Grand Jury Issues Sealed Indictments in Mueller Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if he's an Unindicted Co Conspirator...isn't issuing the pardon to a conspirator another fresh case of obstruction of justice? My head is spinning.

Big wow. Your head has been spinning ever since your person lost.

Haha.

Criminal lawyer here-she is correct. Issuing the pardon becomes a new crime. Not sure why this is amusing, I think it is pretty serious shit.

The response was funny. As a criminal attorney, I’m sure you are well aware this is all speculation. You are also probably aware leaks re: a sealed indictment are also illegal.

[Anonymous]

Adam Shift on Trump's pardon power is not absolute

http://nypost.com/2017/10/29/schiff-says-trumps-pardon-power-cant-obstruct-mueller-probe/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if he's an Unindicted Co Conspirator...isn't issuing the pardon to a conspirator another fresh case of obstruction of justice? My head is spinning.

Big wow. Your head has been spinning ever since your person lost.

Haha.

Criminal lawyer here-she is correct. Issuing the pardon becomes a new crime. Not sure why this is amusing, I think it is pretty serious shit.

The response was funny. As a criminal attorney, I’m sure you are well aware this is all speculation. You are also probably aware leaks re: a sealed indictment are also illegal.

It depends on who is leaking. You seem to be assuming that it was Mueller. His investigation hasn't leaked anything else. It doesn't seem like he's the most obvious possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, if he's an Unindicted Co Conspirator...isn't issuing the pardon to a conspirator another fresh case of obstruction of justice? My head is spinning.

Big wow. Your head has been spinning ever since your person lost.

Haha.

Criminal lawyer here-she is correct. Issuing the pardon becomes a new crime. Not sure why this is amusing, I think it is pretty serious shit.

The response was funny. As a criminal attorney, I’m sure you are well aware this is all speculation. You are also probably aware leaks re: a sealed indictment are also illegal.

Yes, everyone gets that this is speculation

Yes, the leak may have been illegal. Likely was illegal. But it depends who leaked and what the Court’s orders were, right?

Yes, it’s still a fun way to spend a rainy Sunday evening. A bunch of federal law nerds in the DMV. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Who do you all follow on Twitter that has good intel (i.e., has actually been right about something in the past)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Do we know that Trump can't be indicted? The presidency is not a magic shield.

We do not know. Because no one has ever had to indict a sitting POTUS. DOJ OLC guidance from Nixon says no, because the constitution gives us impeachment. If we get there, SCOTUS will decide. But folks go with DOJ OLC guidance until then.

And if SCOTUS goes with DOJ, then yes. The presidency is a shield. That can be pierced with impeachment. And which disappears when the president is impeached, resigns or leaves office. Indictments come down then. As a practical matter, there are big problems with the executive branch prosecuting a sitting chief executive. Huge, constitutional crisis level problems. If you think Trump wants to fire Mueller is bad, wait until Trump tries to fire every political appointee in the DOJ and FBI, plus the US attorney who is trying his case. That’s right. Trump has the power to fire his own prosecutor at will. In the middle of his own trial. It’s a problem. He has to be removed from power before an untianted trial could occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Do we know that Trump can't be indicted? The presidency is not a magic shield.

It's unclear. Jones v Clinton said that a sitting president could be sued, but that was civil, not criminal.

I think saying that the president is unindictable is correct. There is already a mechanism for these issues.

That doesn't mean that the president, once out of office, remains unindictable. Unless he is pardoned by his successor.

So Obama can be indicted for Uranium deal if there is enough evidence? That seems like a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Who do you all follow on Twitter that has good intel (i.e., has actually been right about something in the past)?

Alt Sean spicers mic
Khanoiseur
Lauferlaw
Rvawonk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Do we know that Trump can't be indicted? The presidency is not a magic shield.

It's unclear. Jones v Clinton said that a sitting president could be sued, but that was civil, not criminal.

I think saying that the president is unindictable is correct. There is already a mechanism for these issues.

That doesn't mean that the president, once out of office, remains unindictable. Unless he is pardoned by his successor.

So Obama can be indicted for Uranium deal if there is enough evidence? That seems like a slippery slope.

