Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can Trump simply fire Mueller at this point if the heat really turns up?
Only Rosenstein can fire Muller. So Trump would have to fire Rosenstein and a few others under him, get them replaced and have the new people fire Muller.
Anonymous wrote:Can Trump pardon Manafort, Flynn et Al as soon as the indictments are handed out?
Anonymous wrote:Can Trump simply fire Mueller at this point if the heat really turns up?
Anonymous wrote:Can Trump simply fire Mueller at this point if the heat really turns up?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please explain to a layperson. What happens to those who are indicted?
In a nutshell: If someone’s believed to have committed a federal crime, they must either have a probable cause hearing before a judge or be indicted. That means the government has enough evidence (probable cause) to try the case. The target will be arrested and arraigned (booked for the crime and have a bail hearing). Normally a non-violent offender (not a danger to the community) will be released on bail. For a wealthy defendant, a lot of bail— unless they are deemed a flight risk. They then get a trial date and either go to trial or plea.
The indictment under seal is interesting. It may be to prevent a media circus this weekend and during the arrest. It is easy to being someone high profile in without the media being six deep. Or to prevent flight (but it seems unlikely that mAnnaforrt could leave the coountry anaad no one wold notice). Or— and this is my own personal conspiracy theory, based on nothing but hope and speculation— Don Jr or (more likely) Kusher are going to be indicted, and Mueller is afraid that Trump will try to interfere with the arrests/ start firing Mueller and his attorneys etc., and inflaming the public via Twitter. So it may be under seal to protect the investigation from Trump. He can still tweet, but he is more limited if he does not know the target. Nd he might cut Manafort loose, but he will fire Mueller,ER before Kushner is arrested
I agree it’s probably Manafort and/or Flynn, although the under seal thing is strange, because everyone knows they are going to becrged.
It would amazing it was Kushner.
I haven’t seen if there is only one indictment, or there might be several?
Is it possible that a sealed indictment may be used to contact the indictees attorney and see if a voluntary surrender can be negotiated with the thinking that courteous treatment may be part of a good cop bad cop routine that gets some kind of plea deal that turns on others negotiated?
Or do you always do the surprise arrest, force the perp walk humiliation and negotiate the plea and proffer afterwards?
Anonymous wrote:WSJ: Mueller Should Step Down from Russia Investigation
Aaron Bandler
21 hours ago
Screenshot from YouTube.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has called on former FBI director Robert Mueller to step down from his role as special counsel in the Russia investigation.
The editorial recapped the news that broke earlier in the week that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm, to unearth information against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. The firm produced a dossier comprising allegations against the president, including the claim that the Russians were blackmailing Trump with videos of him with Russian prostitutes. The editorial noted that the dossier was “based on largely anonymous, Kremlin-based sources.”
From JJ link
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jewishjournal.com/news/nation/226574/wsj-mueller-step-russia-investigation/amp/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: Roll Call examines the possibilities here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-5-possible-outcomes-of-first-mueller-indictments/ar-AAu9yum?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
With this kind of brilliant analysis?
Flynn became enamored with the kind of conservative conspiracy theories that helped power Trump to the White House. The longtime soldier, who had gone into the consulting world after being fired from the DIA by President Barack Obama, became a leading national security and foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump.
I’m to take this article seriously?
Please point out specifically what is false in the part you quoted.
Any article that uses the phrase “enamored with the kind of crazy conspiracy theories” exposes itself
Fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/-michael-flynn-trump-fake-news-clinton.html
Pull quote "Six days before the election, for instance, Mr. Flynn posted on Twitter a fake news story that claimed the police and prosecutors in New York had found evidence linking Mrs. Clinton and much of her senior campaign staff to pedophilia, money laundering, perjury and other felonies."
Frankly, "enamored with the kind of conspiracy theories" is a very gentle way of referring to Flynn's craziness.
Just because what is written about a politician is negative doesn't mean it shouldn't be printed or is "fake news".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The leak itself is a felony.
Interesting. Cite the code section on that?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
(4) Sealed Indictment. The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:That explains the hyperactivity among Trump trolls here.
Yes. Because those of us who are Trump supporters were given a heads up about this news.![]()
Mr. Steele, you are smarter than that.
they will flip the little fish.Anonymous wrote:Even if they indict Manafort or Flynn, does this really affect Trump? Isn't he just going to say he had no idea what others oh his campaign were up to?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please explain to a layperson. What happens to those who are indicted?
In a nutshell: If someone’s believed to have committed a federal crime, they must either have a probable cause hearing before a judge or be indicted. That means the government has enough evidence (probable cause) to try the case. The target will be arrested and arraigned (booked for the crime and have a bail hearing). Normally a non-violent offender (not a danger to the community) will be released on bail. For a wealthy defendant, a lot of bail— unless they are deemed a flight risk. They then get a trial date and either go to trial or plea.
The indictment under seal is interesting. It may be to prevent a media circus this weekend and during the arrest. It is easy to being someone high profile in without the media being six deep. Or to prevent flight (but it seems unlikely that mAnnaforrt could leave the coountry anaad no one wold notice). Or— and this is my own personal conspiracy theory, based on nothing but hope and speculation— Don Jr or (more likely) Kusher are going to be indicted, and Mueller is afraid that Trump will try to interfere with the arrests/ start firing Mueller and his attorneys etc., and inflaming the public via Twitter. So it may be under seal to protect the investigation from Trump. He can still tweet, but he is more limited if he does not know the target. Nd he might cut Manafort loose, but he will fire Mueller,ER before Kushner is arrested
I agree it’s probably Manafort and/or Flynn, although the under seal thing is strange, because everyone knows they are going to becrged.
It would amazing it was Kushner.
I haven’t seen if there is only one indictment, or there might be several?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: Roll Call examines the possibilities here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-5-possible-outcomes-of-first-mueller-indictments/ar-AAu9yum?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
With this kind of brilliant analysis?
Flynn became enamored with the kind of conservative conspiracy theories that helped power Trump to the White House. The longtime soldier, who had gone into the consulting world after being fired from the DIA by President Barack Obama, became a leading national security and foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump.
I’m to take this article seriously?
Please point out specifically what is false in the part you quoted.
Any article that uses the phrase “enamored with the kind of crazy conspiracy theories” exposes itself
Fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/-michael-flynn-trump-fake-news-clinton.html
Pull quote "Six days before the election, for instance, Mr. Flynn posted on Twitter a fake news story that claimed the police and prosecutors in New York had found evidence linking Mrs. Clinton and much of her senior campaign staff to pedophilia, money laundering, perjury and other felonies."
Frankly, "enamored with the kind of conspiracy theories" is a very gentle way of referring to Flynn's craziness.
Just because what is written about a politician is negative doesn't mean it shouldn't be printed or is "fake news".