Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Justice is coming

I don't post in this thread since I don't have much of an opinion, one way or the other. It is instructive, I suppose, to pay attention and watch the legal trade work it's profession. One guy I've paid attention to is Dollar Bill's labor secratary Rob Reich.
I like his almost deep throat style conversations with his Republican buddy with insider contacts and opinions.
Here's the latest of that series. Thought you might enjoy.

But remember....

It's Christmas!

I think you are thinking Mr Trump is a rational actor. He is a narcissist. It is about him first and foremost. The pieces are in place. He is waiting for confirmation of an AG. The plan is, and has been all along, for the dissolution of the SCO, when the investigation gets too close. (This assumes there are secrets he does not want publicized, whether they are personal or criminal.)

The backup plan for "others" has been the presidential pardon. He will use it loosely, freely, and often.

So his options are two, does he have enough money to keep him out of jail, after he become an ex, and does Russia have a nice palatial dacha waiting for him, regardless?

Pardoning people who can testify against you is a supremely stupid idea: They lose the ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment and can be compelled to testify or go to jail. It works when you want to troll your enemies by pardoning wacko Sheriffs. Doesn't work so good when you are the capo!

Also the idea that the Mueller investigation goes away when you fire Mueller is totally nuts: First thing the House would do is to subpoena Mueller and get him to tell them EVERYTHING. Members of the Intelligence Committee are security cleared to investigate anything they want, so Trump can't slap Top Secret on it and hide it from them. Doing that just makes it all public ASAP. If you leave Mueller alone, he might write a final report the AG can sit on for a while. Of course, if that happens the Intelligence committee proceeds anyway.

I think Trump's options are narrowed to Martial Law or flight into exile if he wants to escape justice.

You forget one thing, the President makes the security policy. As such can revoke, de-certify, change, grant, certify, basically do anything he wants when it comes to security clearances and access to classified material. For example, with a stroke of his crayon he can remove all clearances from every member of the Intel committee...

Now would it be a smart move? The current occupant of the White House has never been known for his smarts...

My point was that he could look at everything, if he knew to ask for it. But it just isn't in his character to do that. He would have to read a lot of very long boring documents and follow a complex document trail, and few of the important ones even mention his name!

Theoretically, he could launch a nuclear attack on Iran too, but at some point the people around him are going to stop him. When he does something insane, everyone (but maybe Bolton) will agree it's Amendment 25 time and lock him in a rubber room.


Still, there are things he CAN'T do, and he found out another one today: He can't fire the Fed chief. He can't control the House or Senate, unless they let him. He can't make Mexico pay for the wall. He can't fire a Supreme Court Justice, or even tell them what to do.

I have never thought that Donald Trump is a rational actor. He is erratic, unintelligent, uninterested, and corrupt, but those are just his good attributes. Rational is not amongst his strengths. He is, however, a classic narcissist, so he is predictable and manipulable. Just ask Putin, or Erdogan, or Netanyahu, or Xi. Autocrats know how to push his buttons.

OK so I have a question.

Suppose Individual 1 knows Individual 2 has committed what he believes to be a crime (labelled A), but is not a party to the suspected criminal act.

Is it a crime for Individual 1 to not report a suspected crime? Individual 1 does not have to take the 5th because he has not committed a crime. So Individual 1 may get a pardon for an unrelated crime, not involving Individual 2. Even though he may testify to his crime, why would he be compelled to testify regarding Crime A, involving Individual 2? and even if he was involved in a two party crime involving individual 2 for which he did not receive a pardon, how could he be compelled to testify? If there were evidence implicating both Individual 1 and 2, their testimony would not be necessary.

Basically if there were hard evidence to substantiate a crime, testimony from the perpetrators would be unnecessary. If SP Mueller only had an allegation of impropriety, then everyone allegedly involved could simply claim ignorance. Thus if everyone got a pardon and there was no hard evidence to prove a crime had been committed, it wouldn't matter if the 5th was no longer in effect. All the alleged perpetrators would simply deny knowledge of the crime.

I think this all comes back to one of my original questions 2 years ago. If the best the SCO has is the perception of impropriety, the questions regarding pardons and the 5th are moot.

All of this of course pertains to the Russia question. I suspect if SP Mueller finds evidence of criminal activities involving Trump Org, Congress will give him a pass and tolerate the insanity for another 2 years.

just spitballing

Not really the way prosecutors work. They get documentary hard evidence, but when they go to court they want to present people who were there when the crime took place. A lot of eye witness testimony is worthless (he LOOKS like the guy who robbed the bank), but when the witness is an associate of the defendant they offer the jury a compelling case.

Putting on my lawyer hat for a moment...

1) Generally it is not a crime to NOT report the crime of another, although there are exceptions (as with an ongoing criminal conspiracy, which may or may not be pertinent here), in which case suppressing the information (or lying to authorities about it) may constitute being an accessory;

2) If someone has been pardoned, they cannot "take the fifth" with regard to their activities for which they have been pardoned, since they cannot "incriminate themselves" with regard to that testimony. If, however, they lie (perjure) under oath, they can be charged with that crime, and they can be placed in contempt of court (or Congress) if they refuse (like Susan McDougal). This is somewhat different than immunity, which can be broader in application. Often someone who has been pardoned will be granted immunity for other uncharged misconduct so that they can be compelled to testify.

Russian Ex-Spy Pressured Manafort Over Debts to an Oligarch

All we have to do is compare patterns and models. Maria Butina with the NRA, Manafort with Deripaska, Trump with Putin.
These patterns are all very similar, with similar and predictable results.

The guy in charge of Trump's campaign was already "super double fudge sundae with cherries on top f***ked".