Federal Indictments - Russia Russia Russia

Share Politics
1

With the recent announcement that sealed Federal Indictments are now in place and will possibly result in one or more persons being formally charged during this upcoming week, I thought I would make the reminder that an indictment does not mean anybody is guilty of anything.

It is extremely unusual for a Prosecutor to NOT have a Federal Grand Jury indict the target. In fact, if the Grand Jury does NOT indict, the prosecutor(s) would likely ask the Grand Jury what additional evidence they would require to be ABLE to return an indictment and then go make additional efforts to collect that evidence and return and again ask the Grand Jury to indict the target at that time.

IMHO the only reason a Federal Grand Jury would not indict the target is if (for whatever strange reason) the prosecutor actually does NOT want the Grand Jury to indict. Normally in such a situation, the Prosecutor would simply not bring the case in front of the Grand Jury. So basically this would boil down to pressure being exerted upon the Prosecutor’s office to bring the case in front of a Grand Jury but at the same time the Prosecutor does not actually want an indictment. Needless to say, this would be very strange and in reality happens very very infrequently.

Another point worth remembering (which is not often times not stated) is the target of the Federal Grand Jury is not ALLOWED to present a defense. In fact there is zero defense of any kind. The target is typically not allowed to testify and may not even be aware they are under investigation for possible indictment. (Although often times due to evidence being collected and investigations being performed - the target knows pretty well what is going on but still is not allowed any opportunity to present a defense in front of the Grand Jury.) Another aspect of the Grand Jury is how the Jury members themselves are instructed to come to a decision. It neither requires a super majority of the Grand Jury nor does it require overwhelming proof to any individual member. A “true bill” (ie - indictment) is returned by the Grand Jury if more members of the voting Grand Jury vote to indict as compared to those who vote not to indict (ie - 51% required). As well, each Grand Jury member is informed that they are REQUIRED to vote for indictment if they personally decide that it is “more probable than not” that the target committed the crimes as described (ie - 51% individual decision making process).

This is quite different from an actual criminal trial where each jury member must decide that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, for Federal criminal trials, it is required for all members of the jury to unanimously reach this conclusion and vote as such.

In summary, there are multiple and very real differences between a Federal Indictment and a Federal criminal conviction.

It is possible the Monday morning talk shows may not cover all of this.

1 Like
4

Based on extensive personal experience, the process which I described is reality.

15

I’m still hoping it’s Don Jr or Kushner - I can’t wait for ivanka’s book ‘how to be a successful prison wife’

2 Likes
16

Sorry, looks like Mueller is charging the arch criminal Manafort for failing to check all the correct boxes on his tax return for 2014.

And nobody in the Trump family was his tax accountant.

And we, the taxpayers paid how much for this investigation? Just think if all of those tens of millions of dollars had gone into diabetes research.

21

All stemming from his activities in 2014 and before. Well beyond the scope of the charter for this investigation, and totally unrelated to the 2016 election.

But wait, maybe Kushner engineered the money laundering for Manafort in 2014, knowing full well that his FIL could use Manafort’s help in the 2016 election. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Or is that a wild eyed conspiracy theory?

Keep dreaming Harold, and just think how the tens of millions of dollars spent on this boondoggle could have contributed to curing diabetes.

25

And the money laundering that he is accused of helps the Trump campaign how?

People would do well to pay attention to the facts, both within the lines and between them.

The Apple really is an apple, unless it’s an orange disguised as an apple.

28

You have already speculated that the “layers of the onion” will be peeled.

Awful sure of yourspeculation,huh?

32

Just as certain as I am that this is a big nothingburger.

And you are correct, this is all just speculation, no matter how certain you are of your speculation or I am of mine.

33

No, they go up to 2016. But in any event, what does that have to do with the Trump campaign? Lots of people were charged with crimes in 2016.

36

Granted, but we don’t know the back story of how the guilty pleas were given (or coerced) and what the deal they made was.

I do firmly believe that in almost everything beauty is only skin deep.

37

I’m sure I’ll do that when in not just between patients responding to you.

40

@ClaudnDaye I read the indictment.

Sounds like Manafort and Gates had a real profitable sub rosa scheme going on, and then lied about it and obstructed the Justice Department’s investigation in 2016 and 2017. If the charges prove to be accurate, they will pay a heavy price.

The only mention of a “President” in the indictment was the accusation out one of Manafort’s associates asking his Ukrainian contact for information he could provide to the President. This was in 2014, and if I recall correctly that President would be Barack Obama.

I’m sorry Harold, I do not see how this in any way shape or form implicates Trump or his campaign or administration.

Unless you assume that Manafort came clean with Trump before signing on with his campaign. But he didn’t tell anyone about this, not even his tax attorneys.

Maybe the reason that Trump booted him from the campaign after a month is that he got wind of what a devious sleaze ball Manafort was. Kudos to Trump for firing him.

42

@ClaudnDaye Harold, the only thing that Mueller has from Flynn is that Flynn will tell him that President-elect Trump asked him to make contact with some Russian diplomats to discuss how best to quash ISIS.

Is that technically illegal? Yes it is. But if Trump gets busted for doing that so will every other living ex- President, because they all did the same thing, all quite well documented.

Don’t hold your breath for any high level indictments, unless you’re talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Meanwhile, the President’s policies have made the stock market reach its all time high, has reduced unemployment to a ten year low, and we are on the verge of a tax reform that will boost GDP to Reagan and Kennedy levels.

So, why don’t you pay attention to things that matter to this country instead of some petty lust to bring down the President?

44

@ClaudnDaye Gosh Harold, where do I start?

Your animus towards Fox News seems to be a theme as much as your animus towards the President. But for your information, I haven’t watched nor read anything on Fox News for over a year. I didn’t even watch Fox on election night, instead choosing to watch the delightful melt down on MSNBC :blush:. Fox is no different from the other news media outlets like CNN, ABC,NBC, CBS, etc. And I will agree, neither you nor I have any crystal ball into Mueller’s investigation. We can only speculate.

What really kickstarted the economy after Trump’s election was that Obama’s “War on Business” was going to end. President Trump continued when he was inaugurated by seriously dismantling many of Obama’s onerous regulations that were hamstringing many businesses. He also quickly approved the Keystone Pipeline. These policies were instrumental in boosting the economy and setting a more rational tone for the next eight years.

The stock market didn’t crash under President Obama because of quantitative easing by the Fed. By keeping interest rates very low and propping up the bond market, investor money was forced into the stock market. This kept stock prices high, but resulted in a drastic increase in the National Debt and literally stopped business investment from happening. As a matter of fact, business investment under President Obama was the weakest since Jimmy Carter. It’s no wonder President Obama did not have a single quarter over 2% GDP growth. I’m sure it was not his intention, but President Obama’s policies really sabotaged the economy. Confidence that economic policy rationality (the private sector making the economy work, not the government) was returning with President Trump was a big factor in the economic boost we’ve seen in the past year.

Employment is another bright spot in Trump’s presidency. Really, the only way to get more jobs in the economy is for business to expand, and Obama did nothing to promote business expansion. That’s why fast food jobs became more plentiful. The only reason that Obama had increasing employment numbers is because the Labor Participation Rate declined steadily during his term to the lowest it’s ever been. Fewer people in the labor market resulted in a lower unemployment number, hardly a boon to the economy. You want more and better jobs and better pay? That only comes with business expansion in the private sector.

Respectfully, this only shows your economic illiteracy. The tax bill that was just passed by the House and Senate has been shown to give the greatest benefit to the working class. How is this you ask? Well, go back to my last paragraph on business investment. The “extra” money in businessmen’s pockets will hardly go to more “homes, boats, cars and expensive things”. It will go to expanding their businesses and providing more jobs. Not from the goodness of their hearts, but from the understanding that a tax cut could never provide them with as many " homes, boats, cars and expensive things" as a healthy and expanding business. You’ve never owned a business I guess. Well I can tell you from 35 years of business owning experience that policies of lower taxes and things like immediate equipment expensing cause business expansion. And business expansion causes more and better paying jobs. And incidentally, an expanding economy provides higher tax revenue.

This is not my original thought and analysis. This is the opinion of just about every reputable economist.

I’m sorry. We don’t have a Democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic. There’s a big difference.

President Trump is as far from Hitler as President Obama is from being Communist. Only extremists would think that of either of these men. You’re not an extremist, are you?

Do we also deserve the truth of the shenanigans of the Clintons, and the truth of the sub Rosa operations of the Obama administration? Oh, but I forgot they’re as clean as the driven snow. And will you accept it as the truth when this investigation shows no scintilla of collusion? Just like Hillary Clinton accepted the decision of the electorate (remember she chastised Trump for not pledging to accept the results) I suppose.

And here’s a nice image for you

928370045a0d460a99e86b8fcbf304517779248c966d15405ad53ed4c254726f_large
928370045a0d460a99e86b8fcbf304517779248c966d15405ad53ed4c254726f_large749×461 40.7 KB

45

@ClaudnDaye Oh, and one other thing. It seems that another presidential candidate actually had foreign policy talks with the Russians during his campaign:

From that article:

Obama has been working to improve the clarity of vision for relations with the Russians, however. Last week saw the release of Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, in Russian translation to Russian markets. One of his foreign policy advisors, Mike McFaul, also made a trip to Moscow to meet with various Russian officials and interest groups, speaking off the record and answering questions.

McFaul addressed how US relations with Ukraine and Georgia might affect US-Russia relations in the future.

Perhaps Mr. Mueller should expand his investigation.

48

@ClaudnDaye It’s obvious that your spin on Obama’s “successes” and Trump’s “failures” is totally driven by ideology and not rooted in reality.

It’s apparent that you don’t want to be convinced by the truth, so I will stop trying.

And, btw, I also worked very hard to get my education and become a doctor. My dad never went to college and was a delicatessen clerk, so we certainly were not
wealthy.

Hope you had a happy birthday!

1 Like
50

@ClaudnDaye Just wanted to make sure you saw this. It’s a editorial from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Executive Board ( it’s behind a pay wall, so I’m posting the whole thing). Kind of puts the lie to your assertion about the purity of this investigation.

Democrats and the media are accusing anyone who criticizes special counsel Robert Mueller as Trumpian conspirators trying to undermine his probe. But who needs critics when Mr. Mueller’s team is doing so much to undermine its own credibility?

Wednesday’s revelations—they’re coming almost daily—include the Justice Department’s release of 2016 text messages to and from Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent whom Mr. Mueller demoted this summer. The texts, which he exchanged with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, contain expletive-laced tirades against Mr. Trump. Such Trump hatred is no surprise and not by itself disqualifying. More troubling are texts that suggest that some FBI officials may have gone beyond antipathy to anti-Trump plotting.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

What “policy” would that be? The “Andy” in question is Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director. FBI officials are allowed to have political opinions, but what kind of action were they discussing that would amount to anti-Trump “insurance”?

In another exchange that month, Ms. Page forwarded a Trump-related article and wrote: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” He thanked her and assured: “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way.” Mr. Strzok, recall, is the man who changed the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in James Comey’s July 2016 public exoneration of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The McCabe meeting came on the heels of the FBI’s launch of its counterintelligence probe into Trump-Russia ties. July is also when former British spook Christopher Steele briefed the FBI on his Clinton-financed dossier of salacious allegations against Mr. Trump. The texts explain why Mr. Mueller would remove Mr. Strzok, though a straight shooter wouldn’t typically resist turning those messages over to Congress for as long as Mr. Mueller did.

Meanwhile, we’re learning more about the political motives of Mr. Mueller’s lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann. Judicial Watch last week released an email in which Mr. Weissmann expressed his “awe” and praise for Sally Yates, after the then acting AG and Obama holdover refused to implement Mr. Trump’s travel ban.

This should trouble anyone who cares about the integrity of the Justice Department. Ms. Yates had every right to resign at the time if she felt she couldn’t implement Mr. Trump’s order. But she had no authority as an executive branch official to defy a legitimate presidential order. Mr. Weissmann’s support for her insubordination was a declaration that he is part of the “resistance.” This should be unacceptable in a ranking FBI official, much less someone charged with conducting a fair-minded investigation.

Public confidence isn’t helped by the continuing Justice and FBI refusal to cooperate with Congress. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, toed the Mueller-FBI line on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee. He repeated FBI Director Christopher Wray’s preposterous excuse that he can’t answer questions because of an Inspector General probe. And he wouldn’t elaborate on the news that Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice official Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Mr. Steele to gin up his dossier.

The man who should be most disturbed by all this is Mr. Mueller, who wants his evidence and conclusions to be credible with the public. Evidence is building instead that some officials at the FBI—who have worked for him—may have interfered in an American presidential election. Congress needs to insist on its rights as a co-equal branch of government to discover the truth.

53

@ClaudnDaye This is the gist of what that article states. It’s the truth, notwithstanding all of your protestations to the contrary.

Do I need to post that CNN Apple video to remind you?

55

That’s a great distraction!

57

@ClaudnDaye Don’t get too excited about Alabama. The problem is that Moore didn’t defend himself very well and a fair number of conservatives did not want to vote for him in particular. He ran a pretty shoddy campaign and he paid for it.

I give Jones about a snowball’s chance in hell to be more than a two year Senator.

Virginia is just a suburb of DC, and is infected with the same swamp monsters. Like it or not this country is still predominantly red. And like it or not, President Trump has about a 46% approval rating. And btw, that is the highest approval rating of any leader in the western world.

Nice try though.