Posted on 06/07/2018 12:36:18 PM PDT by detective
Of all the questions hanging over the special counsel investigation, one stands out: How will President Trump fare in the end?
An indictment is one possibility that has grown increasingly unlikely. The office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has told the president’s lawyers that it plans to abide by the Justice Department’s view that sitting presidents cannot be indicted no matter what the evidence shows. Still, if Mr. Mueller finds wrongdoing, Mr. Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.
But for now, there are several other potential outcomes while Mr. Trump is president. The New York Times spoke to defense lawyers, legal experts and former Justice Department officials to determine how the Mueller investigation may play out for Mr. Trump. The Times explored the likeliest outcomes in this little-tested area of the law; some have nearly endless permutations that are not covered here.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The NYT is hoping for an indictment by Rosenstein and impeachment by Congress. That is what Mueller is working towards.
It is interesting when the Trump haters announce their plans in advance.
Mueller wouldn’t be asking for cell phones if he had any evidence.
The cell phone demand is simply more ponds to fish in to further expand his boundless investigation.
“Hey! You called from the same Area Code as the Russian Embassy in D.C.!!!!
I have a better chance of re-growing my amputated leg than President Trump has of being impeached. Why are we still talking about this nothingburger?
The whole thing is turning-off the bulk of the American people and increasing Trump’s re-election prospects by the day.
As soon as the polling data smacks senior DemonRat officials upside the head Mueller will be prevailed upon to wrap-up his investigation.
Disagree! They'll insist he indict a ham sandwich that Trump is eating!
I notice that absent from the options is that the People get fed up with the Mueller probe and Congress shuts down the funding effectively ending it without any action
I also noticed that a ruling that Mueller’s appointment gets ruled unconstitutional and the probe gets shut down was also not mentioned.
I wonder why these two options were not listed.
/sarc
“The office of the special counsel...”
That’s “councel”, you dip-wads!
More NYT BS. They will never quit...
Only five writers for a work of fiction?
Must have had some layoffs...
It is interesting that The Slimes is admitting that an indictment is “increasingly unlikely.”
Bobby Mueller is not going to be their white knight coming to rescue them from Trump. If the Dems fail to take the House, they are screwed and they are finally waking up to that reality.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
That was a waste of a minute that I will never get back.
5.56mm
FIVE PEOPLE to WRITE this???? OMG!
By talking about indictments - even in the past tense - they attempt to legitimize the entire “investigation” by making an assumption that there was something there in the first place.
It’s obvious to anyone with vestigial frontal lobes that there isn’t.
They start with an assumption unbuttressed by evidence and work backwards to attempt to legitimize it.
No, special counsel is correct. However, I think special conceal might be a more apt title in this case. Because his appointment as special counsel was to conceal and obfuscate the truth. 8>)
I’m wondering which one, or possibly all, of these New York Times reporters, Michael S. Schmidt, Charlie Savage, Alicia Parlapiano, Anjali Singhvi, and Troy Griggs, are likely to be indicted for their crimes.
What’s that you’re saying? What crimes? That there’s no evidence of any of them having committed any crimes?
Pish posh, Comrade - that’s such an outdated, bourgeois standard that has no relevance in today’s Progressive world. We will come up with a list of the crimes that they are accused of committing, even if we have to pull them out of our, um, that is, even if we have to make them up out of thin air.
Those New York Times “journalists” (ha ha ha) are fantasizing about President Trump’s imaginary crimes, for which no evidence has been uncovered during the course of a bogus year-plus “investigation”.
They didn’t teach that in “journalism school”, but no matter - that’s the way that it works in bizarro New York Times anti-Trump propaganda world.
If that low (meaning ‘non-existant’) standard is good enough for the New York Times, then it’s good enough for me.
Rule number one. If there are two or more authors to a NY Times article you can be sure it’s nothing more than mental masturbation.
This is a joke. We’re talking about the presidency of the USA. Nixon was stupid. He did nothing wrong, except covered things up, plus he had enemies.
Trump is ten times smarter than Mueller and the rest of them, and his campaign to discredit all of them is working.
His AG didn’t have his back on this, and seems like they rammed it through without consulting with Trump. I’d be damn mad to at Sessions.
Red meat for leftists?
Yep, Trump understands this is a political fight and has framed it as such. He is brillant at branding. The only way impeachment/removal/forced to resign in shame works is if his polling is driven way, way down.
“This is a joke. We’re talking about the presidency of the USA”
This is what the Mueller people, the Washington establishment and the media want to happen.
This is their plan. This is what they are working towards.
If the so called Blue Wave that they are all working towards materializes and the Democrats win a majority in 2018 this plan will be put into action.
It is nice that they can tell us what they are planning to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.