Probe Lawyers Thinks Mueller Could Indict Trump

[brooklynite]

Source: Political Wire

“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has gathered enough steam that some lawyers representing key Donald Trump associates are considering the possibility of a historic first: an indictment against a sitting president,” Politico reports.

“Neither attorney claimed to have specific knowledge of Mueller’s plans. Both based their opinions on their understanding of the law; one also cited his interactions with the special counsel’s team, whose interviews have recently examined whether Trump tried to derail the probe into his campaign’s Russia ties.”

Said one lawyer: “If I were a betting man, I’d bet against the president.”

Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2018/02/02/probe-lawyers-thinks-mueller-indict-trump/

[lagomorph777]

1. I've said it over and over: The "tradition" that we can't indict a sitting President...

is total bullshit, and the pundits who endlessly repeat it are making fools of themselves.

If he's not above the law, of course we can indict him.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Only way for it to stand

is to take it to the SCOTUS.

IIRC, Nixon was considered "an un-indicted co-conspirator" (in legalese) and never got as far as having to go a next step because he resigned before either being impeached/convicted or indicted.

[bitterross]

7. It may end up at SCOTUS, but it doesn't start there.

While you may be correct that it will have to go to SCOTUS to be upheld it can still start with Mueller indicting 45. There is no clause in the Constitution that puts the President above the law. Nixon's statement that "When the President does it, it's not illegal" was wrong then and is wrong now.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. I never said it would start there

At this point, with no precedent really decided, the assumption would be if an indictment was handed down against a sitting President, it would immediately go to the courts, with a request for the SCOTUS to issue a "stay" while the case works its way up.

Alternately an issue that impacted Agnew was tax evasion (among other crimes) brought by the MD state AG and Agnew's plea deal allowed him to plead nolo contendere and resign. His bribery mess eventually came a bit later.

NY state AG may be our only hope!

[bitterross]

6. There is nothing in the Constitution that puts the President above the law

I feel they must indict him to stop this from happening again.

[onetexan]

24. agree, there's material evidence he obstructed and it may come down to the Supreme Court's decision

but it needs to be done. This horrible man is a very clear and present danger to the US and the world.

[Merlot]

13. When you look at how many traditions trumpft has rode roughshod over

it would be fitting that he breaks this tradtion as well.

[panfluteman]

14. Right Arm! Indict the Bastard!

Nixon's wrongdoings pale when compared to Trump's multifaceted, nefarious criminal and treasonous enterprises. This goes way beyond Watergate, which was just a domestic burglary - this is international treason and sedition. How many dozens - or even hundreds - of impeachable offenses had Trump commited already?

[djg21]

28. Indict a sitting President

Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution can be read to say that impeachment must precede a criminal prosecution:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Alternatively, it may be read to limit the penalty obtained through impeachment to removal from office, make sure that double jeopardy doesn’t attach to the impeachment proceeding, and make clear that despite a person being subject to impeachment, he or she can be indicted.


This is a debate that legal scholars have been engaging in for some time. There are good discussions at : https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-can-be-indicted--just-not-by-mueller/2017/07/27/a597b922-721d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.cd273cf03787

And http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpu

And then there is Jones v. Clinton, where SCOTUS held that President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, that no case had been found in which an official was granted immunity from suit for his unofficial acts, and that the rationale for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is at issue.

Given Jones, the better argument appears to be that a sitting president may be indicted, but this will end up back at the SCOTUS so that if can say if the same rule applies in the criminal context.

[lagomorph777]

32. Sec 3 Article 1 explicitly permits Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.

"Scholars" arguing otherwise are simply expressing wishful Presidential thinking in scholarly terms.

[djg21]

33. Which scholars do?

If it were that easy of a question to answer, we would not be having this discussion and there would be no debate. While I agree that the argument for allowimg indictment may be stronger based on the Constitutional text, there certainly are policy considerations that would support a rule that a President can only be indicted after he is impeached and removed from office. If a President engages in high crimes or misdemeanors while in office, she/he should be impeached and indicted. But to indict a sitting President before impeachment proceeding certainly would distract her/him from the day-to-day responsibilities of the office.

On edit: The language of the text says “but the Party convicted [in an impeachment trial conducted before the Senate] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Use of the term “convicted” in the past tense suggests that the president would have to be impeached before being indicted.

[lagomorph777]

35. Distracting a President from his ongoing criminal operation is a desirable thing.

[Hoyt]

2. I'd bet against it too. Impeachment maybe. Indictment, probably not no matter how much we want it.

[MarvinGardens]

15. My take on the OP

"Bet against the president" = "bet for indictment".

I think that is what is meant.

[FakeNoose]

20. Impeach him first, remove him from office - THEN indict him

...unless Mueller has something that's so heinous that it can't wait until after the impeachment hearings.

[onetexan]

25. whichever comes first - impeach or indictment

we can impeach first then indict, or vice versa.

[Iliyah]

4. t-rump and his adult family and the adminstration

members of congress.

Family and friends plan on partying in the streets!

[UpInArms]

5. Much more at this link

Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump

Signs that Mueller is closing in on Trump have been growing for months. Mueller has indicted former top Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — both have pleaded not guilty — and obtained guilty pleas from former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI.

Witnesses and attorneys who have been interviewed by the special counsel’s team say the special counsel is focusing on a potential obstruction of justice case based on several well-documented events, including Trump’s firing of Comey and his efforts to prevent Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from the Justice Department’s Russia probe.

The lawyer who said he would “bet” against Trump said he thinks Mueller could wrap up his case soon, potentially with an indictment, to avoid acting too close to this fall’s midterm elections.

“If he’s going to do it, I think he’ll do it in the spring,” the attorney said. “I don’t think he wants to be accused of trying to influence the election that dramatically.”

[MGKrebs]

8. I don't think so.

What if you do that and lose?

I would think that if he found good evidence in criminal activity he would lay it out to the AG and let them present it to Congress for action. At that point it would have to be compelling enough that Congress couldn't resist beginning impeachment.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think that many around Trump will get in big trouble but he will skate. if he ends up getting impeached or something then that will be a bonus for me.

[Texin]

10. Teflon Don's been getting away with EVERYTHING for seven+ decades on now.

Basically, I'm with you on your opinion. As much as I hate it and hate to say it. I'd like to believe that Mueller plans to strike first at Don Jr. maybe in the thought that like Flynn, Shitler would agree to plead guilty to some charge himself in order to protect his child(ren), and a reasonable person might be persuaded to believe that, because what parent would rather see their child sacrificed when they could do something to prevent it, right? But Shitler has shown over and over throughout his life, he'd throw everybody out of a life boat to save his own fat ass first, and I don't believe he will ever change his spots now. He's been a consistent malignant narcissist all his sorry ass life.

When he sold the country to the Russians, the die was cast. We're done. The Republic is dead.

[Stuart G]

9. I sure hope this happens. "Indictment against a sitting president."

Would be a great way to remember Mr. Trump. "Only president ever indicted for criminal behavior."

[angrychair]

11. Lets not forget our friend Pence

He is in it up to his neck:

Link to tweet

[Ramsey Barner]

12. Could an indictment force impeachment?

Mueller's team could indict the whole bunch (making the charges public), let Trump's lawyers contest the issue of indicting a sitting president, proceed against the rest, and wait for the public pressure to force Congress's hand on impeachment proceedings.

I'd love to see RICO charges, as in fighting organized crime!

[FakeNoose]

22. You'd think so, but maybe not with the current Senate and House

That's why Democrats have to work hard to make 2018 a BLUE YEAR!

[onecent]

16. OMG!!! That would be heaven on earth!!

[geardaddy]

18. Let is be so.

[mopinko]

19. you cant go around smashing norms all day, every day, and then

hide behind norms when you have committed treason.

[FakeNoose]

23. So right - I love how you put it too

Cheeto has no clue what "the norm" should be, so now we can make new norms for everything.
Let's start by saving the FBI and the Dept. of Justice.

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Just do it

With whatever case that first strikes paydirt

Beat them to the punch!

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. By Tuesday there will be no investigation

and while I want to be wrong, I do want to point out

NONE OF THIS HAD TO FUCKING HAPPEN

but some people had to HOLD THEIR FUCKING NOSES

[Sophia4]

29. Who held their noses? The answer to that question depends on one's point

of view.

And that should not be forgotten. It's up to winners to breathe deeply and heal wounds. Losers cannot do that. It's not in the psychological make-up of most humans to heal their own hurt feelings. The winners are responsible for that healing process in human relationships.

Sorry. But that is the reality.

[ehrnst]

31. Many, many. That's the answer.

You're welcome.

[mcar]

34. Lots

I still see them arguing their purity politics on Twitter and elsewhere on the web.

Who do you mean by "winners" in this discussion?

[Sophia4]

37. In politics the candidate(s) who win(s) the majority of the votes is the winner.

We see, for example, in Trump a "winner" (of the electoral college but not of the popular vote) who tries to offend and drive away the party he perceives to be the loser to his "win." And then we see that wounded "loser" (which actually won the popular vote), the Democratic Party, hurting, angry and stunned. That's how you get a paralyzed government.

It's not smart to do what Trump is doing and others have done. We don't want a paralyzed Democratic Party.

The smart thing is for the winner to win the "loser" to the winner's side. Obama did it to the extent possible with the Republicans and Hillary supporters who lost to him. Obama included Republicans and Hillary supporters in his government, in his cabinet and kept some Bush appointments on.

Trump has made a serious mistake in lording his "win" (which, I say again, was not a win at all in terms of the popular vote) over those he thinks "lost."

And this scenario plays out within the Democratic Party too. We cannot afford to view each other as winners and losers. Goes for both sides, Hillary and Bernie supporters. Trump is a great threat, and the division in the Democratic Party is the greater threat because it is paralyzing our ability to do anything real about the threat of Trump in our elections in close contests. We have won some elections, but I see the split in our Party here and on the internet elsewhere. This will not succeed.

I think things will go pretty well for Democrats in November, but we have lost so many statehouses and our ability to stop the Republicans and work for progress. We have to unite even though each side thinks it is right and the other side wrong. It will take a very big effort and a lot of self-discipline on the part of Democrats who feel bitter -- toward each other -- to make this work. I say that here because there are so many Democrats here.

Both sides of the Hillary/Bernie dispute feel that they have been treated unjustly. May be true. I'm not taking sides. I'm saying that both sides have to forget the feud and get together so that we can win in November. If we lose in November, we will have lost a lot more than just one congressional election. We will become further divided. The purists on both sides will become even more frozen in their division. On the other hand, there is nothing like winning to bring people together.

This is not the time to even think about being right and other Democrats being wrong. This is the time to work for the survival of Democratic values and also democratic values.

We cannot afford the division in the Democratic Party at this time. Being right, feeling we are right, feels very good, but it could result in yet another defeat in November and worse in 2020.

We saw victories in Virginia and in Alabama. We need to take courage from those and continue in state after state to rid ourselves of these Republicans.

That is what I am saying. That is what we should focus on. We can't make the past right. We can only change the future.

I am long-winded, but I have to add that I understand that the hurt is in both the Hillary and Bernie camps. Each side has its own arguments. And each side thinks the other is purist. So we just have to find it in our hearts to look beyond being right and asking who is the purist. We have to overcome our own division. Families do this all the time. And now Democrats have to do it. The risk if we don't do it is too high.

I lived in Germany and Austria, and I know what that risk is. Evil takes charge when good people do not work together.

[mcar]

38. I plan to vote for Democrats in 2018 and beyond

I will continue working to get Democrats elected. That's how we come together. Work for, vote for, and elect Democrats.

The rest is really not all that relevant at this point in time. We don't have time to indulge in soothing hurt feelings. We are all grownups. Time to take a stand.

Want to get rid of the evil that has already taken hold? In part, because of the "purity" politics? Vote for Democrats? Work to elect Democrats. That's it.

[Sophia4]

40. Part or working to elect Democrats is working for harmony with other

Democrats.

If all Democrats in the swing states had voted for Hillary, we would not be dealing with Trump. He would be out of the picture.

[ehrnst]

42. I think we all know what "evil" is

and it certainly doesn't require living where you have.

And I think that the vast, vast majority of those who supported Bernie are not blaming the Democratic party for Trump, and will be with us in 2020.

Why do you think otherwise?

[lapucelle]

36. What does this even mean?

"Losers" can't heal wounds"? "Winners" are responsible for healing all wounds, even the wounds of those who refuse to be healed?

There are probably examples of losers doing their best to achieve unity by working with those to whom they had lost to build coalition and by effectively leading supporters and partisans to remember that the greater good was the paramount concern.

Similarly, there may be instances where winners reached out to losers, and, in an effort heal wounds, worked with, made concessions to, and even showed respect by offering leadership opportunities and a true stakeholder's place at the table to them, only to have their hands slapped away, publicly and repeatedly. Even losers can be leaders if they choose to be.

Anyone responsible for Trump's election in any way needs to take ownership of the disastrous consequences. History will not absolve them.

That is the reality.

[mcar]

39. People should be mature enough to own up to their mistakes

Rather than waiting for the "winners" to soothe their hurt feelings. Time to stand up and stop expecting special treatment because of their own bad, dare I say, selfish choices.

[robertpaulsen]

43. It's Tuesday. Mueller is still investigating.

Aren't you glad you were wrong?

[Eliot Rosewater]

44. Thrilled, but how did you know about my prediction?

[robertpaulsen]

45. I just read about it.

And I'm happy too! Not that Trump won't do it later; I like to think Mueller has contingencies prepared for that eventuality.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. So he "could" indict Trump.

But will he?

Will anything actually change in the end? Or will Mueller just issue a report about his findings to Congress for them to act upon? If that's what he does, then nothing will change except that all the Trump apologists will scream to the skies about how the President is as pure as the driven snow and go forth merrily with more of their destructive policies.

I still have no optimism that this will turn out in any manner as we'd like it to.

[Gothmog]

30. Trump has been obstructing justice for a while

[RandomAccess]

41. Wow. I seem to be saying that a lot lately. But WOW.

I love this, and it makes sense to me. The obstruction is SO severe and so obvious.