If you think that Obama committed a crime, related to Uranium One or whatever, then go for it. Ask someone to charge him with whatever you can think up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The president is above the law. He can pardon his way out of trouble and replace any troublesome investigators or prosecutors. The GOP is solidly behind him.

The ones who should be worried are Hillary and Podesta.

Mueller will never bring charges to democrat royalty (Clintons & Obamas). He wants to be in history books, he wants the best NY Times obit there is, so he's going to be a thorn in Trump's side by pressing the people around him. He'll get Trump to resign going after Kushner and/or Don Jr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big question.....will Trump pardon after the accused's name becomes public?

Doesn't the person have to be convicted or plead guilty to be pardoned?

Yep, and just think about all the stuff that will probably come out during the trial!

Are you kidding? We can’t even get bank records from Fusion GPS who hired a foreign national who paid off Soviet sources in the dossier. FML.

To think the Department of Homeland Security was created to break up silos. Russia didn’t do thison their own. Obama admin and Hillary and her attorneys did this.

Obama and Hillary and her attorneys conspired to swing the Election for Trump?

Ummm. Okay. That’s an interesting take.

They conspired to swing it for themselves, but failed. Hence, all the shock and disbelief that night. Remember? "What Happened?"

Gimme a break. *Trump* was shocked that he won. Everyone was shocked. It was shocking for the election to come down to 60k votes in 3 states. Especially given the huge split in the popular vote.

Certain people knew why I had correctly predicted his win. So no, everyone was not shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The president is above the law. He can pardon his way out of trouble and replace any troublesome investigators or prosecutors. The GOP is solidly behind him.

The ones who should be worried are Hillary and Podesta.

In a banana republic. Here, in the first world, that’s not how things work.

Besides are you kidding? Trump is not Old school GOP. And mainline GOP hates Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president is above the law. He can pardon his way out of trouble and replace any troublesome investigators or prosecutors. The GOP is solidly behind him.

The ones who should be worried are Hillary and Podesta.

Mueller will never bring charges to democrat royalty (Clintons & Obamas). He wants to be in history books, he wants the best NY Times obit there is, so he's going to be a thorn in Trump's side by pressing the people around him. He'll get Trump to resign going after Kushner and/or Don Jr.

I believe this to be true. It's not about democratic royalty though. It's more about $$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president is above the law. He can pardon his way out of trouble and replace any troublesome investigators or prosecutors. The GOP is solidly behind him.

The ones who should be worried are Hillary and Podesta.

No, they're really not.

I don't care about stupid whispers behind closed doors. I don't care if they're snobs about the trash Trump is. I don't care if they pulled the lever for Hillary, so to speak, in the voting booth. They have done NOTHING to rein in any of Trump's most disgusting and egregious attacks on democracy. They've done nothing but support his dumb cluck legislation. They've done nothing but signal that they are a-ok with oligarchy and rule of crime.

Except they haven’t supported his legislation, have they. Trump has not managed to pass anything. After 5??? I lost couldn’t, demands by him they repeal and replace. With anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting twitter rumor running around that Trump could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator, a la Nixon. Process that for a moment.

not a lawyer but...that means he can't pardon the other conspirators, right?

It’s a bad idea. Terrible really. Worse than firing Mueller. Possibly obstruction of justice. But he probably could, technically. Because he hasn’t been convicted. It’s weird territory. For sure.

The big deal here is that it would mean that Meuller has found evidence sufficient to indict Trump on something, but he can’t while Trump is in office, because a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted. It is the big red arrow pointing at Trump saying “this guy committed this specific crime with these people, so it’s time to impeach him”. Nixon resigned about six weeks after it became public that he was an unindicted co-conspirator.

Do we know that Trump can't be indicted? The presidency is not a magic shield.

It's unclear. Jones v Clinton said that a sitting president could be sued, but that was civil, not criminal.

I think saying that the president is unindictable is correct. There is already a mechanism for these issues.

That doesn't mean that the president, once out of office, remains unindictable. Unless he is pardoned by his successor.

So Obama can be indicted for Uranium deal if there is enough evidence? That seems like a slippery slope.

The first black president will NEVER be indicted. EVER. Get real.