Mueller's secret weapon: sealed indictments

[triron]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/21/robert-mueller-russia-probe-protection-218065

[lindysalsagal]

1. The money line: Good news: And the reason Mueller's still on the case:

If Trump were to fire Mueller, an already filed sealed indictment would outlast Mueller’s tenure. A sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge, meaning Trump cannot rid himself of a legal headache simply by terminating the special counsel. A sealed indictment would also ensure that the statute of limitations for crimes Trump might be charged with will not expire. This leaves open the possibility of Trump being tried in the future.

[lame54]

2. If there is a sealed indictment on Trump...

doesn't that mean Trump is indeed a target?

Did Rosenstein lie to him?

[PoliticAverse]

4. There's no sealed indictment of Trump. n/t

[lame54]

5. are you dis-believing the story or?

did I misunderstand it?

[emulatorloo]

6. The article is entirely speculative. About what Mueller might do. What Mueller could do

What Mueller “might” “could” “may” do. It is just theoretical. About “if” scenarios and “possible” responses.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Even if Mueller will indict Trump - he probably won't because of historical precedent,...

it's much more likely he'd name him an "unindicted co-conspirator" like Richard Nixon was - it's much too early
to be indicting what would be the top target of the investigation, Trump would likely be the final indictment after
all the evidence is in.

[triron]

11. Very good point.

[paleotn]

21. Seems there is historical precedent....

SCOTUS ruling on Clinton vs. Jones. If that holds in a civil case, then more so in a criminal indictment.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. I do not trust your claimed powers of ESP. . . .nt

[paleotn]

19. That's the thing about sealed endictments...

Only Mueller's team, the grand jury and a judge know what's in them and who's indicted. Unless you're a member of one of those groups, you cannot in good faith say there is no sealed indictment of Dumpster. So which is it? Bad faith, or are you working for the special prosecutor, a federal judge involved or a member of the grand jury?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. No. Current DoJ guidance says sitting presidents are not to be indicted.

While some legal experts, notably Laurence Tribe, has argued that it can be done, if the DoJ's policy is that presidents can't be indicted, Mueller isn't likely to do it. The U.S. Attorney's Manual also recommends against naming a president as an unindicted co-conspirator as was done with Nixon. Trump won't be named as a target if he can't (or won't) be indicted, so Rosenstein didn't lie. All bets are off once he leaves office, of course.

[kentuck]

3. +1000

[triron]

7. Read 9-11.153 in this doc.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury

What does this mean to you?

[kentuck]

8. "or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice" ??

9-11.153 - Notification of Targets

"When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice."

[triron]

9. I'm more curious about:

"when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses"

Might notification that Trump is a target fall into such a guideline?

[kentuck]

22. Yep.

[steventh]

14. USAM is fascinating thanks

I was unaware of the existence of the U.S. Attorneys Manual before I saw reference to it in your note. There's all sorts on interesting info in it.

[Sophia4]

27. No problem here because a likely charge would be obstruction of justice in the first place.

Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11000-grand-jury

[triron]

30. What?? This doesn't negate the hypothesis that notification

would be withheld for the reasons cited in 9-11.153. Sorry
I don't follow you argument.

[Sophia4]

32. Notifying Trump of his indictment or impending indictment could result in his

setting the process in motion of firing Mueller and ending the investigation. That would qualify as one of the reasons under 9-11.153 for not notifying a perpetrator of the criminal indictment.

[triron]

33. Exactly. I guess we are in agreement.

[byronius]

12. A Democrat accused of similar crimes backed by the currently public evidence would be in prison.

And that is why we kinda suck.

Still, perhaps there is some justice left in the old Reality Show Culture after all.

Hopin'. 'Cause otherwise we're heading on down to Nothingsville.

[american_ideals]

13. Right. This is evidence we have a right wing media

Our media has an effective right wing bias. Because the right has built a propaganda machine that manipulated the corporate media into taking about what the right wants to talk about.

The best example is the one you give: Obama, an ethical centrist by world standards, was flayed by our effectively right wing media. This president is a corrupt, selfish, far conservative, criminal, unethical liar who is destroying democracy. And he is treated much better by the media that he deserves.

Our media is right wing. It is a sad reality. This will never improve until journalists figure out how to cover right wing liars — not by giving both sides, but by being objective and telling the truth.

[Cosmocat]

37. Yep

Spot on.

[Botany]

15. I'm gonna make a drink

"If Trump were to fire Mueller, an already filed sealed indictment would outlast Mueller’s tenure. A sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge, meaning Trump cannot rid himself of a legal headache simply by terminating the special counsel. A sealed indictment would also ensure that the statute of limitations for crimes Trump might be charged with would not expire. This leaves open the possibility of Trump being tried in the future."

[getagrip_already]

18. Still doesnt add up

All the doj would need to do is petition the court to withdraw the indictment.

All they need to say is there is insufficient evidence to successfully try the case.

Im sure it happens when a witness dies or recants testimony, evidence is spoiled, or something exculpery comes up.

Once muehler is gone and a toadie is calling the shots, everything stops.

The court cant try a case on their own. They need prose utors. They cant just order the doj to procede, the doj can sabotage the case.

All it would do is add political heat. It wouldnt do anything legally.

[Sophia4]

28. It would be up to the judge, the court.

It would not be a political decision. It would at least get the facts out.

[getagrip_already]

34. a technicality only

The judge would have to grant the request. I said it would have political effect because it would become public and there would be a mess to deal with.

But in reality, if the doj said they are not going to proceed, the judge can't force them to. The judge can ask a lot of questions, but they can't compel the govt to proceed. What if the gov showed up to trial with no evidence and made a statement they had nothing to present. It wouldn't be much of a trial and the judge knows that.

All they can try to do is hold the prosecutor to account for filing charges they can't stand behind, but it wouldn't be the same prosecutors and the doj wouldn't care to hold anyone accountable, except maybe muehler and his then fired team.

Sealed indictments would be meaningless from a legal standpoint if the gov moves to dismiss them.

[Sophia4]

38. More than half of the public would be incensed.

That is what would happen.

Remember. Trump did not win the popular vote in any event. He lost it.

And a lot of people did not vote at all who would have voted for a less controversial Democrat.

So the majority of Americans never liked him and like him less with each day.

The scandals that Mueller is investigating are just one aspect of Trump's popularity problems.

So Trump will be finished as a politician when this scandal is fully aired whether the trial occurs or not.

Trump is wisest to let the trial take place.

I have to add that the facts would come out and will come out one way or the other in my opinion. If not in the trial, then in other ways.

[getagrip_already]

39. true, but that is a political impact only......

I'm not sure facts would come out, at least not in the form of evidence.

Muehler might be able to say from memory what was in and behind the indictment if subpoenaed, but he wouldn't be able to produce a copy. If he kept copies, that would be a felony. If he released copies to congress without doj approval, even under subpoena, that would be a felony. Even leaving a copy with someone who would still work at the FBI could be a crime, since sealed indictments have to have a chain of custody to prevent leaks.

Muehler is an SC, not an IC. He is compelled to follow the law and the direction of the AG or their delegate.. The law doesn't allow him to release evidence without approval, and it doesn't allow him to keep copies of working documents.

Similarly, it is standard DoJ policy not to release any evidence when they don't prosecute a case. Comey broke that policy with his statements on the Clinton email investigation. But neither the republicans nor the DoJ were going to do anything about it because it was clinton.

Trump's DoJ would if it were Muehler. IF the republican is still around, so would they. The GOP is as much in the crosshairs as trump himself.

[Sophia4]

40. Don't worry. The truth will come out.

The reporters who find it will bring it to the public. If it is there, a reporter can find it. Trump will not be able to sleep at night knowing it is out there. And he will not be able to control his curiosity just as he cannot control himself in other ways.

The truth will out.

[Sophia4]

42. Here is an example of how people including people in the press will go after

embarrassing facts on Trump if Trump fires Mueller.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

Trump will be in more trouble if he fires Mueller than he will be if he just lets whatever facts Mueller unearths go to a jury.

