Russia Investigation Heating Up

[time4fun]

Lying to congress wasn't the only thing he was charged with and the only reason Trump isn't going to jail with him is because of the DOJ standard of not indicting sitting presidents.

I keep having to correct myself on this- I always say "DoJ won't indict a sitting President", but actually that's not true. The DoJ policy still allows for sealed indictments (I know you already know this, btw). So it's more accurate to say the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting US President.

Not that it's a huge difference rhetorically, but it's becoming a personal pet peeve of mine that I keep saying the DoJ won't indict a sitting President.

[Parkbandit]

Checks, yes. Cant prove that it's not for a retainer. All it proves is he got paid.

I'm anti Trump - but there wasn't any real evidence. The financial records may have something in them, but we can't see them obviously.

You didn't see the part in the Memo where Trump wrote "Payment for Stormy Daniels.. shh, don't tell anyone!"

[Parkbandit]

I keep having to correct myself on this- I always say "DoJ won't indict a sitting President", but actually that's not true. The DoJ policy still allows for sealed indictments (I know you already know this, btw). So it's more accurate to say the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting US President.

Not that it's a huge difference rhetorically, but it's becoming a personal pet peeve of mine that I keep saying the DoJ won't indict a sitting President.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence

[Androidpk]

So you go from "I'd be cautious about trusting his word as well. But if his testimony matches up with the testimony of others" to "Wellllllllll.....as long as federal investigators found parts of Cohen's testimony credible then surely we can believe everything he says!"

Can't possibly imagine why earlier I said you're just trying to sound like a centrist by playing both sides here, but in just a matter of hours you can't help it and completely contradict yourself.

I'm literally saying the same thing I've been saying for a year. Stop being stupid for the sake of being stupid.

[Androidpk]

I keep having to correct myself on this- I always say "DoJ won't indict a sitting President", but actually that's not true. The DoJ policy still allows for sealed indictments (I know you already know this, btw). So it's more accurate to say the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting US President.

Not that it's a huge difference rhetorically, but it's becoming a personal pet peeve of mine that I keep saying the DoJ won't indict a sitting President.

I won't be the slightest bit surprised if SDNY goes ahead and ignores that policy and has either already filed an indictment under seal or will flat out indict him while he's in office.

[time4fun]

I won't be the slightest bit surprised if SDNY goes ahead and ignores that policy and has either already filed an indictment under seal or will flat out indict him while he's in office.

Filling them under seal isn't against the policy. It's actually outlined in at least one DoJ memo on the subject. And I agree- there is a real chance they've already filled some under seal as I believe the statute of limitations on the election fraud may expire before he leaves office.

Ultimately, though, SDNY still can't violate DoJ guidelines- even if they want to- those guidelines are legally binding. Barr would have to sign off on a prosecution, and that just doesn't seem likely.

[Androidpk]

“I’m thoroughly convinced the SDNY will make its own evaluation. They will not say that’s a department policy,” Jon Sale, a former Watergate and Southern District prosecutor, who is close with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who is now Trump's lawyer, told Politico in a story published Monday. “They’re obviously looking at the president, and I wouldn’t rule out that they could decide you can indict a sitting president,” he said.


Nick Akerman, who also worked on the Watergate prosecution team and was formerly a Southern District assistant attorney, characterized the investigation as very different from the one led by Mueller.


“When you combine their experience with the traditional independence of the Southern District and the reputation it has, this is like another Mueller investigation going on,” he said.


To combat Mueller’s inquiry, Trump and his legal advisers have often relied on executive privilege to protect him from indictment. But that doesn’t work with the Southern District of New York investigation, as it is looking into possible crimes outside Trump’s tenure as president.

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-in...sident-1334917

Former AG Eric Holder also thinks a sitting POTUS can be indicted.

Guess we'll find out in the next year or so.

[Wrathbringer]

I won't be the slightest bit surprised if SDNY goes ahead and ignores that policy and has either already filed an indictment under seal or will flat out indict him while he's in office.

Filling them under seal isn't against the policy. It's actually outlined in at least one DoJ memo on the subject. And I agree- there is a real chance they've already filled some under seal as I believe the statute of limitations on the election fraud may expire before he leaves office.

Ultimately, though, SDNY still can't violate DoJ guidelines- even if they want to- those guidelines are legally binding. Barr would have to sign off on a prosecution, and that just doesn't seem likely.

TR;DR

[time4fun]

“I’m thoroughly convinced the SDNY will make its own evaluation. They will not say that’s a department policy,” Jon Sale, a former Watergate and Southern District prosecutor, who is close with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who is now Trump's lawyer, told Politico in a story published Monday. “They’re obviously looking at the president, and I wouldn’t rule out that they could decide you can indict a sitting president,” he said.


Nick Akerman, who also worked on the Watergate prosecution team and was formerly a Southern District assistant attorney, characterized the investigation as very different from the one led by Mueller.


“When you combine their experience with the traditional independence of the Southern District and the reputation it has, this is like another Mueller investigation going on,” he said.


To combat Mueller’s inquiry, Trump and his legal advisers have often relied on executive privilege to protect him from indictment. But that doesn’t work with the Southern District of New York investigation, as it is looking into possible crimes outside Trump’s tenure as president.

https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-in...sident-1334917

Former AG Eric Holder also thinks a sitting POTUS can be indicted.

Guess we'll find out in the next year or so.

Yeah this is all wishful thinking and indulging in fun what-ifs.

To be clear, he can almost assuredly be indicted on violations of state law. But on Federal law, DoJ policy is binding. You'd need someone to first take DoJ to Court on their policy. And it's not really clear who, aside from maybe Mueller, would actually have standing for that.

Edited to add- remember, even if SDNY went rogue and secured indictments, DoJ could pull out of the case. Though, in fairness, they might not be willing to do it, given how that would look to the American people.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah this is all wishful thinking

This pretty much sums up your political postings on this forum.