Discussion of Michael Cohen's Testimony before Congress

[Elixir]

The mere fact of such divergence of opinion about the viability/desirability of impeachment on this forum, speaks to me against the option (if it is one).
Impeachment is risky business as the Clinton model shows. If you're going to impeach, ya better have the public fully convinced that Cheato has been caught dead-to-rights in acts damaging not only the Constitution, but most importantly, the welfare of Billyjoejimbob and his sisterwife. That's a tall order.
Then there's the timeline matter... at some point in the very near future the DNC has to make the strategic decision about whether to go for the takedown, or store up their ammo for the first week of 11/2020 and unleash it on Trump then. I think most Dem incumbents want him to run again, rather than deal with some unknown quantity. In fact I suspect that decision has already been made.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I find it very hard to believe that the Senate will convict and remove Donald Trump from office. Republican Party support for Trump is baked in. The Never Trumpers have lost because they represent only a small minority of the Republican base. Most Republicans are Always Trumpers. No matter what Republican officeholders think of the man privately, they still want to get reelected.

We have already seen a taste—and just a taste—of what is about to unfold with the Cohen hearings. Iow, we haven’t seen nuthin’ yet and it already has had a significant impact. There will not just be the Mueller report—which will be detailed in a manner that will be incontrovertible—but there will also be the subsequent hearings based on the report.

And there is the fact that it’s the newly (and ironically) created “deep state”—aka, the entire intelligence community—that will be steadfastly behind Trump’s removal.

Plus and again, the Republicans could have got rid of all of this very easily and at any point over the last two years and they chose not to. Why? It didn’t bring them any leverage over Trump as they never needed any such leverage.

Nearly the entire Senate joined the House in doubling down on the Russian sanctions, unnecessarily reiterating the fact that only they could make any changes or concessions. Why? There was no need for them to do that, so the only reason they did it would be to send a clear message to Trump. But, again, why? To put him on notice? For what purpose? Again, they already knew he would do nothing against them.

The question has never been when to remove him; it has always been—and remains the case—how to remove him without losing their own seats in the Senate.

As we both know, the Senate is the only chamber that has any real power. They are our House of Lords. If they wanted the “witch hunt” to go away, it would have been gone already. Which means they too want Trump gone, but how to do it is the question.

This is how they do it. An incremental escalation of misdemeanors rising to high crimes being revealed by an unimpeachable source such as Mueller with the full backing of the entire intelligence community eager to right all of the wrongs slung against them.

Iow, Trump is about to be very publicly and conclusively eviscerated. It won’t matter that a rapidly dwindling percentage of die-hard fans make any noises. As I pointed out in another thread, the latest YouGov poll showed an 11% overall shift in the approval rating among Republicans with regard to Trump (in the “strongly approve” and “strongly disapprove” columns).

So, right now, before any of the really heavy shit hits the fan, among Republicans, only 60% strongly approve of Trump. And remember, that’s 60% of only some 23% of all American voters (i.e., the percentage of registered Republicans). Those are the numbers that vulnerable members of the Senate—facing another routing like the midterms—are going to be watching very closely in regard to everything they know is still to come.

If that’s where we are today, then just imagine what will happen once Mueller really starts to let slip the dogs of war, let alone the House.

Is it a lock? Of course not. Is Trump already light years away from 2016, when he didn’t actually win on the merits to begin with? Unquestionably.

Absent significant fuck ups by Mueller, what Cohen testified to alone justifies impeachment. And I know I don’t need to remind you that impeachment is just the process, not the trial.

So the fact of impeachment is already all but certain. What then happens in trial—if what just happened to Cohen—will be the big reveal, of course, but as with Cohen, I am of the belief (and it is a belief at this point, however strongly held) that we will see the same kind of rhetorical blather and righteous noise by the same Republicans, but when it comes down to the actual vote (assuming Trump doesn’t turn tale and run), it will be Trump’s head.

I don’t even think whatever the hell Putin’s contingency plans may be (last minute North Korean “peace” or the like) will stop what has already been discovered and set in motion.

Iow, Trump is already a dead man walking. Mueller has all of the facts. Now it’s a matter of presenting them in such a methodical manner that any grandstanding from diehards simply won’t matter.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Me thinks you are reading the tea leaves all wrong.

They didn't. Which means that for every time they hoot and holler and not actually present any counter-argument or evidence to the contrary, they are blowing a smokescreen to hide the fact that they will indeed get rid of him once the House approves impeachment.

I wish I could agree with that sentiment. However, based on the GOP's actions through inaction seem to indicate as long as they can cram judges onto benches, they are willing to put up with just about anything from Trump... including the CIA slap down in front of Putin and Trump's defense of the North Korean dictator regarding the murder of an American.

Well, again, I think it’s a matter of looking at that lack of reaction as further evidence of what I’m arguing. They don’t need to slap him down precisely because they already know he’s a dead man walking. Which is why they can make all that righteous noise, but not actually produce any substantive counter-arguments or evidence disproving anything Cohen and Manfafort and Stone et al will be testifying to, let alone Mueller’s final report.

And, of course, I concede anything is possible when it comes to Trump, but then we’re not the only ones that understand this and we’re in the cheap seats. The REALLY cheap way the fuck up in the balcony seats.

Everyone in Congress knows Trump is guilty of being Putin’s bitch. That’s not in question. The question is how to handle it, particularly since there appear to be several members of Congress that are also entangled in Putin’s web. So how to proceed?

This is all about who gets fucked and who does the fucking, but there’s no mistake that we haven’t yet begun to see the full extent of what Mueller has been sitting on and most in Congress already know.

So, again, their behavior with Cohen is very revealing. They made a lot of noise—and embarrassed themselves in their ridiculousness—but not a one presented anything of substance that countered or disproved anything Cohen testified to.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The mere fact of such divergence of opinion about the viability/desirability of impeachment on this forum, speaks to me against the option (if it is one).
Impeachment is risky business as the Clinton model shows. If you're going to impeach, ya better have the public fully convinced that Cheato has been caught dead-to-rights in acts damaging not only the Constitution, but most importantly, the welfare of Billyjoejimbob and his sisterwife. That's a tall order.

Well, again, no, it’s not. We have not yet begun to see the meat. We’re on the appetizer stage of what will likely be a five or six (or more) course dinner.

Then there's the timeline matter... at some point in the very near future the DNC has to make the strategic decision about whether to go for the takedown, or store up their ammo for the first week of 11/2020 and unleash it on Trump then.

Not necessarily. The only thing to fear are certain vulnerable Republicans in the Senate, who are staring at the polls—and only then in regard to the Republicans in their own districts. They are still sweating the cautionary tale of the midterms and—as I pointed out to Copernicus—already have a significant problem in regard to Trump’s approval among the only column that really matters to them.

Only 60% of 23% “strongly approving” of Trump right now is a dangerously low percentage no matter how you slice it.

I think most Dem incumbents want him to run again, rather than deal with some unknown quantity. In fact I suspect that decision has already been made.

You mean in regard to the general? Highly doubtful, since the first removal from office due to treasounous acts against America of a President would unquestionably guarantee a Democrat in the WH in 2020.

ETA: Here’s the YouGov poll. I can’t remember (and can’t be arsed to check) if I posted it itt or another.

 

[JohnG]

As far as the Republicans go - All their actions so far indicate that they just want him to serve out his term without too much embarrassment to their party.

Also, considering that when the ball gets rolling, Trump himself will at least get caught for money laundering - at the very least. It's in the best interest of Republicans to stall, misdirect, deceive, lie, do whatever they can to get to 2020 without Trump the Republican getting roasted on the spit of justice in front of the whole nation/world.

If the senate doesn't impeach for money laundering, then IDK...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As far as the Republicans go - All their actions so far indicate that they just want him to serve out his term without too much embarrassment to their party.

Also, considering that when the ball gets rolling, Trump himself will at least get caught for money laundering - at the very least. It's in the best interest of Republicans to stall, misdirect, deceive, lie, do whatever they can to get to 2020 without Trump the Republican getting roasted on the spit of justice in front of the whole nation/world.

If the senate doesn't impeach for money laundering, then IDK...

Well, the issue is that he's getting far more people to vote against him than he's getting to vote for him, so waiting him out is less of an option because all the people who go in to vote Trump out aren't then going to also vote for a GOP downticket. However, the group of people whom he's getting to vote for him are the exact people who vote in primaries, so they can't turn against him. Personally, I hope that the GOP burns to the ground so it can be rebuilt from scratch and let your country have an actual second choice which isn't insane, but I don't have nearly enough faith in the American people that you'd actually bother to do something sensible when you also have the choice to shoot yourselves in the foot for no good reason.

