Mueller Investigation pt4

[BobTheCoward]

No, no, no! This is strictly a history forum! Just look at the subfora:
"History, Literature, and the Arts,"
"General Skepticism and the Paranormal" (evidently they left out "History of-" on that one),
"Education" (they left out "History of-" again)
"Social Issues and Current Events" (clearly that was a mixup and wasn't supposed to be here at all)

Well, I could keep going, but I think I've made my point.

You can discuss something without speculation

 

[CapelDodger]

I think we shouldn't speculate on developing situations.

I think otherwise. It takes all sorts, I guess.

 

[carlitos]

Did I confuse my reading about Iran Contra with some podcast or news report? I thought that there was something in the news about acting AG Whitaker consulting with former AG Weinberger John Poindexter or someone from the Iran-Contra scandal, but I can't find a link just now.

 

[dasmiller]

You can discuss something without speculation

I can discuss something without using the letter "J," too.

I'm not sure I see the benefit of doing either.

 

[Border Reiver]

You can discuss something without speculation

Not if you need to use data to arrive at possible outcomes.

Discussing something without speculation means that you should not be discussing:

a. History any deeper than a superficial knowledge of events and dates;
b. Literature any deeper than "the words on the page say this";
c. Economics;
d. Philosophy;
e. Political theory;
f. Cutting edge science;
g. etc.

If you're not using your brain to engage in speculation about what might be,based on what we know, then you really aren't much of a skeptic are you?

 

[Cabbage]

You can discuss something without speculation

That's pure speculation.

 

[jeremyp]

Mueller has all but named Trump in his prosecution of Michael Cohen, as Individual 1; a person who was running for POTUS in 2016 and subsequently elected. The pool of people that description applies to consists of only one person, Donald J. Trump.

Individual 1 is identified as an accomplice in a criminal offence. No prosecutor is going to rely on a single, involved witness/accomplice. Mueller is doing what is called laying the groundwork. He will have corroborating material evidence (remember all those millions of papers and 100+ recordings seized by the SCO early in 2018? )

That's all very well, but has Trump been actually indicted? Yes or no. If he is indicted, will it be enough to get him impeached and then convicted?

Its not a fantasy, its a judgement of character, and some of us are very, very good at it.

I am not disputing that Trump is a very bad person. And you don't have to be a very good judge of character to understand that. However, thew fact that you claim to be a very good judge of character has no bearing on whether Trump gets impeached or not.

Trump is easier to see through than a brand new pane of glass. He is running scared; all his businesses are under investigation for fraud and as criminal enterprises. He already placed himself in personal legal jeopardy by publicly admitting to obstruction of justice when he stated that he fired James Comey because Comey would not stop the Russia investigation; an investigation that Trump KNEW was of himself.

In my opinion that is all true, but it is just an opinion. I think you are likely to be right, but there is the possibility that perhaps your faith in your ability to see through him like a pain of glass is misplaced.

If he does that he is obstructing justice again. If you recall the last time a POTUS to tried to shut down an investigation into himself, it didn't work out well for him.

Nixon is not Trump. If Trump shuts down Mueller, what's the House going to do? It could impeach, but will the Republican controlled Senate convict? In my opinion, it would not. If Nancy Pelosi shares my opinion, the House will not impeach.

In any case, now that the Dems control the house, if Trump tries to shut down the SCO, the House will take up the investigation themselves (as they are entitled to do) and they will subpoena Mueller and his staff to testify before the House, in public session, as to what they have found. That could be even worse for Trump, because the public will then KNOW what Mueller has found.

OK, that's a turn of events I hadn't considered. That may explain why Trump is not shutting down the Mueller investigation.

IMO, 2019 is going to be the worst year of Trump's life.

I suspect there will be worse years to follow. Even if Mueller comes to nothing, I understand there are other investigations against him going on. I'd be amazed if nobody makes enough stick to put him in jail after he leaves office.

