The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[Primula Baggins]

If there were sealed indictments that had already been approved by Rosenstein before Sessions was forced out, probably not. Otherwise, technically he has the authority to approve or reject any new indictments, and we may never even know that there were indictments that he rejected. If you will remember, previously indictments were announced not be Mueller or any of his team, but by Rosenstein himself.

True. But I've heard speculation that Mueller saw this possibility and has, in fact, gotten all his ducks in a row, preapproved and sealed. It certainly would be consistent with his apparent high level of caution and efficiency.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, but the key word there is "speculation". We just don't know.

[Primula Baggins]

You're right, of course. My fingers are crossed. . . .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tom Goldstein, the founder of Scotusblog and a prominent D.C. attorney, is the lawyer who was involved in Maryland's challenge to Whitaker's appointment, has found a novel way to try to get the Supreme Court to address the question right away, in a different case.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 029371002/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Three Senate Democrats have also filed suit challenging Whitaker's appointment. I am doubtful that their lawsuit will be successful as I doubt they will be held to have standing to challenge the appointment, but we'll see. However, I do think that the talk of indictments is premature, and that nothing is going to happen in that regard until the legal challenges to Whitaker's appointment are resolved. Also, apparently Randy Credico, the radio host who Roger Stone claims was his pipeline to Wikileaks, is scheduled to meet with the Special Counsel's office again after Thanksgiving, so I think it is very unlikely that anything will happen before then.

Plus, Mr. Trump claims he has finished his written answers to the questions submitted by the Special Counsel's office and that they will be submitted this week, but reports suggest that some questions dealing with the time during the transition between administration are being challenged by his lawyers so there probably will be more back an forth about that.

My guess is that we won't see anything tangible actions by the Special Counsel's office until some time next year, despite the reports last week that indictments were iniment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mueller says Manafort breached plea deal by lying

This follows news this morning that conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi is refusing his own plea deal in the investigation.

Things are going to get interesting. If the special counsel's office is confident enough of the information that they have that they are willing to assert in a court filing that Manafort is lying, than they must have some pretty solid information.

[Frelga]

Does it all still mean anything, with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Why would it not mean something because of the current make up of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court has no power to stop Mueller's investigation at this time. And even if the case in which the constitutionality of Mueller's appointment is challenged were to reach the Supreme Court at some point, I think it is highly unlikely that the court even as currently constituted would rule that it was unconstitutional. The court might rule that the president can't be subpoenaed, or even that he can't be indicted, but that wouldn't stop the investigation from going forward.

From the filing in the Manafort case:

After signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement. The government will file a detailed sentencing submission to the Probation Department and the Court in advance of sentencing that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein.

That will be the interesting filing, if it is made public and not under seal.

[River]

I'm not sure if he's irrational or irrational like a fox...

Was he angling for a pardon? Was he trying to protect an ally? Trying to sink a rival? Is there something really heinous he'd have to cop to if he told the truth about whatever it was he lied about? Did he think he could get one past a team of highly seasoned prosecutors managed by a former FBI director? Did he decide to shoot himself in the foot because federal prison is likely to be a novichok and polonium-free zone? Or has he just told so many lies over the years he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the face (which apparently just happened)?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The latter, if I had to guess.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree. If anything brings down Trump, it will be his careless arrogance. I think the same applies to Manafort.

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't know if it matters to most people but IF there is found to be collusion with foreign nations or obvious 'deals' to personally benefit the Trumps/Putin/Saudi's whomever, at the expense of our nation (financial or security, etc..) I will be livid if they decide not to expose it and throw the book at those involved or they get off with impeachment for something relatively minor and the serious crimes never come to light. We deserve to know if someone betrayed our country at such a high level.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This might be one of the things that they allege that he lied about.

Guardian: Manafort met with Julian Assange around the time he joined the Trump campaign

[elengil]

So from what I understand, Trump has at least submitted written answers to some of Mueller's questions, yes? And now we have accusations against Manafort of lying to FBI.

So we know Mueller must have some pretty rock-solid evidence of lies.

I am actually sort of thinking that perhaps Mueller may have gotten the two of them in a bind: Trump answers one thing, Manafort answers another. If Manafort is lying, then maybe Trump is telling the truth - but then Manafort gets convicted of lying. And Trump likely can't (optics) issue a pardon of so blatant a crime. But if Trump tries to press that Manafort was not lying, then the alternative is that Trump lied in his answers.

That may not be how it actually happens, but I could absolutely see Mueller getting them in that corner.

It's sad that Real Politics has become the next Real Housewives...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is a thought that occurred to me. It might be completely wrong, but it is intriguing. There has been speculation for a long time that Mr. Trump was try to stop Mueller by firing Sessions and replacing him with someone who would block the release of Mueller's final report which would lay out the conclusions about what Mr. Trump did. Subsequently, Mr. Trump did in fact fire Sessions and replaced him with a known detractor of the investigation, who now is in a position to do exactly that. Meanwhile, Mueller's team entered into an unusual plea agreement with Manafort that allowed him to continue his cooperation agreement with Mr. Trump's attorney (unlike, for instance, with Rick Gates, who cut off all cooperation with other potential defendants when he entered into his plea agreement). I always thought that was strange, and one piece of information that was reported several weeks ago was that Mr. Giuliani claimed that he was told by Manafort's attorneys that nothing that Manafort had told Mueller's team implicated Mr. Trump. I wonder whether Mueller and his team assumed that Manafort would lie and that they would then have an opportunity to lay out what they know in Manafort's sentencing report as a way to make public what they know about Mr. Trump?

[Primula Baggins]

You mean they would say, we know Manafort lied because he told us A, whereas we can prove that the facts are B—when the President has also stated that A is true, or at least has flatly denied B?

Neatly done, if true!

[RoseMorninStar]

If something of that sort is true, my hat is off to Mueller. I do not have the mind to be a lawyer, strategy is not my strong suit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You mean they would say, we know Manafort lied because he told us A, whereas we can prove that the facts are B—when the President has also stated that A is true, or at least has flatly denied B?

Neatly done, if true!

Or just that "B" is the fact that their was coordination with the Russians and/or Wikileaks and that Mr. Trump knew about it and approved it, and here is the proof of it (not to prove that Mr. Trump knew about it and approved it, but that Manafort lied about Mr. Trump knowing about it and approving it. Though of course we know for sure that Trump said "A" (e.g., there was no coordination with the Russians or Wikileaks and therefore he never knew about it and never approved it) in his sworn answers.

Or maybe there isn't anything of the sort, and and what Manafort lied about had nothing to do with Mr. Trump. But I wouldn't bet on it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judge Jackson set a "scheduling conference" for Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Manafort's case, so we may learn then when we might get more information about what the Mueller team is accusing him of lying about.

[RoseMorninStar]

Ah, good. The Judge set it in the morning as it may take awhile to cover all of the lies. I presume there are many. :eyeroll: