Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
I think his legal team will try to negotiate it down from "testify under oath" to "have a nice chat with". CNN is saying that all signs point to zero interest in a smoking gun on the Russia questions just yet and they're going after the low-hanging fruit.... Obstruction. To which the idiot has already confessed.
Click to expand...

I think the point is to get him to a position where lying would be a crime, and then ask him questions to which Mueller already knows the answers. Then he's got him bang to rights, on the record.

The thing about tweets, etc. is that Trump can claim someone else authored them (like Dowd did about the tweet about why Comey was fired), or that he was just speaking off-the-cuff and bending the truth (like he did when he said that saying that having tapes of conversations with Comey was a clever strategy, rather than the truth). If he's lying to the FBI in a situation in which that's a crime, then Mueller has unquestionably got him.

The Mueller and his investigation are truly protected.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think the point is to get him to a position where lying would be a crime, and then ask him questions to which Mueller already knows the answers. Then he's got him bang to rights, on the record.

The thing about tweets, etc. is that Trump can claim someone else authored them (like Dowd did about the tweet about why Comey was fired), or that he was just speaking off-the-cuff and bending the truth (like he did when he said that saying that having tapes of conversations with Comey was a clever strategy, rather than the truth). If he's lying to the FBI in a situation in which that's a crime, then Mueller has unquestionably got him.

The Mueller and his investigation are truly protected.
Click to expand...

Yes, ditto this, too. The last POTUS who testified under oath might give him some advice.
 
Foolmewunz said:
And he's too much chicken poop to do that
Click to expand...
I disagree. Defiantly doing the single thing that everyone tells him not to do is practically Trump's MO. He just has to wind himself up enough to overrule what remains of his better judgement.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yes, ditto this, too. The last POTUS who testified under oath might give him some advice.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is no need to question Trump under oath unless it is before a Grand Jury:lying to Mueller would be a federal crime in itself (though prosecuted differently than perjury).

Simply put: there is no scenario in which Trump is better of coming out of an interview with Mueller than he was going in.
 
Uhh, then again...
Trump's actual words said:
“Oh, well, ‘Did he fight back?’ ” Trump said, “You fight back, ‘Oh, it’s obstruction.’ ”
Click to expand...
Unless he becomes a completely different person under oath, Mueller's job might be much easier than he expected.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I disagree. Defiantly doing the single thing that everyone tells him not to do is practically Trump's MO. He just has to wind himself up enough to overrule what remains of his better judgement.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He cows in the face of a live audience that isn't oohing and aahing at his every pronouncement. His mythos of the maverick is from when he's behind closed doors basking in that adulation and the bad advice of the leaders of the Deplorable Wing of the GOP.

Examples are numerous. The two most prominent:

Everyone told him not to **** with China.
Everyone waited with bated breath for him to take down El Presidente in Mexico.

He's China's biggest fan when he's in public with them. He waits to make semi-tough (but no where near his blustering campaign rhetoric) statements safe in the arms of the White House echo chamber.

In Mexico, he stood by meekly hoping the press conference where he was caught out lying would end and everyone would forget about it. He flew into the arms of Sheriff Joe and his miscreant true believers in Arizona and reversed himself six times in an 80 minute rally speech.

Donnie Johnny The Bluster King will not show up in front of Congress or a grand jury. He'll be the mouse king again. We won't be able to see his performance in a private hearing with the FBI but I doubt he develops a new pair for the occasion; not with a bunch of guys who have reams of evidence against him.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Does anyone here think there is any chance, if Mueller manages to get Trump into a room, that Trump won't end up perjuring himself? I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. His only possible way of surviving would be:
  1. Pleading the 5th.
  2. Supplying written answers to written questions (answered by his lawyers, most likely) where there is no chance for Trump to improvise.
  3. Resigning and Pence pardoning him, a la Ford/Nixon.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate his profound ignorance getting him into deep trouble by confessing to crimes spontaneously.

The normal problem in these cases is proving whether an accused obstructionist had “corrupt” intent. That is, did he interfere with an investigation to protect himself or further his own interests. Here, Trump is shouting his corrupt intent — though he has no idea it’s corrupt — from the rooftops. He’s not at all embarrassed to admit he tried to strong-arm the FBI and shut down Comey. In fact, he believes he was entitled to do these things.

This mindset came across loud and clear on Wednesday during an exchange with reporters. The Post reports:

The president suggested he could be investigated for obstruction of justice as part of the Russia investigation because he was “fighting back” and again reiterated there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Moscow.

“Oh well, ‘Did he fight back?’ ” Trump said, “You fight back, oh, it’s obstruction.”​

There it all is — the self-pity; the inability to differentiate between responding to critics in a political context and illegally undermining the Justice Department in a legal context; and the misunderstanding that, because he did not think there was collusion, it was perfectly fine to submarine the investigation. Frankly, the last of these is an error many of the president’s defenders make when they declare Trump could not obstruct justice if he felt he was innocent. (Most subjects insist they are innocent, but that doesn’t entitle them to interfere with the FBI, the DOJ or the courts.)
Click to expand...
 
Foolmewunz said:
Donnie Johnny The Bluster King will not show up in front of Congress or a grand jury. He'll be the mouse king again. We won't be able to see his performance in a private hearing with the FBI but I doubt he develops a new pair for the occasion; not with a bunch of guys who have reams of evidence against him.
Click to expand...
I think we have some wires crossed, my post was about firing Mueller himself, which allegedly WH staff have already had to restrain him from doing.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think the point is to get him to a position where lying would be a crime, and then ask him questions to which Mueller already knows the answers. Then he's got him bang to rights, on the record.
Click to expand...

Is that the end game? To get Trump on a process crime a la Martha Stewart, rather than uncovering knavish entanglements with Putin?
 
Giz said:
Is that the end game? To get Trump on a process crime a la Martha Stewart, rather than uncovering knavish entanglements with Putin?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the former facilitate the latter?
 
Giz said:
Is that the end game? To get Trump on a process crime a la Martha Stewart, rather than uncovering knavish entanglements with Putin?
Click to expand...

The end game is to detemine what, if any, crimes have been committed.

You know, like it is for most criminal investigations.
 
johnny karate said:
The end game is to detemine what, if any, crimes have been committed.

You know, like it is for most criminal investigations.
Click to expand...
Yup.

I do think that the evidence points to Russian interference, and assuming that holds true my preference would be to see Trump implicated in that. (It would serve as more of a warning that there are certain problems that need to be addressed.) But if Trump can't be caught on that, then any crime that he has been involved with will be fine.

Granted, there is the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I am basing my opinions on what i consider to be a preponderance of evidence of various crimes Trump has been involved in, even if it is not yet proven in a court of law.
 
jimbob said:
Wouldn't the former facilitate the latter?
Click to expand...

The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think?

(Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
 
Giz said:
Is that the end game? To get Trump on a process crime a la Martha Stewart, rather than uncovering knavish entanglements with Putin?
Click to expand...

As I said in the post you quoted:

The Mueller and his investigation are truly protected.
Click to expand...

If it were the end of the investigation, then why would he need to protect the investigation?
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Uhh, then again...

Unless he becomes a completely different person under oath, Mueller's job might be much easier than he expected.
Click to expand...
I think Mueller's most difficult job is getting anyone in Trump's family without Trump just pardoning them. And until the 2018 election, Trump is unlikely to be impeached. Even if Mueller doesn't think that step is part of his job, he must be finding all kinds of POTUS crimes given a fair number of them are already in the public sphere.

On another note: Grassley wants to release the judiciary committee testimony. Kushner refuses to meet with the committee. The testimony they already have that has been leaked to the news suggests it incriminates Kushner at least in as far as the assertion he was only at the infamous Trump Tower meeting for a few minutes and was distracted on his cell phone.

Really Jared? Now why wouldn't you want to clear that up?
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think? (Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
Click to expand...
If you aren't pro-Trump, why do you insist there will be no smoking gun?

You think Trump was clever enough to hide his involvement in money laundering? Think the whole family hasn't been involved in getting money from rich Chinese and Russians for the promise of VISAs and now political favors?

That's in addition to the Russian quid pro quo for assistance getting elected.

Think Trump hasn't publicly tried to obstruct the investigation into Russian meddling in the election?

Why did so many people in Trump's inner circle lie about Russian contacts?

I do think you might want to reconsider that rationale it's really about America and not because you support Trump. Trump is a danger to democracy that pretty much outweighs impeaching him.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
If you aren't pro-Trump, why do you insist there will be no smoking gun?
Click to expand...

Your bias is leading you to read things that aren't there.

