Author Topic: Mueller Has Authority to Name President Trump as an “Unindicted Coconspirator”  (Read 785 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®

Mueller Has Authority to Name President Trump as an “Unindicted Coconspirator”


by Ryan Goodman

October 29, 2017

Quote
Imagine if Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds sufficient evidence to charge President Donald Trump, but his hands are tied because he or the Department of Justice concludes that they cannot indict a sitting President? Could Mueller instead identify President Trump by name as an “unindicted coconspirator” when bringing charges against other individuals? The stakes are enormously high. Such action would have some of the same reverberations across the country as a criminal indictment of the President.

A facile answer would rely simply on the fact that the Special Prosecutor in Watergate did just that. The Watergate grand jury named President Richard M. Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator when it issued indictments of others.

Since Watergate, however, the Department of Justice has developed guidance for criminal prosecutions that places a presumption against naming individuals as unindicted coconspirators. The U.S. Attorney’s Office Manual states:

More at:  https://www.justsecurity.org/46415/mueller-authority-president-trump-unindicted-coconspirator/

==========================================================

This is an old story, but the DoJ says "No more indictments."  I'd bet a dollar Mueller will name Trump as an "undicted co-conspirator to keep the trope alive.  Meanwhile, this story suggests there are reasons not to do that.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,360
Can’t have a coconspirator, without another conspirator, which Mueller didn’t have.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.� ? Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.� ? Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.� ? Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®
Can’t have a coconspirator, without another conspirator, which Mueller didn’t have.

He could name two unindicted co-conspirators.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,360
He could name two unindicted co-conspirators.
He could, but then he’s blowing wind because he has no indictments and no prosecution of anything even remotely related to a conspiracy.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.� ? Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.� ? Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.� ? Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®
He could, but then he’s blowing wind because he has no indictments and no prosecution of anything even remotely related to a conspiracy.

I agree with you on every point, but I don't think Mueller is a moral individual, and would throw out an accusation like that as a sop to the Rats to keep Congressional hearings alive (and justify his squandering of $40 Million).

The story I posted suggests the DoJ doesn't like to do that because the defendant never gets a day in court or an opportunity to face evidence.  It's like saying, "I can't prove it, but I think you are still beating your wife."
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,360
I agree with you on every point, but I don't think Mueller is a moral individual, and would throw out an accusation like that as a sop to the Rats to keep Congressional hearings alive (and justify his squandering of $40 Million).

The story I posted suggests the DoJ doesn't like to do that because the defendant never gets a day in court or an opportunity to face evidence.  It's like saying, "I can't prove it, but I think you are still beating your wife."
Wouldn’t put it past them.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.� ? Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.� ? Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.� ? Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Online mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 44,754
Can’t have a coconspirator, without another conspirator, which Mueller didn’t have.
The conspirators need to have conspired to commit a crime. What would that crime be?
"Because men have lost the objective basis of certainty of knowledge of the thing in which they are working, more and more I fear we are going to find them manipulating science according to their own sociological or political desires rather than standing upon concrete objectivity." Francis A. Schaeffer

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®
The conspirators need to have conspired to commit a crime. What would that crime be?

Mueller could pick from one of the many scalps he's claimed and say the President put him up to it.  Boom!  A conspiracy complete with underlying crime and a defendant unable to answer charges.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,208
The conspirators need to have conspired to commit a crime. What would that crime be?
/


It is the seriousness of the commitment to conspire that the conspirators need to be judged.  Wait...what?  Oh heck,  But resist we much. We must, and we will much- about that- be committed.
“Here’s the truth. Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders.”

Online edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,709
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
He could, but then he’s blowing wind because he has no indictments and no prosecution of anything even remotely related to a conspiracy.



Really?


https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®
Really?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

That will work. I should raise the ante on my bet that Trump will be named an unindicted co-conspirator of something/anything.  "Still beating the wife, Donald?"  The allegation will be proudly snapped up by the willing.

From a prosecutor's viewpoint, nothing is better than an accusation that cannot be refuted because there won't be a trial.  What a country!

I should start a poll about which pretense will be used to name the President a co-conspirator.  The Rats will have him then!
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,709
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
That will work. I should raise the ante on my bet that Trump will be named an unindicted co-conspirator of something/anything.  "Still beating the wife, Donald?"  The allegation will be proudly snapped up by the willing.

From a prosecutor's viewpoint, nothing is better than an accusation that cannot be refuted because there won't be a trial.  What a country!

I should start a poll about which pretense will be used to name the President a co-conspirator.  The Rats will have him then!


When that indictment was released, Rosenstein made a point to say Americans in contact with this group were unaware of who they were. So, if I took a guess, there won’t be a direct naming as an unindicted co-conspirator.

More likely, it’ll be worded in a manner similar to the SDNY charging document of Cohen. In that, it’s stated his actions were at the direction of Individual-1 and that person is identified as a 2016 candidate who won the election. So, it’s probable the implications will be indirectly made.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 06:34:28 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®

When that indictment was released, Rosenstein made a point to say Americans in contact with this group were unaware of who they were. So, if I took a guess, there won’t be a direct naming as an unindicted co-conspirator.

More likely, it’ll be worded in a manner similar to the SDNY charging document of Cohen. In that, it’s stated his actions were at the direction of Individual-1 and that person is identified as a 2016 candidate who won the election. So, it’s probable the implications will be indirectly made.

The Rats have made more hay with less.  It's amazing what can be done with a willing press.   :shrug:
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,709
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
The Rats have made more hay with less.  It's amazing what can be done with a willing press.   :shrug:


Yes, but it doesn’t help when you have a group of people who lie about things meaninglessly and continually get caught. Also, it’s not helpful to hire a legal advisor and spokesman that says some of the oddest and contradictory things.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®

Yes, but it doesn’t help when you have a group of people who lie about things meaninglessly and continually get caught. Also, it’s not helpful to hire a legal advisor and spokesman that says some of the oddest and contradictory things.

All true.  I wonder if the Rats in Congress would make the determination that having unsavory/marginally competent employees and a big mouth are impeachable offenses?

Aw heck...look who I'm asking about.  Of course they will.  CNN will start that drum beat next week.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,531
I find kind of strange that Trump and conspiracy are showing up in the same sentence, when and while we are hearing rumours of a POTUS overthrow via DOJ, Cabinet, or whatever. 

Talk about priorties.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Online edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,709
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
I find it kind of strange that the overthrow story came from McCabe, who was fired and is under investigation for lying. He is suddenly believable, when Cohen is not.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,208
I find it kind of strange that the overthrow story came from McCabe, who was fired and is under investigation for lying. He is suddenly believable, when Cohen is not.

Is/are any of the swamp rats believable any more Eric?
“Here’s the truth. Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders.”

Online corbe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,444
  • I hate nothing, not even OUR President
    $hit the President can't even conspire with his own Treasury Department on the degree of sanctions on NK, I really doubt if he'd be able to pull this crap off, even if he wanted too.
No government in the 6,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline The Ghost

  • Very Special Agent and
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,208
    $hit the President can't even conspire with his own Treasury Department on the degree of sanctions on NK, I really doubt if he'd be able to pull this crap off, even if he wanted too.

Whatchu talking about Willis?
“Here’s the truth. Life begins at conception. Government is too big. Our taxes are too high. And our car insurance is too expensive. President Trump is doing a great job. Facts matter more than feelings. The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. And as a doctor, I can assure you there are only two genders.”

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 44,622
  • We got 'im now!®
I find it kind of strange that the overthrow story came from McCabe, who was fired and is under investigation for lying. He is suddenly believable, when Cohen is not.

Meh.  I don't believe either of them.  I am not a partisan in the AT/NT War.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 281,189
Barr won't turn over classified material, key GOP lawmaker says
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2019, 11:33:52 AM »
Barr won't turn over classified material, key GOP lawmaker says
by Daniel Chaitin
 | March 24, 2019 11:02 AM



A key Republican lawmaker said Democrats demanding the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's entire report will be disappointed by Attorney General William Barr.

"I know that the Democrats are saying we want everything, but the law doesn't provide for that. In fact, it says the opposite," Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said Sunday morning during an interview on Fox News. "And I very much doubt that Bill Barr is going to turn over classified material or material subject to executive privilege or, most importantly, grand jury testimonies that Bob Mueller has received that did not result in charges against anyone."

Citing the "longstanding policy" of the Justice Department, Ratcliffe noted former FBI Director James Comey strayed of course in his handling of the Hillary Clinton emails investigation "that got him fired and had Democrats complaining back then."

"Bill Barr is not going to repeat those mistakes, so he'll be as transparent as the law will allow and as the regulations provide, and the Democrats should respect that," Ratcliffe added.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-wont-turn-over-classified-material-key-gop-lawmaker-says
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 281,189
Re: Barr won't turn over classified material, key GOP lawmaker says
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2019, 11:35:07 AM »
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf