 minutes of research and i can find context to that story that was not being reported.   i don't trust the media to tell me the whole story, and i wait before i jump.  you shouldn't either.  whether it is deliberate spin or the product of the shrinking resources available to news outlets and the credulous kids writing stories today, the news we hear today is shit. 

 

 

 

Oh. So you're assuming some shit. Gotcha.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Welp, this explains the crazy tweets

 

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.

The special counsel also told Trump’s lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president’s actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.

Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump — both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe, the people said.

Mueller’s description of the president’s status has sparked friction within Trump’s inner circle as his advisers have debated his legal standing. The president and some of his allies seized on the special counsel’s words as an assurance that Trump’s risk of criminal jeopardy is low. Other advisers, however, noted that subjects of investigations can easily become indicted targets — and expressed concern that the special prosecutor was baiting Trump into an interview that could put the president in legal peril.

John Dowd, Trump’s top attorney dealing with the Mueller probe, resigned last month amid disputes about strategy and frustration that the president ignored his advice to refuse the special counsel’s request for an interview, according to a Trump friend.

Trump’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, and Dowd declined to comment for this report. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions to White House attorney Ty Cobb.

“Thank you, but I don’t discuss communications with the president or with the Office of Special Counsel,” Cobb said Tuesday.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment. 

The wide-ranging special counsel investigation, which began as an examination of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has expanded into other areas, including whether Trump sought to obstruct the probe.

Mueller’s investigators have indicated to the president’s legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages — with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions.

 

Under special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to report his conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who has the authority to decide whether to release the information publicly.

“They’ve said they want to write a report on this — to answer the public’s questions — and they need the president’s interview as the last step,” one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller’s team. 

Trump’s attorneys expect the president would also face questions about what he knew about any contacts by his associates with Russians officials and emissaries in 2016, several White House advisers said. The president’s allies believe a second report detailing the special counsel’s findings on Russia’s interference would be issued later.

The president has privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview, the people said. He has repeatedly told allies that he is not a target of the probe and believes an interview will help him put the matter behind him, friends said. 

However, legal experts said Mueller’s description of Trump as a subject of a grand jury probe does not mean he is in the clear.

Under Justice Department guidelines, a subject of an investigation is a person whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation. A target is a person for which there is substantial evidence linking him or her to a crime.

A subject could become a target with his or her own testimony, legal experts warn. 

“If I were the president, I would be very reluctant to think I’m off the hook,” said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University and impeachment expert.

“My sense of it is the president — given that information — ought to have pretty fair warning anything he’s saying in the deposition would be legally consequential. Depending on what he says, it could wind up changing how the special counsel is thinking about him.”

Still, several legal scholars and impeachment experts believe Mueller may conclude he does not have the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime under an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000.

If Mueller finds Trump engaged in criminal conduct, he could detail it in a report, experts argue, and let Congress to decide whether to launch impeachment proceedings based on Mueller’s findings. 

“The president’s personal risk is primarily on the impeachment front,” Whittington said. “Even if there are not things that lead to indictment, there may be matters that warrant an impeachment investigation and proceedings.”

Some of Trump’s advisers have warned White House aides that they fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about the president’s actions. 

Several of Trump’s public actions have called into question whether he sought to blunt or block the criminal probe, a line of inquiry that prosecutors began pursuing last year. He has repeatedly called the investigation a “witch hunt” that has unfairly sullied his administration and hampered his ability to accomplish his policy agenda. He fired FBI James B. Comey in Mayafter Comey told Congress that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump was furious that Comey did not state that he was not personally under investigation, The Washington Post previously reported.

The president also asked top intelligence officials to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

 

Mueller’s team has told Trump’s attorneys over recent months that they are seeking to learn more about the firings of Comey and national security adviser Michael Flynn last year and the president’s efforts to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. 

Nevertheless, Trump has repeatedly expressed an eagerness to sit down for a voluntary interview to answer Mueller’s questions — a move Dowd believed would be a mistake, according to a longtime Trump friend.

Dowd told the president the case against him was weak, but warned Trump he could create criminal jeopardy for himself if he agreed to an interview and misspoke under oath, the friend said. Dowd repeatedly pointed to the Trump campaign advisers who have pleaded guilty to making false statements in the Mueller probe — including Flynn, adviser George Papadopoulos and former campaign official Rick Gates.

“Mueller hasn’t hesitated to [charge] people for lying on some pretty tangential stuff,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel in the probe of President Bill Clinton.

However, Sekulow and Cobb gave the president the opposite advice as Dowd: that it would be politically difficult for Trump to refuse to answer questions after insisting for months there was no collusion or crime, according to three people familiar with their advice.

