Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
He probably just gives his report on Trump to the DOJ with his recommendation on whether to impeach or not.
|
Well that is where the law enforcement part conflicts with the political part. If Mueller has evidence to indict Trump then he would almost certainly do so. That is the end game of this whole process from Mueller's point of view. If he doesn't then and he recommends impeachment then Mueller becomes a political activist. Without an indictable offense impeachment would almost certainly fail. After all Republicans had Bill Clinton clearly guilty of lying under oath yet a Democratic controlled Senate acquitted him. Expect the same.
Quote:
|
As for the rest of your post, have you read the indictment document? It goes in quite a detail as to why Stone is being indicted.
|
Is Stone Mueller's slam dunk to get Trump? This is the most the most damaging part of the document.
Quote:
|
"[A] senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign."
|
A charge in an indictment document is not proof of anything. It is an allegation which has to be proved. The big question is whether or not that allegation is a crime. That's debatable and almost certainly will be the basis of Stone's defense. Is this not exactly the same thing that the Clinton Campaign did? Getting dirt on political opponents is a long way from collusion with a foreign power.
The Stone indictment does not allege involvement by Stone or the Trump campaign in Russia’s hacking. Is Stone guilty of some process crimes? Probably. Will that lead to inditing Trump? Some legal experts say probably not.
It is becoming more apparent that this whole process is politically motivated. Andrew C. McCarthy makes that point in this article in National Review.
Quote:
|
Not only was the suggestion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy not founded on fact. The officials calling the shots had reason to know that the premise was factually false. In truth, there was no evidence of Trump-campaign complicity in Russian espionage — nothing but the Clinton-campaign generated, unverified Steele dossier. The months-in-the-making Stone indictment is just the latest proof of that.
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ia-conspiracy/
Quote:
...in February 2017, Comey, then the FBI’s director, gave this astonishing public testimony at a House Intelligence Committee hearing:
Quote:
|
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
|
Understand:
1. It is standard government practice never to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
2. This is especially true of counterintelligence investigations, which target foreign powers, not individuals, and which are classified.
3. It violates Justice Department and FBI policy to identify a subject of any investigation if that subject has not been charged with a crime. This is especially true when the subject, whether a person or an entity (like the Trump campaign) is of interest to a counterintelligence investigation — again, such investigations are classified, and subjects whose suspected connections to foreign powers are being scrutinized should never be disclosed.
4. It is simply not true that, as a matter of course in a counterintelligence investigation, the Justice Department and FBI do an assessment of whether any prosecutable crimes have been committed. Instead, whenever agents happen to stumble upon evidence of a crime, they always consider whether to prosecute. This is not a routine aspect of counterintelligence investigations; it is an unremarkable fact applicable to all kinds of inquiries — even background investigations of applicants for government employment.
That is to say: It was wrong to acknowledge the existence of the classified Russia investigation, and it was egregiously wrong not only to name the Trump campaign as a subject but to do so in a manner that suggested criminal prosecution was foreseeable. Any thinking person would have taken Director Comey’s disclosure, in disregard of several law-enforcement and intelligence protocols, to signal that the new president could be conspiring with Russia in an espionage scheme, for which he — or at least officials in his campaign — might very well face criminal charges.
It has to have been obvious to investigators for months that this suggestion was misleading. Yet there has been no correction of the record. For month after month, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the special counsel have been content to allow the presidency to be enveloped in a cloud of suspicion that necessarily infects the administration’s capacity to govern, to conduct foreign relations, and to deal with Congress.
Why?
The Justice Department and the FBI went out of their way to portray Donald Trump as a suspect in what would have been the most abhorrent crime in the nation’s history. It has been more than two years. Is it too much to ask that the Justice Department withdraw its public suggestion that the president of the United States might be a clandestine agent of Russia?
|
The criminalization of political belief. Stalin would be so proud.