360

Of course, he will. No doubt he will latch onto it and tweet about it and declare the whole thing a witch hunt and hoax and that in any case he’s in no danger. Even though he shouldn’t and is by no means home free. It certainly does not mean Mueller’s evidence against Herr Trump is weak:

“There’s something for everybody in the big story The Washington Post broke Tuesday night about how special counsel Robert S. Mueller III told President Trump’s lawyers last month that Trump isn’t currently a criminal target in the Russia investigation. For Trump, it reinforces his apparent belief that he is in the clear. For his critics, it’s the idea that a wily Mueller might be duping Trump into a false sense of security so he’ll grant Mueller an interview.”

FN: As we see in Chapter A Mueller was not as wily as we might have hoped. He ended up getting bullied out of requiring Trump to sit down for an interview and while it’s arguable Trump perjured himself on his take home exam Mueller didn’t charge him for perjury.

Well I certainly qualify as one of ‘his critics’ and it is clear that it DOESN”T mean he’s in the clear. Indeed, everything Mueller has done has been to show that his investigation is talking collusion seriously-the charges against George Papadopoulos, the charges against the 13 Russian hackers, the news that Manafort is being investigated for conspiracy to collude, the fact that Dutch lawyer Alexander van der Zwaan was just convicted for perjuring himself in February regarding conversations between Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, and former Russian intel agent Konstantin Kilimnik.

So everything points the opposite way-that there is a case on the issue of collusion. Now wether or not Trump is in jeopardy, it’s plausible that he will be in time.

FN: Post the Mueller Report we know that Trump was never in direct legal jeopardy as Mueller follows the DOJ precedent-of questionable legality it’s true-that a President-or even ‘President’ like Trump’-can’t be indicted. As for collusion Mueller never investigated that specifically which isn’t technically a crime.

Back to the Post:

“There is a popular school of thought, as The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig and Robert Costa noted in the piece, that Mueller may not even view charging the president with crimes as a potential outcome of the investigation. It has to do with an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 (read: Nixon, Richard) that was affirmed in 2000 (read: Clinton, Bill).”

FN: This school of thought, of course, proved correct.

To be sure, that original decision not to charge Nixon was highly questionable-the Watergate grand jury had wanted to find indict him but Leon Jaworksi-perhaps rather timidly- settled for an ‘unindicted co-conspirator.’ So now that’s precedent.

So now some argue that Trump can’t be indicted for any reason.

Here’s what that Office of Legal Counsel said in 2000, from then-Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss:

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.

That second sentence is key: “No court has addressed this question directly.” That means Mueller isn’t bound by this opinion, which is after all merely an opinion.

“But he is a longtime creature of the Justice Department who may decline to step outside the bounds of what the Justice Department has previously recognized as its authority. Going outside those bounds would also potentially invite allegations of overreach — of which Trump and his defenders have already accused Mueller’s investigation — and possibly complicate the prospects of any political resolution (i.e. impeachment). In other words, Mueller has plenty of reason not to try to charge Trump with crimes, even if the evidence would lead him to charge basically anybody else.”

FN: As usual Trump’s opponents always worry about his attacks and respond to Trump’s asymmetric game symmetrically-color within the lines more furiously.

Last night’s Dem debate was notable for how none of the candidates chose to attack Trump. Democratic consultants and ‘strategists’ worry about Trump’s mean tweets. Masha Gessen pointed out how the MSM always treated Trump’s throwing chess pieces around the board as a normal chess move-‘Gee that’s unusual but what’s his strategy?’

The Dem leaders and candidates continue to do the same thing-respond to asymmetric warfare symmetrically as only GOPers-and ex GOPers-seem to understand.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/morning-joe-urges-democratic-debaters-to-destroy-trump-they-dont-need-to-play-fair/?utm_source=push_notifications

What no one has yet figured out-wether Trump’s GOP establishment opponents in the 2016 primary, the MSM-who still take his latest tweets and outrages at face value-then Mueller, and now the Dem leaders and 2020 candidates is that Trump’s strategy works so well because they continue to treat him as if he’s giving them straight lines.

End of FN

I don’t know what Mueller’s view on indicting Trump is but at the end of the day, I do agree that what to do about Herr Trump is a political decision more than a legal one and that impeachment is the most important remedy if the evidence shows he did engage in collusion with the Russian government.

FN: But it’s very much open to question if the Democrats are going to impeach or simply let Trump get away with everything thereby sullying the Rule of Law and failing to expunge Trump from the Oval Office-wether or not they are successful in removing him in 2020.

End of FN

“Notably, Leonnig and Costa also report that Mueller’s team has indicated it might roll out its findings in a series of reports. Mueller, if he sees what would otherwise constitute criminal activity involving Trump, could simply put this information into one or more of those reports and leave it to Congress to decide what to do. That may not be as edifying to Democrats as it could be — and Republicans could ostensibly block any effort to impeach Trump and remove him from office — but the point is that this doesn’t necessarily mean Mueller’s evidence is weak.

“In the end, it could mean any of a number of things, but neither side should take this as foreshadowing of any specific or likely outcome. It’s also entirely possible Mueller does think he can criminally charge Trump, but honestly doesn’t view him as a target at this juncture. (And that could always change.)”

I do think, though, if you look at the context of when Mueller’s team told this to Trump’s lawyers-it was in negotiating Trump’s testimony before the GJ-it makes sense that they wanted to make the prospect look as nonthreatening as possible-which is pretty hard at this point. But if they could convince Trump he’s not under investigation that could be enough for his lawyers to agree to an interview.

As it is, there is a divide on the Trump team between those who are open to an interview and those who think it’s just about the worst idea in the world. My guess is the latter side is right but as a ‘Trump critic’ let’s hope the former side wins out and maybe this ‘assurance’ will be enough for that to happen.

FN: Of course the latter side won and one question the Dems will need to ask Mueller is why he let them win without a fight.

As for the larger Mueller Report it remains a question if Barr pushed him to finish up shop early in any way-we had that comment by that Right wing pundit claiming soon after Mueller was hired that the investigation was ‘over.’