Wisenberg, who interviewed Clinton about allegations that he obstructed justice, said Trump has handled himself well in previous depositions but should be cautious.

“I think he would do much better than people think,” Wisenberg said. “But there are plenty of instances where a guy walks into a grand jury a subject. He gets out and is told: ‘Guess what, you’re a target now.’”

[zork 629]

News just came out concerning Mueller and Trump's status.  Check the wires/web.  Oops, looks like Hugo said it and I didn't know because I can't see his stuff.

Edited April 4, 2018 by zork

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Lying on some pretty tangential stuff.   Lol. Lying is lying.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

It feels like someone leaked this story to trick Trump into doing an interview with Mueller.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

It feels like someone leaked this story to trick Trump into doing an interview with Mueller.

/Admiral Akbar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31273]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Welp, this explains the crazy tweets

 

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.

The special counsel also told Trump’s lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president’s actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.

Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump — both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe, the people said.

Mueller’s description of the president’s status has sparked friction within Trump’s inner circle as his advisers have debated his legal standing. The president and some of his allies seized on the special counsel’s words as an assurance that Trump’s risk of criminal jeopardy is low. Other advisers, however, noted that subjects of investigations can easily become indicted targets — and expressed concern that the special prosecutor was baiting Trump into an interview that could put the president in legal peril.

John Dowd, Trump’s top attorney dealing with the Mueller probe, resigned last month amid disputes about strategy and frustration that the president ignored his advice to refuse the special counsel’s request for an interview, according to a Trump friend.

Trump’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, and Dowd declined to comment for this report. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions to White House attorney Ty Cobb.

“Thank you, but I don’t discuss communications with the president or with the Office of Special Counsel,” Cobb said Tuesday.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment. 

The wide-ranging special counsel investigation, which began as an examination of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has expanded into other areas, including whether Trump sought to obstruct the probe.

Mueller’s investigators have indicated to the president’s legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages — with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions.

 

Under special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to report his conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who has the authority to decide whether to release the information publicly.

“They’ve said they want to write a report on this — to answer the public’s questions — and they need the president’s interview as the last step,” one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller’s team. 

Trump’s attorneys expect the president would also face questions about what he knew about any contacts by his associates with Russians officials and emissaries in 2016, several White House advisers said. The president’s allies believe a second report detailing the special counsel’s findings on Russia’s interference would be issued later.

The president has privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview, the people said. He has repeatedly told allies that he is not a target of the probe and believes an interview will help him put the matter behind him, friends said. 

However, legal experts said Mueller’s description of Trump as a subject of a grand jury probe does not mean he is in the clear.

Under Justice Department guidelines, a subject of an investigation is a person whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation. A target is a person for which there is substantial evidence linking him or her to a crime.

A subject could become a target with his or her own testimony, legal experts warn. 

“If I were the president, I would be very reluctant to think I’m off the hook,” said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University and impeachment expert.

“My sense of it is the president — given that information — ought to have pretty fair warning anything he’s saying in the deposition would be legally consequential. Depending on what he says, it could wind up changing how the special counsel is thinking about him.”

Still, several legal scholars and impeachment experts believe Mueller may conclude he does not have the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime under an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000.

If Mueller finds Trump engaged in criminal conduct, he could detail it in a report, experts argue, and let Congress to decide whether to launch impeachment proceedings based on Mueller’s findings. 

“The president’s personal risk is primarily on the impeachment front,” Whittington said. “Even if there are not things that lead to indictment, there may be matters that warrant an impeachment investigation and proceedings.”

Some of Trump’s advisers have warned White House aides that they fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about the president’s actions. 

Several of Trump’s public actions have called into question whether he sought to blunt or block the criminal probe, a line of inquiry that prosecutors began pursuing last year. He has repeatedly called the investigation a “witch hunt” that has unfairly sullied his administration and hampered his ability to accomplish his policy agenda. He fired FBI James B. Comey in Mayafter Comey told Congress that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump was furious that Comey did not state that he was not personally under investigation, The Washington Post previously reported.

The president also asked top intelligence officials to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

 

Mueller’s team has told Trump’s attorneys over recent months that they are seeking to learn more about the firings of Comey and national security adviser Michael Flynn last year and the president’s efforts to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. 

Nevertheless, Trump has repeatedly expressed an eagerness to sit down for a voluntary interview to answer Mueller’s questions — a move Dowd believed would be a mistake, according to a longtime Trump friend.

Dowd told the president the case against him was weak, but warned Trump he could create criminal jeopardy for himself if he agreed to an interview and misspoke under oath, the friend said. Dowd repeatedly pointed to the Trump campaign advisers who have pleaded guilty to making false statements in the Mueller probe — including Flynn, adviser George Papadopoulos and former campaign official Rick Gates.

“Mueller hasn’t hesitated to [charge] people for lying on some pretty tangential stuff,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel in the probe of President Bill Clinton.

However, Sekulow and Cobb gave the president the opposite advice as Dowd: that it would be politically difficult for Trump to refuse to answer questions after insisting for months there was no collusion or crime, according to three people familiar with their advice.

Wisenberg, who interviewed Clinton about allegations that he obstructed justice, said Trump has handled himself well in previous depositions but should be cautious.

“I think he would do much better than people think,” Wisenberg said. “But there are plenty of instances where a guy walks into a grand jury a subject. He gets out and is told: ‘Guess what, you’re a target now.’”

I would guess that this more means that Mueller would not have the temerity to attempt to indict any sitting President rather than Trump committed no criminal (or impeachable) offense.

Also, re VanDerZwaan:

"This glass was dropped on a very thick carpet" is a quote I am going to have to remember.  And though not mentioned in this article, I am pretty sure the calculated guideline range in this matter was 0 to 6 months, so perhaps we ought also remember that the first sentence imposed in this matter emerging from the special counsel was a within-guideline (and not-bottom-of-the-range) sentence.

Douglas Berman, professor of law and recognized authority on sentencing.

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

11 hours ago, krutov said:

i do understand you have no answer to the substance of what i said so you're going ad hominem

 

No, that's not ad hominem.

This is ad hominem: Go fuck your own face, you commie piece of shit. When you are done, go to work on your mother's face. Don't forget to sodomize yourself with a Putin doll while you do it so you'll be able to get off.

 

[Hornmatic 245]

Peter Carr has the best job in the world. 

[bolverk 29399]

14 minutes ago, Hornmatic said:

Peter Carr has the best job in the world. 

I bet he has to suppress a giggle each time he says "no comment."

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Quote

"This glass was dropped on a very thick carpet" is a quote I am going to have to remember.  And though not mentioned in this article, I am pretty sure the calculated guideline range in this matter was 0 to 6 months, so perhaps we ought also remember that the first sentence imposed in this matter emerging from the special counsel was a within-guideline (and not-bottom-of-the-range) sentence.

Douglas Berman, professor of law and recognized authority on sentencing.

Also re Van der Zwaan from OSC's sentencing memorandum, the OSC recommended non-custodial punishment.  30 days jail is on the Judge.  The rec for no jail time was on account of mitigating factors that quite literally materialized once Van der zwaan made an effort to correct the record with the OSC and handed over evidence in the form of his own taped conversations with Gates (and others?) , business and personal phones, laptops, and iPad.  Further, it's likely the soft handling by the OSC of Van der Zwaan is a direct result of those tapes/devices providing substantive evidence for the larger investigation - evidence applicable well beyond the lie for which he pleaded guilty.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

6 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Also re Van der Zwaan from OSC's sentencing memorandum, the OSC recommended non-custodial punishment.  30 days jail is on the Judge.  The rec for no jail time was on account of mitigating factors that quite literally materialized once Van der zwaan made an effort to correct the record with the OSC and handed over evidence in the form of his own taped conversations with Gates (and others?) , business and personal phones, laptops, and iPad.  Further, it's likely the soft handling by the OSC of Van der Zwaan is a direct result of those tapes/devices providing substantive evidence for the larger investigation - evidence applicable well beyond the lie for which he pleaded guilty.

?  I read the pleading where they said there were no mitigating factors and only aggravating factors.  

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

?  I read the pleading where they said there were no mitigating factors and only aggravating factors.  

I don't know what you read, but I linked the OSC's sentencing memorandum above.  Here it is again:

United States Of America v. Alex Van Der Zwaan, Defendant.

Page 8 and 9 lay it out there in terms of how much VDZ cooperated with the OSC and voluntarily turned over evidence OSC didn't know existed.  Page 13 is where OSC states "any term of imprisonment would be unduly severe under these circumstances."   The OSC appears downright grateful for his cooperation.

On a related note, the time frame of VDZ turning over taped conversations of Rick Gates and Person A (GRU agent) being November/Dec '17 predates Rick Gates flipping after his conspiracy charges with Manafort and turning state's witness.  It's certainly possible VDZ's cooperation (and tapes of conversations) had a major effect on Gates later flipping for the OSC.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

I don't know what you read, but I linked the OSC's sentencing memorandum above.  Here it is again:

United States Of America v. Alex Van Der Zwaan, Defendant.