 

[jeremyp]

You can discuss something without speculation

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing something with speculation. All I object to is advertising speculation as fact. I wouldn't object to somebody saying "it's highly likely that Mueller has evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of Trump". However when somebody claims they know Mueller has the goods on Trump, that's what I will object to. The only people who know what evidence Mueller has against Trump are the people on the investigation and they aren't talking about it yet.

 

[carlitos]

The only people who know what evidence Mueller has against Trump are the people on the investigation and they aren't talking about it yet.

And those who read the Michael Cohen plea agreement.

 

[Segnosaur]

The only people who know what evidence Mueller has against Trump are the people on the investigation and they aren't talking about it yet.

And those who read the Michael Cohen plea agreement.

We don't know anything about Trump... all we know about is some mysterious figure known as Individual-1 who may have been making dealings with Russia and running for president of the United states. I mean, it could be anybody.

On a serious note... the Cohen agreement may hint at some of the evidence against Trump, but its possible that Mueller has a lot more.

 

[smartcooky]

That's all very well, but has Trump been actually indicted? Yes or no. If he is indicted, will it be enough to get him impeached and then convicted?

So you don't know about the DoJ memo then.

 

[quadraginta]

That's all very well, but has Trump been actually indicted? Yes or no. If he is indicted, will it be enough to get him impeached and then convicted?

So you don't know about the DoJ memo then.

The memo is really a bit irrelevant, since judging by jeremyp's phrasing he doesn't really understand the processes involved anyway.

When the the House of Representatives impeaches a sitting President, that is an indictment.

This is a separate procedure from the sort of criminal indictment through the courts which the memo refers to.

The House does not need any sort of criminal indictment to impeach. They get to decide for themselves what is grounds for impeachment. They can make up anything they want to.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's all very well, but has Trump been actually indicted? Yes or no.

I think the proper answer is.... we don't know.

What we do know:

- Trump has been implicated (through Cohen) of possible campaign finance crimes. (We also are aware of other potential crimes, although that information is a bit more hidden)

- There are a bunch of sealed indictments floating around the court system that have been tied to the Mueller investigation

It is quite possible that one of those sealed indictments is for Trump himself. It makes sense: whether a sitting president can be charged for a crime is unknown, and Mueller did not know what would happen to his investigation post-midterms. Plus, he has to worry about the statute of limitations. The best option for him: Indict trump (via a sealed indictment) and wait for either the investigation to be wrapped up, or for Trump to leave office.

I'd say its probably 50/50 whether there is an actual indictment with Trump's name on it. No, I don't have proof. What we have are a bunch of little pieces that seem to tie together fairly well.

If he is indicted, will it be enough to get him impeached and then convicted?

Technically he wouldn't even have to be indicted to get impeached, since the guidelines for what a person can get indicted on are rather vague.

Nixon is not Trump. If Trump shuts down Mueller, what's the House going to do? It could impeach, but will the Republican controlled Senate convict?

You're right... republican senators probably won't convict, regardless of the evidence found against Trump, and even if Mueller has an indictment with Trump's name on it.

I suspect there will be worse years to follow. Even if Mueller comes to nothing, I understand there are other investigations against him going on. I'd be amazed if nobody makes enough stick to put him in jail after he leaves office.

Yes, the is

- Investigations into the Trump foundation (admittedly, any crimes here are probably more likely to result in fines rather than jail time. But its not impossible for jail time to result.). And it should be pointed out that this is a state crime, i.e. no chance of a pardon (from Trump or his successor)

- Multiple investigations into possible emoluments clause violations

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A judge has granted Mueller's Grand Jury an extension

 

[Paul2]

A judge has granted Mueller's Grand Jury an extension

February report? Shmebruary report!

 

[smartcooky]

We don't know anything about Trump... all we know about is some mysterious figure known as Individual-1 who may have been making dealings with Russia and running for president of the United states. I mean, it could be anybody.

On a serious note... the Cohen agreement may hint at some of the evidence against Trump, but its possible that Mueller has a lot more.

