Louise Mensch still insisting there are multiple sealed indictments against Trump

[triron]

https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Not sure that this could be verified even if true. Time may tell.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. She makes stuff up.

It is very unlikely that there are sealed indictments against Trump because Mueller will almost certainly follow established DoJ guidance, which says that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[unblock]

2. that policy was arrived at prior to the supreme court deciding that a civil case can proceed.

obviously there are significant differences between a civil case and a criminal case.

but it's a harder argument to say that a criminal trial unconstitutionally interferes with the performance of presidential duties while a civil trial wouldn't.


of course, it's also entirely possible that mueller did everything necessary to prepare an indictment except to actually file it with a court, with the idea that it would be done late in the process, perhaps only after getting congressional support.


and it's also entirely possible that mensch is just plain wrong.



all that said, we're rarely treated to the spectacle of someone acting as guilty, guilty, guilty as donnie does.
we're also rarely treated to someone as criminally inept as he is (pun intended). this is not someone who covers his tracks or very carefully treads just at the edge of legality. no, this is a bumbling fool who acts first and scrambles to fix later.

a massive case proving guilt of many crimes beyond reasonable doubt should come as no surprise.

it remains unclear that will actually come to pass, but it's hard to imagine a more suitable target.

[LonePirate]

3. There has been a lot of debate on whether he would or would not indict.

I think it could go either way, especially if Mueller uncovers anything that could be considered treason. Financial crimes may not be indicted but serious federal crimes against the country are another matter entirely.

[SCantiGOP]

4. Mensch is about as reliable

as the next anonymous person I see comment on Twitter. Her crap shouldn't be reposted here.

[Wwcd]

20. She's as reliable as quite a few other sources.

If you read her blog you wouldn't repeat what Assange spouts about her.

She has outed Assange long before anyone on MSM ever mentioned his name as a RU accomplice.

Your personal opinion clearly comes from a source other than your own research.

Tea Pain, Eric Garland & others have done on their own what MSM failed to do.

I don't know where you get your opinion about her from but Ted Lieu would disagree with you & other haters, as well as Schiff who all tweet back to her.

If you don't read her work then its just an opiniin derived from someone else who wants her & the 20 committee silenced for outing their questionable actions.

Stop repeating 3rd party hack jobs on these people, who have done the job of the lazy Sinclair directed MSM.

Thanks

[The_jackalope]

21. What you said. nt

[LeftishBrit]

23. I don't follow what Assange says about her..

but as a Brit, I know that she was a very dodgy and unreliable Tory MP, having previously been a bad novelist.

That doesn't mean that she couldn't happen to be right about something - broken clocks, etc. - but she is not someone whom I'd automatically treat as a good source.

And this comes from my observations of her as a politican in my country, not from any current media sources.

[sarah FAILIN]

29. +1

[Me.]

30. Having Read Her From The Beginning I Give Her Props

starting with Steele.

[SCantiGOP]

31. I wont respond to your post

Other than to say it is insulting, erroneous and typical of her supporters.
Goodbye.

Edited for clarity: I was responding to
Wwcd

[pnwmom]

6. Could there be sealed indictments against him in NY, under AG Schneiderman?

Trump's been involved with shady characters in NY for his whole life.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Since under the Supremacy Clause state law is subordinate to federal law,

Schneiderman might not be able to indict Trump on state charges, at least without a lengthy court battle.

[pnwmom]

10. A court battle would come after any unsealing of charges, not before.

And I doubt that Schneiderman would be daunted by the prospect of a court battle.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I don't think Schneiderman would seek indictments that are unlikely to go anywhere.

Unsealing them wouldn't give them effect; it would just make them public. If Trump was successful at quashing the indictments - and he could be - it would be worse than not bringing them at all.

[pnwmom]

15. He might seek indictments because of the statute of limitations.

If he waited too long to file, depending on when the crime occurred the statutory period could pass while DT is still in office.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. But if an indictment is invalid it probably wouldn't toll the statute of limitations.

Anyhow, the statute of limitations for most serious felonies in New York is 6 years (5 years for most federal crimes), and the likelihood Trump will still be in office 5 or 6 years ranges from slim to none.

[pnwmom]

19. There is no case law that says such an indictment would be invalid. And depending on

when a crime occurred, the end of the statute of limitations might be imminent. If the crime occurred four or five years ago it would be critical to get the indictment done now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/indict-president-trial.html

One of the perplexing questions of constitutional law is what to do about a sitting president who is suspected of having committed a crime. This much is clear: A sitting president should not be required to submit to a criminal trial, an undertaking that would be incompatible with the duties of the nation’s chief executive.

That should not, however, preclude a grand jury from indicting a president when the facts and the law warrant, even if the trial itself has to be postponed until he or she is no longer in office.

An indictment in this context serves a critically important purpose: Without it, the usual five-year statute of limitations for most federal crimes would elapse, forever precluding a president from being held accountable for potentially serious crimes. Thus, a president should be indictable unless he agrees to waive any future defense that the statute of limitations expired during the president’s term.

There is nothing in the constitutional text or judicial precedent that provides for a categorical bar to the indictment of a sitting president. The closest the Supreme Court has come to addressing the question was in Clinton v. Jones in 1997, in which the issue was whether a president could delay until the end of his term a civil suit by a private individual. I argued Clinton v. Jones for the United States, urging the court to hold that a civil trial would unduly impair a president’s ability to carry out his duties. The court unanimously rejected that position.

SNIP

[dawg day]

32. "Unindicted co-conspirator" then

I am tired of everyone against Trump having to play by "Marquess of Queensberry" pearl-clutching rules. Come on, he conspired with a foreign adversary to steal the election.

The election should be overturned, and he should be in jail.

If he did what we think he did, hell, yes, he can be indicted. The Justice Department is NOT the Supreme Court, and of course the appointees of presidents, in the executive branch, will generally parrot that line that makes the president above the wall. (Not just this president-- all presidents.)

Whether Mueller goes along with that, maybe he will. Then again, that would be a good reason to do the indictment, and then seal it. He knows more than we do. Much more.

[Lee-Lee]

5. Is she still claiming the Supreme Court started impeachment proceedings too?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Who knows? She's been wrong so often that hardly anyone

pays attention to her any more. At least, they shouldn't.

[sarisataka]

9. Wasn't it the Marshal

Of the Supreme Court, or some other super-secret officer, who was serving impeachment papers?

But I hear she once predicted the sun would rise in the east and it did, so you know that proves her every utterance is true

[Lee-Lee]

16. Yeah that was part of it

She was claiming that the Supreme Court had initiated impeachment proceedings and sent the Marshall of the Supreme Court to notify him or some such nonsense.

[wobbuffet]

28. Hahahha priceless

[Achilleaze]

11. She sure does draw the ad hominem attacks

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. And they are richly deserved.

[Achilleaze]

17. Claim the regularly scheduled attackers

[Wwcd]

24. 20 committee & Mueller himself has also questioned the nefarious usurper.

Questioned his actions

Named him & cited the reasons why.

Perhaps that lends a purpose to demean via pile-on by the same ones hell bent on lauding the usurper who shall not be doubted, even when its staring us all in the face.
Perhaps its something like that.

[sarisataka]

22. Ad hominem attacks or

Prudent examination of the history of a source presenting unverifiable information as concrete fact?

For myself, I don't really care. I have no dog in this hunt. I do know that one instance of a claimed event contained glaring errors of knowledge of the impeachment process as outlined in the Constitution. That does not inspire me to trust that Source in the future. Others who follow more closely might be more vehement either for or against.

[brooklynite]

14. I won't believe it unless the Sergeant at Arms of the Supreme Court confirms it.....

[tandem5]

25. She's been eerily accurate at citing key names, places, and events before

they're widely reported on as newsworthy and she takes those topics and wildly fabricates details that cannot possibly be true and that intentionally sound ridiculous when repeated. By all appearances she is part of a concerted disinformation campaign that seeks to discredit and taint legitimate topics as conspiracy theories before factual details are reported on by legitimate investigators.

[wishstar]

33. I don't trust her due to her slamming of people like Seth Abramson, Joy Reid, Malcolm Nance

in order to sow mistrust of them while she has promoted several dubious conservatives.

Not sure if she has been merely unwittingly duped by others' disinformation since she seems gullible with a willingness to throw out unsubstantiated hunches, or if she has been intentionally muddying the waters to cause confusion and mistrust when mainstream factual reports come out. She has admitted and apologized for what she claims was revealing classified info regarding warrants since she claims she was set up intentionally so that her reporting would tip off people who might have been swept up in surveillance, before the existence of warrants was publicly known.

[Botany]

26. Louise Mensch says ....

... please

[brettdale]

27. and no evidence to back up her crazy claims

Im still waiting for the white arrests that were going to happen tomorrow from a year ago.