The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:22 pm

stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.

To get a "no bill"?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:31 pm

El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?

No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:32 pm

stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?
No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.

Pretty sure that's not a thing either.

Anyway, indications are that this the investigation is ramping up, especially since Mueller just brought on another big firm partner (and former head of the DOJ criminal division), who presumably would not be signing on just to get a "no true bill".

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:37 pm

The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.

The news that it's happening broke today. The actual event was possibly back in June.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:39 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.
The news that it's happening broke today. The actual event was possibly back in June.

So he has been hiring people on since it began.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:41 pm

I can't wait to see how he handles this in his rally today. I'm grabbing some booze and making a drinking game out of how many times he says fake. It was nice knowing you guys.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:42 pm

El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?
No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.
Pretty sure that's not a thing either.

Anyway, indications are that this the investigation is ramping up, especially since Mueller just brought on another big firm partner (and former head of the DOJ criminal division), who presumably would not be signing on just to get a "no true bill".

I know it's wikipedia, but at least I didn't just make it up.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6[edit]
Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs grand juries. It requires grand juries to be composed of 16 to 23 members and that 12 members must concur in an indictment.[14] A grand jury is instructed to return an indictment if the probable cause standard has been met. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (formerly billa vera, resulting in an "indictment"), or "no true bill".

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:44 pm

I assume this news puts the WH "They've gone a year with no evidence" talking point to bed?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:45 pm

El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?
No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.
Pretty sure that's not a thing either.

Anyway, indications are that this the investigation is ramping up, especially since Mueller just brought on another big firm partner (and former head of the DOJ criminal division), who presumably would not be signing on just to get a "no true bill".

The intertubes claim it actually is a thing.

No true bill (definition)

A legal procedure to dismiss charges against a defendant when the grand jury does not find enough evidence to charge the defendant with violating a law. Also called a “no bill.”

Source: U.S. DOJ

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:45 pm

Holman wrote:I assume this news puts the WH "They've gone a year with no evidence" talking point to bed?

It's almost as if you think that the White House cares about whether its talking points are based in facts.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:46 pm

It is looking a whole lot like it'll at least be obstruction of justice for Trump himself. The threat that nearly the entirety of the top of the FBI could be testifying against Trump would be devastating. I'm hoping it does. The man needs to go ASAP.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:46 pm

Max Peck wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?
No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.
Pretty sure that's not a thing either.

Anyway, indications are that this the investigation is ramping up, especially since Mueller just brought on another big firm partner (and former head of the DOJ criminal division), who presumably would not be signing on just to get a "no true bill".
The intertubes claim it actually is a thing.
No true bill (definition)

A legal procedure to dismiss charges against a defendant when the grand jury does not find enough evidence to charge the defendant with violating a law. Also called a “no bill.”

Source: U.S. DOJ

Ah, thanks.

But there's no indication that Mueller is working towards a false bill here.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:46 pm

Billa Vera. Fun guy, know from way back. A true Bill.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:46 pm

Holman wrote:I assume this news puts the WH "They've gone a year with no evidence" talking point to bed?

Since when has reality stopped a political talking point?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:49 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.
The news that it's happening broke today. The actual event was possibly back in June.

Weird. When was it that well-known crazy person Louise Mensch was going on about a grand jury having been convened?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:50 pm

msteelers wrote:
Holman wrote:I assume this news puts the WH "They've gone a year with no evidence" talking point to bed?
Since when has reality stopped a political talking point?

They've gone a year and it's all still nothingburgers. Trump is still president which proves he's is innocent and we should be spending these resources prosecuting HRC.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:54 pm

Investigate Hillary! Why aren't you investigating her? Obama should have stopped Russia! I don't even know how to spell Putin! Mueller is a dishonest person and needs to be removed! You better not look into my money!

That should cover about 90% of it. Now I just have to avoid the Bedminster area for 3 f'n weeks. Thankfully I really have no reason to want to be around there. Last time for the tourney I drove through and there were supporters cheering on the side of the road. I had a hard time not flipping them off.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:56 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:Might just impanel to get a no bill so it can be put to bed.

Not suggesting that is likely, just that it is a possibility to be prepared for.
To get a "no bill"?
No true bill? I think that's it? My brain thought it, but my fingers never typed it.
Pretty sure that's not a thing either.

Anyway, indications are that this the investigation is ramping up, especially since Mueller just brought on another big firm partner (and former head of the DOJ criminal division), who presumably would not be signing on just to get a "no true bill".
The intertubes claim it actually is a thing.
No true bill (definition)

A legal procedure to dismiss charges against a defendant when the grand jury does not find enough evidence to charge the defendant with violating a law. Also called a “no bill.”

Source: U.S. DOJ
Ah, thanks.

But there's no indication that Mueller is working towards a false bill here.

Federal Grand Juries almost always end in indictment. (You can safely ignore all the cop shooting stuff - this was just the first relevant google entry

)

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:09 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.
The news that it's happening broke today. The actual event was possibly back in June.
Weird. When was it that well-known crazy person Louise Mensch was going on about a grand jury having been convened?