I said: "It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency "

So:

point 1: I never denied that there could/would be a smoking gun. I was merely worrying about what happens if we hypothetically fall into the middle ground between 'smoking gun' and 'exoneration', where there is just a 'process' crime of making inconsistent statements.

point 2: The reason I brought it up was that recent posts included:

"But if Trump can't be caught on that, then any crime that he has been involved with will be fine."

"I think the point is to get him to a position where lying would be a crime, and then ask him questions to which Mueller already knows the answers. Then he's got him bang to rights, on the record."
 
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think?

(Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
Click to expand...
Very well considered comments.
 
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.
Click to expand...

But it's okay if I go to prison under that condition? Either we agree to treat eachother equally for process crimes or we get rid of process crimes.

This is why I say I love watching the powers of the police pointed at the rich and powerful and watching them squirm under conditions we have been forced to tolerate for years.
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think?

(Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, the GOP opened that particular can of worms with Ken Starr's investigation twenty years ago, which started out looking at sketchy real estate dealings and eventually wound up impeaching (Bill) Clinton on completely unrelated perjury and obstruction charges. Somehow we managed not to collapse into chaos then, I'm going to assume we'll be okay now.
 
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think?

(Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming form but think in this particular case, it would be more akin to getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

Kenneth Starr probably already set the precedent that you are worried about.
 
jimbob said:
I see where you are coming form but think in this particular case, it would be more akin to getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

Kenneth Starr probably already set the precedent that you are worried about.
Click to expand...

Tax evasion isn't a process crime.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
I'm sorry, the GOP opened that particular can of worms with Ken Starr's investigation twenty years ago, which started out looking at sketchy real estate dealings and eventually wound up impeaching (Bill) Clinton on completely unrelated perjury and obstruction charges. Somehow we managed not to collapse into chaos then, I'm going to assume we'll be okay now.
Click to expand...
Clinton wasn't swept out of office, nor did he even come close to serving time, or even just getting convicted on anything.

Giz is considering the case where Trump gets convicted and sentenced for procedural crime.
 
Giz said:
The problem is (assuming you only have a 'process' crime, not any hard prosecutable evidence for collusion)... to what extent is it a good precedent to send an elected president to jail because you could trap him in inconsistent testimony regarding something that you don't even have the evidence to prosecute.

Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a Trump sympathy point... this is taking a long term look at the precedent this could set for democracy in the USA and seeing the potential for:
- ever more intense partisanship and distrust
- endless attempts at witch hunts where the underlying crime is irrelevant... just get an inconsistency on tape and viola! lying to a federal official!
- An end to 'amicable' hand-over of power from party to party (and that is the main separator between dysfunctional banana republics from functioning democracies)


Removing a president without a smoking gun is a helluva precedent, don't you think?

(Again - not a defense of Trump, who is deplorable. It's a worry about what could be the 'worst case scenario' for the USA... where neither solid prosecutable evidence of collusion nor an exoneration is delivered... but just a Trump who is caught in an inconsistency [like shooting fish in a barrel!] and then the country splits into two rabid camps shouting "coup!")
Click to expand...
On the positive side: it would provide a precedent that the President isn't untouchable and that he can't commit crimes and lie about them with impunity. Also perhaps it serves as a reminder that being truthful more than lying has advantages.

Not saying this balances the negative results you aptly consider.
 
vZ4bHMA.jpg
 
Steve said:
A cartoon drawn by an imbecile. If he gets paid for this the buyers are imbeciles too.
Click to expand...
Also notice that the basic claim made in the cartoon fails?

The cartoon has Mueller saying "You lied to the FBI" (supposedly in response to Trump saying "good morning"), but Mueller isn't part of the FBI. He's attached to the Department of Justice.

The creator of the comic can't even get basic facts right. Should tell you everything you need to know.
 
Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.
Click to expand...
 
Stacko;12161186[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html" said:
Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit[/URL]
Click to expand...
Given the current political landscape, I wonder why Trump doesn't just go through with the firing and replace Mueller (or Sessions if necessary) with an appropriate lap dog/stooge.

Under normal circumstances, firing Mueller might have lead to some significant challenges from congress (and perhaps impeachment). But the Republicans control both the house and senate, and for the most part they've shown themselves to have no integrity. They could have live video of Trump giving Putin oral sex while the Russian leader personally hacks into the Democrat's email while Assange looks on lovingly, and the Republicans would not do anything.

And if anyone (such as the white house counsel) resigns in protest, so what? Since Trump doesn't seem to care about qualifications or abilities in people he appoints, he could probably find some loyalist to take the job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom