Indictment-O-Rama Megathread: Mueller indicts 13 Russians

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Watch the indictments have nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

They won't because these are likely being used to pressure folks to flip.  Of course, an indictment against Michael Flynn Jr. could be part of the Russia probe, but there are so many folks who still need to be interviewed before this wraps up. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Good luck pardoning someone for conspiracy against the United States.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Good luck pardoning someone for conspiracy against the United States.

The first charge against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — “conspiracy against the United States” — sounds dramatic, but it has a relatively straightforward explanation. It means that Manafort and Gates agreed to commit the illegal acts outlined in the rest of the indictment — i.e., violating foreign lobbying laws and misrepresenting their activities to the Department of Justice.

Conspiracy is a separate crime from the other offenses that Manafort and Gates are being charged with, and people can be convicted of conspiracy even if they don’t actually go on to commit the relevant offenses. There are dozens of conspiracy statutes on the books that involve specific illegal activities (which is why the second charge against Manafort and Gates is conspiracy to launder money). Members of the conspiracy can also be held liable for the illegal actions of other conspiracy members, which means that conspiracy charges can be used to turn defendants against each other.

The punishment for conspiracy against the United States is a fine or imprisonment for up to five years. The most common conspiracies involve fraud or drug trafficking — examples of people who have been convicted of various kinds of federal conspiracies include one of the men who planned 9/11 and several Enron executives.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/manafort-indictment-trump-russia/

Doesn’t matter, the optics of such a pardon would be too politically toxic, even for Trump.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

CNN now reporting that Sessions's testimony is now under scrutiny. Good.

Perjury?

The thing is that perjury is a pretty hard charge to prove, if I'm not mistaken.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

CNN now reporting that Sessions's testimony is now under scrutiny. Good.

Perjury?

The thing is that perjury is a pretty hard charge to prove, if I'm not mistaken.

ISTR a sitting President who was impeached for it (though not convicted).

And he was not convicted despite a Republican Senate (he obviously should've been though).  Also there was a much stronger case against Bill Clinton than against Sessions, if I'm not mistaken.  You'd have to prove Sessions actually lied as opposed to simply forgetting, being evasive, omitting something, etc.  Based solely on what we know right now, I definitely wouldn't indict Sessions for perjury/lying to Congress if I were Mueller although who knows what he knows that we don't.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't see anything proving Sessions perjured himself yet. Bringing up meetings and travelling to Russia might look shady but isn't proof of collusion.

Correct

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't see anything proving Sessions perjured himself yet. Bringing up meetings and travelling to Russia might look shady but isn't proof of collusion.

This is what Sessions testified to Congress during his confirmation hearings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Sessions was indeed aware of anyone in the campaign communicating with the Russian government -- which there now appears to be evidence of -- then his testimony above was a lie.  If he was under oath, it's perjury.  Even if not under oath, it would be a crime of lying to the federal government (USC 18:1001).

I forgot he said communicate rather than collude.  Yeah, this is really bad for him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How many people would protest the firing of Mueller?

I would

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I wonder when Trump and the GOP will begin their push to fire Mueller or somehow seriously restrict his investigation.

They’re sweating like dogs.

Err, I doubt that. If we were talking about your average Republican president, I could believe that, but with Trump, I honestly do not think he can restrain himself. Once the investigation gets closer to his family or maybe some other people he considers important and if they get slapped with their own indictments, it's very easy to see Trump firing Mueller and/or issuing pardons. I mean come on, this is Donald Trump, Grumps. He has spent the past 2+ (or his lifetime?) years breaking rules. I really doubt he can restrain himself, especially when he knows he can insulate himself from real repercussions rather easily.

As for Republicans, or political parties in general, never underestimate their willingness to put party above all else, even if it means shutting down a legitimate investigation just to try and limit damage in the next election(s).

Unless someone named Trump or Kushner is about to be indicted I'm not giving any credence to any Fire Mueller stories.

The fact that Trump would fire Mueller because of who the latter indicted, period, is proof that Trump has absolutely no respect for the rule of law.  It's just as corrupt to fire Mueller for indicting Kushner as it would be to fire him for indicting Manafort.

So I'm guessing Mueller is planning another Monday morning round-up? If he is, it's a 99.8% chance that both Flynn and Junior are going down.

The only surprise here is that Flynn wasn't indicted before Manafort

Why is that surprising?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I wonder when Trump and the GOP will begin their push to fire Mueller or somehow seriously restrict his investigation.

They’re sweating like dogs.

Err, I doubt that. If we were talking about your average Republican president, I could believe that, but with Trump, I honestly do not think he can restrain himself. Once the investigation gets closer to his family or maybe some other people he considers important and if they get slapped with their own indictments, it's very easy to see Trump firing Mueller and/or issuing pardons. I mean come on, this is Donald Trump, Grumps. He has spent the past 2+ (or his lifetime?) years breaking rules. I really doubt he can restrain himself, especially when he knows he can insulate himself from real repercussions rather easily.