Claude Taylor was talking about it several months ago, but his sources seemed to be referring to the Flynn grand jury, which is older than this new one. People knew about it at the time.

Mensch is off her rocker. Some months back claimed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court had been sent to arrest key Trump people, and that's just one example. Her crazy pattern is accusing *everyone* she disagrees with of being in the pay of the Kremlin.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:10 pm

Yeah, Taylor and Mensch have also been saying that they have already issued sealed indictments against key people, including Trump himself. Going to unseal those indictments any day now, I'm sure.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:17 pm

Holman wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
The grand jury, which began its work in recent weeks, signals that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry will likely continue for months. Mr. Mueller is investigating Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign or associates colluded with the Kremlin as part of that effort.
The news that it's happening broke today. The actual event was possibly back in June.
Weird. When was it that well-known crazy person Louise Mensch was going on about a grand jury having been convened?
Claude Taylor was talking about it several months ago, but his sources seemed to be referring to the Flynn grand jury, which is older than this new one. People knew about it at the time.

Mensch is off her rocker. Some months back claimed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court had been sent to arrest key Trump people, and that's just one example. Her crazy pattern is accusing *everyone* she disagrees with of being in the pay of the Kremlin.

Claude has been slipping into some wacky stuff himself. Claude has been peddling the #pizzagate of the left. Essentially a conspiracy theory about the Trump modeling agency trafficking young teens. Complete with a story about Trump threatening to disappear a young teenager after molesting her. I'm a bit skeptical of him now too </understatement>.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:24 pm

I gave up on the whole #ScoobyGang not too long after discovering them.

It's probably true that Taylor (not Mensch) knows some of the same people who provide insider perspective to actual reporters, but the willingness to extrapolate wishful thinking is a textbook example of bad journalism. This is true even if some of the suppositions are confirmed in time.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:36 pm

In other fake breaking news:

https://twitter.com/Marshall_Cohen/stat ... 8847726592

@Marshall_Cohen wrote:BREAKING: Trump's onetime foreign policy adviser CARTER PAGE was under a FISA warrant since 2014, CNN has learned.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:39 pm

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:57 pm

Holman wrote:I gave up on the whole #ScoobyGang not too long after discovering them.

It's probably true that Taylor (not Mensch) knows some of the same people who provide insider perspective to actual reporters, but the willingness to extrapolate wishful thinking is a textbook example of bad journalism. This is true even if some of the suppositions are confirmed in time.

Truth indeed. I liked the Alex Jones comparison a few days ago.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:08 pm

I'm a few weeks in to grand jury duty, and the notion that they would bring something to the grand jury for the purpose of getting a no bill vote makes no sense to me.

They come to the grand jury with a prepared indictment, with the case presented by the prosecutor. They don't get there unless the prosecutor is confident that they will get a vote to bill.

I would think that it would be *very* difficult to get an unbiased grand jury on this though. Also, I would keep in mind that the grand jury has the power to originate charges as well. I don't know how you find enough impartial people for this.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:12 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:They come to the grand jury with a prepared indictment, with the case presented by the prosecutor. They don't get there unless the prosecutor is confident that they will get a vote to bill.

I'll strongly and cynically (but accurately) caveat that this is true for anyone besides police officers in state courts.

I would think that it would be *very* difficult to get an unbiased grand jury on this though. Also, I would keep in mind that the grand jury has the power to originate charges as well. I don't know how you find enough impartial people for this.

I don't think this is actually much of a problem. If I recall from my exposure to law classes in yesterdays...they don't screen them for bias in many jurisdictions. They usually are judging the prosecutor's evidence to go forward with a trial. It isn't much of a bump for anyone besides the aforementioned police officers.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:06 pm

malchior wrote:I don't think this is actually much of a problem. If I recall from my exposure to law classes in yesterdays...they don't screen them for bias in many jurisdictions. They usually are judging the prosecutor's evidence to go forward with a trial. It isn't much of a bump for anyone besides the aforementioned police officers.

If I recall from my being seated on a grand jury every Monday morning, I can tell you that it seems like a problem to me. They screened us for bias initially, and then again before every single case as the prosecutor lays out the indictments.

And they are *supposed* to just judge the prosecutor's evidence to go forward with a trial. Very few of the 23 people in that room are following those instructions. I have yet to hear a single question that was relevant to the task at hand - was a crime committed, is it probable that this person committed it?

They treat every case like they are trying to solve it. I hate them.

In any case, at the end of the day, these people get to anonymously press a button indicating bill or no bill. It would be easy for bias to dictate which button to press. These are *not* our finest citizens.

Also, what does it mean that he has impaneled a grand jury? It was my understanding that there is always a grand jury sitting. You don't create them for one case. You just show up when you are ready to present the indictment.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:09 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Also, what does it mean that he has impaneled a grand jury? It was my understanding that there is always a grand jury sitting. You don't create them for one case. You just show up when you are ready to present the indictment.