Page 8 and 9 lay it out there in terms of how much VDZ cooperated with the OSC and voluntarily turned over evidence OSC didn't know existed.  Page 13 is where OSC states "any term of imprisonment would be unduly severe under these circumstances."   The OSC appears downright grateful for his cooperation.

On a related note, the time frame of VDZ turning over taped conversations of Rick Gates and Person A (GRU agent) being November/Dec '17 predates Rick Gates flipping after his conspiracy charges with Manafort and turning state's witness.  It's certainly possible VDZ's cooperation (and tapes of conversations) had a major effect on Gates later flipping for the OSC.

Your quoting Van after Zwaan’s pleading.  Here is the government’s: 

[triplehorn 2664]

17 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Your quoting Van after Zwaan’s pleading.  Here is the government’s: 

I can't read your link, but you're totally correct.  Mea culpa.  I suppose the main takeaway is that VDS cooperated, turned over new evidence, and is still going to jail.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

http://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/193647/04516494589.pdf

 

Doing this from my desktop instead of phone to provide the link and to correct my shameful typos. 

*You're 

*Van der Zwaan's

[Dutchrudder 11115]

Fox News had an "Alert" that Mueller confirmed Trump isn't the target of criminal investigation, and that was all they reported. I went to look up what real story was, and sure enough, it's omitting the context of the investigation. Pretty funny, but also SAD.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

7 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Fox News had an "Alert" that Mueller confirmed Trump isn't the target of criminal investigation, and that was all they reported. I went to look up what real story was, and sure enough, it's omitting the context of the investigation. Pretty funny, but also SAD.

They're going to be responsible for tricking Dotard into talking to Mueller.

[Anastasis 23395]

From an opinion piece at The Hill. Was not familiar with these specifics of these terms.

The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/381593-when-will-the-media-accept-that-trump-is-not-a-criminal-target

 

[yaqdum 182]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

does not consider him a criminal target at this point

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

46 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Fox News had an "Alert" that Mueller confirmed Trump isn't the target of criminal investigation, and that was all they reported. I went to look up what real story was, and sure enough, it's omitting the context of the investigation. Pretty funny, but also SAD.

Mueller never was going to indict a sitting president. The plan always was to prepare a report, supported by evidence, regarding whether a crime was committed. It will be up to Congress to act on any conclusions. 

[ohchaucer 1443]

Quote

It will be up to Congress to act on any conclusions. 

Oh, super.  I can't unpop all this popcorn.

[David Dennison 18656]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Mueller never was going to indict a sitting president. The plan always was to prepare a report, supported by evidence, regarding whether a crime was committed. It will be up to Congress to act on any conclusions. 

This. He can always be indicted after he's no longer president.

[Brisketexan 104610]

17 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Mueller never was going to indict a sitting president. The plan always was to prepare a report, supported by evidence, regarding whether a crime was committed. It will be up to Congress to act on any conclusions. 

This.

Which is why Mueller continues to be a by-the-book, respect for the rule of law and due process guy, all-in-all.

And it's also why nothing is going to happen.  Mueller could produce a video of Trump giving Putin a list of all of our foreign operatives to kill, and "up to Congress to act" would mean....nothing happens.

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I think the Jury is still out on the possibility of Mueller indicting Trump.  

It's not likely, but still possible. 

Right now the goal is to get Trump to answer some questions.

I don't expect any indictments to drop until the Trump interview is exhausted. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[kevwun 15647]

The goal is to get Trump to answer some questions that Mueller already knows the answers to and that Trump is very likely to lie about.

Edited April 4, 2018 by kevwun

[Ghost of LL 15492]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

 

 

 

 

Why would you fire someone who isn't targeting you as part of his investigation?

[Brisketexan 104610]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

The goal is to get Trump to answer some questions that Mueller already knows the answers to and that Trump is very likely to lie about.

And as dumb as DOTUS is, I don't think he takes the bait.  He isn't going to sit down with Mueller.

He's going to fire him.

And Congress will act with all of the vertebrae they possess -- ZERO.  They will do nothing.

That's when you can put a fork in the Republic.

[Pods 7528]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

And as dumb as DOTUS is, I don't think he takes the bait.  He isn't going to sit down with Mueller.

He's going to fire him.

And Congress will act with all of the vertebrae they possess -- ZERO.  They will do nothing.

That's when you can put a fork in the Republic.

 

Yup, I've been saying that since the day Rosenstein appointed Mueller. I'm surprised it's taken Trump this long. As bad as his White House people have been, they've kept Trump from being far worse. Now that Trump has taken over, I expect he'll surround himself with enough YES men to do whatever he tells them. 

The Republic hangs on the 2018 and 2020 elections.