rammagen wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:rammagen wrote:
I think this whole thing was a delay tactic so he could try to cut a deal and it is failing. The incoming administration will seek charges and then cut a deal. NY state is going to have their piece as well.
The deal will be something like we will expose all the crimes ect if you try to run again and proceed with charges which wont expire after 7 yrs and NY state charges will stick which are the lessor of the crimes. Certain transgressions will be exposed and they need to be to cool the jets of the trumpers who will believe anything the fat liar will say
Possibly something like that could be cooked up, but I don't think Tish James will be part of those deals. So I think he's going to take it on the chin pretty quickly. There are two factors which mitigate indicting Trump already which are:
1) Better not tip your hand while he is still President, even if you are filing state charges. It gives him less insight into the parameters of any pardons issued, particularly for Rudy who is going to be indicted by NY very soon.
2) On January 21, the new Treasury Secretary will authorize the release of all tax documents to the House committees and the NY investigations. Though they already know the scope and have files plus the NY Times reports, this will be the finishing touch before filing indictments.
So I expect something pretty swift from NY, maybe even late January.
Thus, what deals Trump could cut with the DoJ to STFU may be negotiated while he's already in court defending himself in NY. There will not be any ability to avoid punishment, just a question of possibly mitigating the outcome for himself.
Clyde thought you would like this
https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-prosecutor-andrew-weissmann-trump-should-be-investigated-charged-2020-11
It recently came out that it was Rod Rosenstein who took out the legs on Mueller early on, not Barr as was previously thought. Mueller was by his nature a fairly protocol oriented bureaucrat and he complied with the DoJ restrictions imposed upon him. If was more feisty he could have pushed their findings more aggressively and created real problems for Trump. All of that is to say they did find criminal implications and, as Weissmann is saying here, they committed more crimes by their obstruction of a federal investigation.
as quoted in this article, Mueller still released this comment
However, the special counsel's office noted, "If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
which was a tacit admission they had dirt, but chose not to make prosecution recommendations (per the DoJ pressures from Rosenstein)
It is pretty clear Weissmann is just as disappointed in the weakness of Mueller's character as many of us were by his emphasis on the superiority of the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report (which was signed off on by a GOP chair BTW)
I'd say this is the beginning of the rumbles by justice dept pros to get ready to dig in and follow the money with the intent to file criminal charges when their case is made against Trump and his associates. Biden has taken the neutral position knowing there is a hunger for justice that will seek its own course which is the right move politically for him (and I agree; no need to stoke civil war rhetoric)
Another point of the article is the NY State and Manhattan probes are generated lots of dirt that point to future fedeal charges. When you have guys in that loop like Felix Sater, Parnas and Furman willingly cooperating you're building a dossier on a variety of crimes including collusion with foreign powers. So the NY prosecutions will trigger future investigations and indictments in all likelihood