Oh, I think that is very, very likely

It seems that Cohen recorded everything that happened in his office - and he was Trump's personal lawyer and fixer.

 

[Aridas]

Its because their Dear Leader says it is so, therefore it must be true.

Don't forget the Fox echo and spin.

Not as foolish as anybody who places their faith in the Mueller investigation and then it turns out he either doesn't have enough evidence on Trump or gets shut down by Trump before he can present it.

Have these charges resulted in any legal proceedings against Trump? He has not been indicted yet, so any speculation by us at this point about what evidence there might be is just that: speculation.

I'm just trying to inject some reality into this thread. Too many people are fantasising about how Mueller is going to stitch up Trump good and proper without considering

*snerk* This is an incredibly weak excuse, you know?

a) Trump might close Mueller down before he reports

He might. There's reason why a number of people have pointedly tried to figure out a variety of countermeasures for exactly that scenario, after all. Separate from the countermeasures, though, the "conventional wisdom," though, is that Trump doing that would be widely regarded as an admission of guilt and very quickly lead to his impeachment. Conventional wisdom is, of course, not especially reliable when it comes to the current Republican Party, though, especially when Trump, Fox, etc. have been engaging in a pointed disinformation campaign for quite a while now.

b) the report may well not contain enough evidence to persuade the Houser to impeach Trump.

It's possible. Given the sheer amount of problematic and outright criminal behavior already in the public domain, though, it's not a safe bet to say that. As in, the stuff in the public domain alone would be enough to make this at least as bad as the stuff outright called criminal when it came to Watergate and probably notably worse. That's before we get Mueller's report. It's a much safer bet to bet on the Republican dominated Senate not actually removing him, regardless of how overwhelming and serious the evidence of crime is. It wouldn't surprise me at all if McConnell managed to just prevent the Senate from even doing the Senate's part in impeachment proceedings.

I do not believe Trump will be impeached unless he wins re-election in 2020. I think that, if the House starts impeachment proceedings now and the Senate then votes to acquit, it would be catastrophic for the Dems in 2020.

I firmly disagree. Not doing anything would definitely be catastrophic for the Dems. This ain't Whitewater or the flimsy excuse the Republicans used to try to impeach Clinton. Nor is it anywhere remotely close to that situation in so very many ways.

Thus, it's not going to happen without evidence that is impossible for Republican senators to ignore. From what I've seen so far, that's a pretty high bar.

Just like all those votes to repeal the ACA during Obama's presidency despite knowing that they would fail? At worst, it's red meat to the base.

Just to be clear in case you start accusing me of being a Trump supporter (which I regard as an insult): Trump is the worst president of the USA I can remember. He is a liar, corrupt and wilfully ignorant on pretty much everything to do with running the country. Yes, he's probably also a criminal, but not according to due process - yet.

Alright, I won't call you a Trump supporter. I will, however, point out that I don't think that you are seeing things particularly clearly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There IS no due process when it comes to criminally investigating a sitting President. No one looking at the Mueller probe so far doubts that Trump would already have been indicted if he wasn't POTUS.
So the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't work here, since we can't even get the guy to sit down for an interview.

 

[3point14]

... would be political suicide, *even* for Trump.

I don't think it's possible. Those that support him do so now in spite of all the evidence he's entirely unsuitable and up to his eyes in Russian money.

I don't believe that there is any evidence that can be presented or anything that Trump could say that would cause those who still support him to change their minds.

 

[slyjoe]

There IS no due process when it comes to criminally investigating a sitting President. No one looking at the Mueller probe so far doubts that Trump would already have been indicted if he wasn't POTUS.
So the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't work here, since we can't even get the guy to sit down for an interview.

There was speculation (oh no) around Mueller's sealed indictment that it indicts Trump, but was sealed so the statute of limitations on the crimes listed wouldn't run out if Trump gets another term. This would hold him accountable after he is POTUS.