Read the details (in lovely 40-posts Twitter format) from Seth Abramson. You are at step #6. The fun begins at step #10.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:17 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Also, what does it mean that he has impaneled a grand jury? It was my understanding that there is always a grand jury sitting. You don't create them for one case. You just show up when you are ready to present the indictment.
Read the details (in lovely 40-posts Twitter format) from Seth Abramson. You are at step #6. The fun begins at step #10.

But I think (I may be wrong here) that his point was that grand juries (like other jury systems) are formed without connection to a case, and are on-hold and available for 'the next case that needs a grand jury'.
So, I guess I would say that 'impanelling' a grand jury just means to say that he has engaged one that was on stand-by ?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:20 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Also, what does it mean that he has impaneled a grand jury? It was my understanding that there is always a grand jury sitting. You don't create them for one case. You just show up when you are ready to present the indictment.
Read the details (in lovely 40-posts Twitter format) from Seth Abramson. You are at step #6. The fun begins at step #10.

(13) The impaneling of a grand jury in the Russia probe was inevitable given that (as I/others have said) it's clear crimes were committed.

Can someone help me with this one?
what crimes were 'clearly' committed?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:21 pm

is that a combination of these two steps?:

(14) Mueller only would've forsworn a grand jury if he'd taken over the case and immediately found no even *potential* evidence of a crime.

(15) If anything, Mueller taking this long to impanel a grand jury means that he's being *incredibly deliberative* about this investigation.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:22 pm

If Mueller is diving deep enough to justify a grand jury, this investigation is probably going to last into next year, maybe even next Summer. Trump can't fire him without facing a palace revolt, so what does he do in the meantime?

Perhaps he reaches out to Vlad and suggests it would be best for everyone concerned if Mueller had an "accident". If I were Mueller I'd be hiring a couple of bodyguards and a food taster.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:25 pm

I guess this is the difference between an *investigative* grand jury, and the nonsense I have to deal with.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:39 am

Unagi wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:Also, what does it mean that he has impaneled a grand jury? It was my understanding that there is always a grand jury sitting. You don't create them for one case. You just show up when you are ready to present the indictment.
Read the details (in lovely 40-posts Twitter format) from Seth Abramson. You are at step #6. The fun begins at step #10.
(13) The impaneling of a grand jury in the Russia probe was inevitable given that (as I/others have said) it's clear crimes were committed.

Can someone help me with this one?
what crimes were 'clearly' committed?

Kushner (and I think Flynn) pretty clearly violated FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act). Kushner also pretty clearly lied on his security clearance forms (regarding meeting with foreign agents). Manafort I am less clear on his crimes, but my impression is that he's pretty clearly dead to rights on some of the foreign agent stuff as well.

And Trump pretty clearly obstructed justice when he fired Comey specifically to stop an investigation against him and his people and then publicly stated that he did so for that reason. Though that's a tougher road.

There others too. It seems pretty clear to me that Eric Trump committed fraud when he told donors that he was getting the Trump golf course and other stuff for free when he knew that he wasn't. Though I don't know that Mueller is looking into that (assume not).

Honestly at this point it's not whether there are indictments, but how many.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:41 am

tgb wrote:If Mueller is diving deep enough to justify a grand jury, this investigation is probably going to last into next year, maybe even next Summer. Trump can't fire him without facing a palace revolt, so what does he do in the meantime?

Perhaps he reaches out to Vlad and suggests it would be best for everyone concerned if Mueller had an "accident". If I were Mueller I'd be hiring a couple of bodyguards and a food taster.

Sort of. Mueller has the whole "Trump might try to fire me at any moment" hanging over his head, so I assume that he's going to try to go at a faster pace than he would otherwise.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:30 am

I read some thoughts (can't find them now) that Mueller would have some protection now. Firing him while a grand jury is in play would look pretty bad.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:17 pm

malchior wrote:Firing him while a grand jury is in play would look pretty bad.

That's good to know, because the one thing I've really come to appreciate in the last 8 months is just how concerned President Trump is with how things appear for him, his administration, family members and company.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:19 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
malchior wrote:Firing him while a grand jury is in play would look pretty bad.
That's good to know, because the one thing I've really come to appreciate in the last 8 months is just how concerned President Trump is with how things appear for him, his administration, family members and company.

That was my immediate thought as well.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:39 pm

Politico reporting that two Republican House Intelligence Committee staffers traveled to London a few months ago to look for Christopher Steele. The amazing part? They did it without telling the Democrats on the committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee or Robert Mueller. That sounds totally normal.

The previously unreported trip underscores the importance of the 35-page dossier Christopher Steele wrote last year to congressional probes into possible collusion between Moscow and the 2016 Trump campaign.

It also has inflamed simmering tensions between House and Senate investigators as they pursue simultaneous probes into the Trump-Russia connection.

So in summary, yeah, there's a pee-pee tape.

EDIT: Fret forgive me