There is bound to be one Trump supporter on just about any jury. But if Trump tries to squash the investigation, many, many investigators will start researching if only because finding the facts will be a huge challenge.

Trump should just realize that the game will be up if there is anything to it. If he fires Mueller, he will be more the subject of conspiracy theories than if he doesn't.

If his past life does not stand up to an investigation, he probably should just quit being president.

Ending the investigation will be viewed as a definite sign of guilt. Trump is going to have to just deal with the reality of his past life.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. The sealed indictments are like a dead-hand switch. Take the hand away & they are activated. . nt

[jberryhill]

26. Criminal cases dont prosecute themselves

The DOJ can withdraw any criminal proceeding it desires.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. I'll accept your assessment. But at least they become public & DoJ actions public.

A later DoJ could proceed with the same criminal indictment, possibly re-entered. Double jeopardy does not apply until a verdict has been rendered.

[getagrip_already]

35. unless evidence was destroyed and witnesses silenced

Besides, it would only become public if someone revealed they existed. Someone like muehler. But he couldn't release the indictment if he was fired. He could only talk to his knowledge of it, which isn't the same thing.

Once the evidence is gone - notes, recordings, documents, testimony - there is no case. Trump has the power to order evidence destroyed. If they aren't bringing charges, there is no requirement to preserve evidence.

[Sophia4]

41. But they won't.

And reporters will find the facts. That's their job.

Trump should let things take their course. He will hurt himself worse if he encourages the Dept. of Justice to end the case against him. There is enough information in the public forum to keep rumors against him going that will be worse than the actual facts.

But then, a man who sleeps with a porn star and a Playboy bunny right after his wife has had a baby is a breed of his own . . . .

A man who cannot hold a marriage together probably can't hold a White House together either.

There are too many people, many of them not in the Justice Department who have worked on the case -- on the defense as well as peripherally in the prosecution -- for the facts to be completely hidden. And if reporters have some of the basic facts, they will figure out how to fill in the rest. They don't have to have every piece of paper that Mueller has. The story will not be as accurate as it would be if Mueller tells it, but it will be told.

Too many people are curious about this. Too much is at stake.

The story will out.

Now if the story were about me or you --- and the case was dropped, it would probably go nowhere. But since the story is about a person who is so controversial to begin with, bits and pieces of it will eke out until the outline is rather clear. This is the age of the internet, and people will be waiting and looking out for this story.

Remember. Trump is not the only person who knows the facts. A lot of people, I would say many people, know this aspect or that of the Mueller case. Trump cannot rid himself of all the witnesses, and they will come forward if the Mueller case is stopped. That 15 minutes of fame is pretty irresistible, and since, at first, falsehoods will come out, those about whom the falsehoods are reported will emerge to clear their names.

[paleotn]

20. Someone's been laying landmines.

and Dumpster and his cast of clowns have no idea where they are, how many there are or what they contain. His apparent slowness to interfere with Rosenstein, Mueller or fire Sessions, while being advised by every knuckle head and his brother to fire them all is beginning to make more sense. The thing about mines is, they don't just go away even if you think you've won the conflict.

[FakeNoose]

23. The idea is to let him & his lawyers stay worried about it

...they make more mistakes that way.

[paleotn]

24. Yep. And in some cases paralyzed.

Seems to explain a lot of recent actions and inaction.

[TheBlackAdder]

25. I bet Mueller has a half dozen of them waiting to go the moment Rosenstein is fired.

[getagrip_already]

36. Now this is more likely.....

He has to be able to unseal them before he is fired or ordered to withdraw them. He may not have much, if any, time to do that.

But unsealing takes less time than filing new indictments, which need rosensteins approval in advance. Presumably, rosensteine gave him both the approval to file the indictments and unseal them at will.

That makes more sense than a dead man switch. This way they hit in public and evidence would have to be preserved, even if the gov seeks to have them withdrawn, the indictments will be public.

[triron]

43. I hope they planned it that way.

[Ligyron]

44. Mueller and Rosenstein know what they are up against.

If anybody knows how to deal with and plan for the contingencies, I feel confident they do, especially Mueller. There is really only so many ways this can go.