As for Republicans, or political parties in general, never underestimate their willingness to put party above all else, even if it means shutting down a legitimate investigation just to try and limit damage in the next election(s).

Unless someone named Trump or Kushner is about to be indicted I'm not giving any credence to any Fire Mueller stories.

The fact that Trump would fire Mueller because of who the latter indicted, period, is proof that Trump has absolutely no respect for the rule of law.  It's just as corrupt to fire Mueller for indicting Kushner as it would be to fire him for indicting Manafort.

So I'm guessing Mueller is planning another Monday morning round-up? If he is, it's a 99.8% chance that both Flynn and Junior are going down.

The only surprise here is that Flynn wasn't indicted before Manafort

Why is that surprising?

Firstly, I didn't say he would fire Mueller for that but I'm tired of the stories. And Flynn had been under some investigation since February. Manafort later than that.

Re: Firing Mueller: Got it. 

Re: The timing of Flynn's presumed indictment: Yeah, but Flynn's likely gonna be facing some more complex (to prove) non-Russia charges than the non-Russia charges against (albeit also potentially some even more serious ones).  Also, I could be wrong, but I suspect they're actually going to arrest Flynn and (perhaps even more likely) his son rather than letting them turn themselves in.  Michael Flynn Jr.'s being an idiot on twitter and I doubt Mueller's going to be too inclined to break the FBI's SOP by letting either of them turn themselves in after today.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Mandatory music for this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8EvYWTLeZ0

"You broke my heart Mike Jr!" LOL

I just watched The Godfather Part II last night lol

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Not Mueller related(yet) but Roger Stone's wikileaks contact was NYC radio host and Jill Stein supporter Randy Credico http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/29/politics/randy-credico-roger-stone-wikileaks/index.html

Of course, he also founded a group called "Sanders supporters for Trump"

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Unrelated to Mueller (sort of), but the payment on 666 Fifth Avenue is gonna be due in February.  While it's not a sure thing by any means, I could see this potentially bankrupting Kushner's business.  So that could be fun

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

neocon President Pence soon, hell yeah!!!!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/flynns-plea-raises-new-questions-about-whether-trump-obstructed-justice/547328/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Ryan then?

I don't like Ryan's politics (or really Republicans of any stripe at all), but legally ejecting everyone associated with Trump and his campaign from the government and replacing him with Ryan would be a huge step in the right direction for this country.

Disagreements over policy I can do. Treason? Nah.

Also Ryan wouldn’t hire slapasses like Flynn or Tillerson, so I guess there’s that

I agree with the general sentiment, but Ryan's clearly fine with treason, so he's not quite as huge an improvement as folks here seem to think.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Interesting bit in the WSJ story (https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-a-big-day-flynn-grabs-the-spotlight-1512174716):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he could get away with pardoning Manafort and Gates, but pardoning Flynn would’ve been pretty damning evidence of obstruction.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Now we know why McGahn was so scared of being interviewed by Mueller, this is some pretty strong evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump even if you ignore the recent tweet (note that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply here):

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/wh-lawyer-told-trump-flynn-misled-fbi-pence/index.html

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Now we know why McGahn was so scared of being interviewed by Mueller, this is some pretty strong evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump even if you ignore the recent tweet (note that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply here):

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/wh-lawyer-told-trump-flynn-misled-fbi-pence/index.html

Getting McGahn out could scramble things up

He’d be called as a witness either way.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bob Muller doesn't **** around.

https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer/status/937800163808210944

In fairness this is really just Manafort being an idiot more than anything else.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

You're running behind. Even the deplorables are accepting collusion (or conspiring, if your prefer) with Russia. The new GOP defensive line is explaining why obstruction isn't illegal when the President does it. (Not much of a stretch for a party of apologists for pedophilia.)

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  

Since when ignorance of the law is a valid defense strategy?

It isn’t.  However, ignorance of the facts necessary to possess the requisite mental state is a perfectly valid defense.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

Well then what you're arguing is that he didn't collude, not that if he did collude he can't be charged for it.

No, I'm not, but whatever.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well now Don Jr. is probably screwed (possibly Trump too although I’d still stick to charging Trump with obstruction of justice and his son with violating New York bribery statutes)  While I haven’t studied bribery statutes in law school yet, I’m pretty sure this would qualify and with unlike violating election law, I doubt he could ge away with an ignorance of fact defense there.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

You're running behind. Even the deplorables are accepting collusion (or conspiring, if your prefer) with Russia. The new GOP defensive line is explaining why obstruction isn't illegal when the President does it. (Not much of a stretch for a party of apologists for pedophilia.)

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

Correct