 

[Elixir]

Well, again, no, it’s not. We have not yet begun to see the meat. We’re on the appetizer stage of what will likely be a five or six (or more) course dinner.



Not necessarily. The only thing to fear are certain vulnerable Republicans in the Senate, who are staring at the polls—and only then in regard to the Republicans in their own districts. They are still sweating the cautionary tale of the midterms and—as I pointed out to Copernicus—already have a significant problem in regard to Trump’s approval among the only column that really matters to them.

Only 60% of 23% “strongly approving” of Trump right now is a dangerously low percentage no matter how you slice it.

I think most Dem incumbents want him to run again, rather than deal with some unknown quantity. In fact I suspect that decision has already been made.

You mean in regard to the general? Highly doubtful, since the first removal from office due to treasounous acts against America of a President would unquestionably guarantee a Democrat in the WH in 2020.

ETA: Here’s the YouGov poll. I can’t remember (and can’t be arsed to check) if I posted it itt or another.

View attachment 20419

That's a pretty elaborate set of rose colored glasses. I hope it bears some portent about what's going to happen next. But it looks like there's little chance that 2/3 of the Senate is going to ever vote to remove Cheato from office, regardless of polling. Too many of them regard trumpy's base as necessary for their re-election. And his weakness among the general electorate must have the DNC licking their chops. An act of impeachment against such a helpless victim of the corrupt FBI and Hillary's Russian spies, would certainly be regarded in some circles as a cruel and unnecessary vengeful act against a helpless foe. And that could be a winning ticket for Republicans if the impeachment trial failed to convict in the Senate. Why risk that? Why not just string the whole mess out until fall 2020, given the state and trend of the polls? It's not like there's not already enough material out there to keep a scandal a week on the front pages for the next year, plus a scandal or two a day for the last few months before the election. Trump is a big fat clay pigeon they can hardly miss no matter where they aim. That liability is really the only reason there would ever be enough votes in the senate to remove him.
Most Republican Senators, given the choice between losing a Republican White House and losing their own jobs, wouldn't need 10 seconds to choose.

 

[Copernicus]

As far as the Republicans go - All their actions so far indicate that they just want him to serve out his term without too much embarrassment to their party.

Also, considering that when the ball gets rolling, Trump himself will at least get caught for money laundering - at the very least. It's in the best interest of Republicans to stall, misdirect, deceive, lie, do whatever they can to get to 2020 without Trump the Republican getting roasted on the spit of justice in front of the whole nation/world.

If the senate doesn't impeach for money laundering, then IDK...

Most of us hear "impeachment" and think "removal from office". Technically, impeachment is an indictment that starts a trial. The Senate does not impeach. It convicts. I agree with koy that Trump is likely to be impeached by the House, as it only requires a majority vote. However, I don't see much likelihood that the Senate will convict, because the entire process is political, not judicial. The Senate needs a super majority to convict, but the Constitution was never designed for the modern context of deeply divided partisanship in Congress. For a President to be impeached and removed, both houses of Congress need to be controlled by the opposition party. Even then, conviction will be a tough sell in the Senate because of the super majority requirement.

Let's not forget another reality either--that 40% of the public approves of the Trump administration. Trump is actually slightly more popular at this point in his presidency than Ronald Reagan was at the same time in his first term. And Reagan got reelected. Democrats should not be counting their chickens.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I'm surprised that my comment that impeachment is not the answer is controversial. The GOP is entirely, 100% corrupt at this point. The few Republicans who have any criticisms whatever for Trump at this point are outliers. Every so often MSNBC runs clips of how Lindsey Graham, Lyin' Ted, and Little Mario referred to Trump back in early 2016. They called him dangerous, a con man, a serial liar, etc, etc, etc. Sad but hilarious, too. Who on bloody earth imagines a 2/3 conviction vote in the Senate? Furthermore, Donald has 21 months left in his term -- and it makes no sense to predict when Mueller will drop his report. Does that sound like enough turn-around time to set up an impeachment? It doesn't to me -- especially with the stalling efforts that Team Trump can make. Fox Nation -- Trumpistan -- is fully delusional and owns the deliberative body that would hold the impeachment. No, we're stuck with the Orange One til at least Jan. 2021.

 

[JohnG]

I'm surprised that my comment that impeachment is not the answer is controversial. The GOP is entirely, 100% corrupt at this point. The few Republicans who have any criticisms whatever for Trump at this point are outliers. Every so often MSNBC runs clips of how Lindsey Graham, Lyin' Ted, and Little Mario referred to Trump back in early 2016. They called him dangerous, a con man, a serial liar, etc, etc, etc. Sad but hilarious, too. Who on bloody earth imagines a 2/3 conviction vote in the Senate? Furthermore, Donald has 21 months left in his term -- and it makes no sense to predict when Mueller will drop his report. Does that sound like enough turn-around time to set up an impeachment? It doesn't to me -- especially with the stalling efforts that Team Trump can make. Fox Nation -- Trumpistan -- is fully delusional and owns the deliberative body that would hold the impeachment. No, we're stuck with the Orange One til at least Jan. 2021.

I think this is true if no crimes turn up against Trump, but I really don't think that will happen.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Saw a video of Cohen arriving for the hearing this morning. Based on the multiple suitcases, either he's planning a sleepover, or he's got a lot of documentation to share!

 

[Copernicus]

I'm surprised that my comment that impeachment is not the answer is controversial. The GOP is entirely, 100% corrupt at this point. The few Republicans who have any criticisms whatever for Trump at this point are outliers. Every so often MSNBC runs clips of how Lindsey Graham, Lyin' Ted, and Little Mario referred to Trump back in early 2016. They called him dangerous, a con man, a serial liar, etc, etc, etc. Sad but hilarious, too. Who on bloody earth imagines a 2/3 conviction vote in the Senate? Furthermore, Donald has 21 months left in his term -- and it makes no sense to predict when Mueller will drop his report. Does that sound like enough turn-around time to set up an impeachment? It doesn't to me -- especially with the stalling efforts that Team Trump can make. Fox Nation -- Trumpistan -- is fully delusional and owns the deliberative body that would hold the impeachment. No, we're stuck with the Orange One til at least Jan. 2021.

I think this is true if no crimes turn up against Trump, but I really don't think that will happen.

Trump is already implicated in multiple serious felonies, which include obstruction of justice and financial fraud. He is a criminal. Even many of his supporters see that and don't really care. The point is that he will not be convicted by any federal court of those crimes while in office, which means that he will be legally innocent until after he is out of office. The House of Representatives is able (maybe even likely) to indict him for some of his crimes. It doesn't matter. The Senate needs a super majority to remove him from office. They didn't get that with Clinton, even though most people realized by the time of his Senate trial that he had committed perjury. They will almost certainly not get it with the makeup of the current Senate.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The point is that he will not be convicted by any federal court of those crimes while in office

I'm not so sure. Mueller's mandate very clearly authorizes him to indict the President, regardless of how careful Rosenstein and others were in regard to various subsequent assurances. Indeed, Rosenstein was very careful in his remarks to make a distinction between what has been done in the past and what may be current:

[T]he Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There’s been a lot of speculation in the media about this. I just don’t have anything more to say about it.

DOJ guidelines are just that. They do not follow the concept of legal precedent. They can be changed at will, basically, so long as the threshold of "extraordinary circumstances" is met, apparently, which we have here in spades. At best, Trump has committed numerous felonies, each one alone warrant impeachment proceedings at the very least. At worst, he's a treasonous foreign puppet. There is no higher crime short of murder.

I think the biggest obstacle is the fact that there are so many other Republicans that are embroiled--whether they knew it or not--in the same conspiracy.

So that leaves Mueller (if he's at all concerned and not just focused exclusively on being thorough; i.e., not worrying himself with the politics of it all, but I think that's nearly impossible) with a sort of Sophie's choice. Does he report without concern over politics, fallout or where the chips fall and let Congress take it from there, or does he realize (as we all do) that if he does just leave it all up to Congress, that there is a strong likelihood that all of his efforts will be for nought?

We certainly see evidence of strategy in the manner in which he has let things unfold. Is that strategy restricted to a "police" mentality (i.e., strictly myopic in regard to artfully herding the criminals into the net, as it were, and nothing beyond that) or more like a "prosecutor mentality" (i.e., in regard to the larger picture and how best to achieve convictions)?

I can't imagine it's strictly "police." So if it's "prosecutor"--and I believe it is and that there is strong evidence to support that belief-- then he must be doing everything for the end-game of conviction and not just turning everything over to Congress, knowing as he must that that might not cut it.

I also think we're not fully understanding the power of the heavily maligned intelligence community that's no doubt a significant part of this. Which is precisely why Trump went after them in the first place, as a pre-emptive assault. He knew (or rather Putin knew) that the very first institution that would see exactly what transpired was the intelligence community.

So there are many elements to this, of course, that go so deep into "extraordinary circumstances" from a "deep state" level that, again I don't see how it could be something that Mueller just treats as a normal job and that's that. This is about evisceration and deserved revenge on a traitor and the only reason it's delicate is because Putin booby-trapped it so well.

But that's why it needs to be an evisceration. The public--iow, the Republican Trump supporters (NOT the irrelevant core, but the ones that actually matter in regard to Senate re-elections)--must actually see the "Teflon Don" with his guts hanging out on the floor with their own eyes.

That does not necessarily have to happen on the Senate floor for Trump to be finished.

It is possible, of course, that Mueller is running out the clock so that it becomes a matter of destroying Trump's re-election bid and/or timing things so that the vulnerable Senate Republicans get the same butt-fucking that happened in the House in the midterms, but both of those scenarios are way too risky for someone as careful as Mueller to hang everything on.

And, yes, indicting a sitting President is likewise fraught, but in so doing it gives Mueller the opportunity to make everything he has public, because it would force a constitutional crisis. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that the DOJ could not indict a sitting President--and there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything near that--then, again, (a) all of Mueller's report would be public and (b) it would effectively force impeachment proceedings and end-run any attempts by Republicans in the Senate to hide any part of Mueller's report in the process.

 

[Copernicus]

The point is that he will not be convicted by any federal court of those crimes while in office

I'm not so sure. Mueller's mandate very clearly authorizes him to indict the President, regardless of how careful Rosenstein and others were in regard to various subsequent assurances. Indeed, Rosenstein was very careful in his remarks to make a distinction between what has been done in the past and what may be current:

[T]he Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted. There’s been a lot of speculation in the media about this. I just don’t have anything more to say about it.

...

All of that notwithstanding, who do you think will let Trump be indicted? Barr? He has to sign off on any indictment that a federal prosecutor would bring against the President. Mueller can't do anything much without his acquiescence, and he does not strike me as an AG who would be willing to do that. He seems to think that his top priority is making sure that Trump stays in office until the end of his term. Mueller is going to issue his report and fade away. Rosenstein is leaving. Barr will "summarize" the Mueller report and deep-six it. The House will fight to get it released. If they ever do get their hands on it, it won't be soon.

Perhaps the Southern District of New York or the AG of New York state will try to indict Trump. Again, I think that the Southern District will find that it has a lot less freedom to do that than liberal commentators would like to believe. Barr is going to try to rein them in. A state court will have a better shot at indicting Trump after he leaves office. Vice President Aaron Burr was indicted for murder by the state of New Jersey, and he never even came to trial. He just stayed in the Senate, which was willing to protect him.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

All of that notwithstanding, who do you think will let Trump be indicted? Barr? He has to sign off on any indictment that a federal prosecutor would bring against the President.

Not necessarily. Again, the mandate for Mueller explicitly states that he has the authority to prosecute. Or, rather, that the Special Counsel has the authority to prosecute:

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Which means Barr would have to not only fire Mueller, but rescind the mandate (as the mandate is carefully worded such that the establishment of the Special Counsel's authority is a separate matter to who is appointed Special Counsel). At this late stage of the game, those would be tall orders to get away with and frankly what I was expecting the minute Barr was installed, so the fact that neither has happened already gives me hope.

Note also section (d) in mandate:

Sections 600.4 through 600. l0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel

In particular, section 600.6 (emphasis mine):

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.

But, again, those duties and responsibilities are clearly stated in the mandate. There is no ambiguity there for Mueller to need any clarification from the AG. If Mueller feels that it is "necessary and appropriate," he is "authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters." Full stop. Could not be more clear.

And then there is Section 600.7 ((b), in particular) that grants the Special Counsel additional autonomy in regard to the determination of "extraordinary circumstances" and what necessarily must happen if Mueller determines an action must be pursued, but the AG objects (emphasis mine):

§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

600.9(a)(3):

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -
...
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

So, if I'm reading this all correctly, Barr would have to notify Nadler and Collins (?) in the House as to why he concluded that a proposed action by Mueller should not be pursued, not just bury the report. Which in turn would necessitate (or at least open the door to request) details about the proposed action and valid reasons why the AG feels it should not be pursued.

Iow, if that proposed action is to prosecute the President and Barr refused, Barr would have to provide the House with both the evidence from Mueller (i.e., a "description and explanation of instances") and his valid counter-argument as to why the proposed action was "so inappropriate or unwarranted."

He couldn't just say, "We don't indict sitting Presidents." He'd have to go into detail as to why the Special Counsel's recommended course of action was "inappropriate or unwarranted" and the only way to do that would be to provide Mueller's full report (at least in regard to Trump) and then knock sufficient holes in it.

 

[Copernicus]

Not necessarily. Again, the mandate for Mueller explicitly states that he has the authority to prosecute. Or, rather, that the Special Counsel has the authority to prosecute:...

I think that you are reading way too much into all of that material. Mueller can choose to prosecute. He can choose to indict. But he cannot actually indict anyone without Rosenstein's or (now) Barr's permission. You are correct that their refusal to indict must be reported to Congress. In fact, a few days ago, this POLITICO article gave some specifics:


The Mueller report no one's talking about

My point is that notifying Congress doesn't force the administration to sign off on an indictment. And the House cannot unilaterally force them to do it. All the House can do is impeach Trump, an "indictment" which will then likely go nowhere in the Senate. We'll see if the administration turned down a formal request from Mueller to indict Trump. Frankly, I doubt that Mueller would make such a request formally, since he has no power to indict Trump without the AG's approval. He has to get all serious actions of that sort approved by the person he reports to, and he isn't the type of person to go rogue, from what I read. If any office tries to indict Trump, it will probably be the Southern District of New York, which is investigating his financial fraud. They still work for Barr, however, and Barr is not recusing himself from anything.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It may not force the administration into any action, but it would (might) open the door for the House to demand Mueller’s report in full (on Trump). Barr would have to justify why he was refusing to act on Mueller’s decision to prosecute, which in turn would require he submit the report on Trump first and then explain why it wasn’t sufficient to justify action.

Iow, if I’m reading it correctly, it would be a way for Mueller to ensure that his report doesn’t get buried by Barr; a distinct possibility that he is certainly aware could happen.

Though, again, the fact that Barr hasn’t already just shut it all down gives hope that even Barr isn’t going to go against the no doubt strong intentions of the intelligence community.

ETA: Just read the POLITICO piece. I think it affirms my contention. But, yes, whether or not Mueller would take that route is likely a long shot. It all depends on if he feels his work will simply be buried by a corrupt administration/AG.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that Congress will demand the full report regardless of whether Mueller tries to indict Trump, but it is true that a refusal of a formal recommendation to indict would strengthen their case. I do expect the Southern District to try to indict Trump for financial crimes, especially attempts to defraud banks and insurers. Trump is too much of a criminal to avoid prosecution in the future for at least some of his blatantly obvious fraud. However, I doubt that he will face any serious legal actions while in office, and it is extremely unlikely that he will be removed.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that Congress will demand the full report regardless of whether Mueller tries to indict Trump, but it is true that a refusal of a formal recommendation to indict would strengthen their case. I do expect the Southern District to try to indict Trump for financial crimes, especially attempts to defraud banks and insurers. Trump is too much of a criminal to avoid prosecution in the future for at least some of his blatantly obvious fraud. However, I doubt that he will face any serious legal actions while in office, and it is extremely unlikely that he will be removed.

Agreed. Most likely the strategy will be to eviscerate him sufficiently to tank any hope of a re-election and to "tee-up" his imprisonment the minute his first term is over. But a boy can dream.

 

[Gun Nut]

What stops the State of NY from sending a nicely worded letter to Trump giving him the choice between being arrested the second he leaves office with the intent to charge him with every crime they have him on, and push for maximum jail time, which would be something like 250 years... OR he resign immediately and the state will not pursue any charges?