if Mueller hands out indictments (President,his son ,Daughter, Son in law,speaker of house & so on)

[bluestarone]

Can Repubs in Congress stop any of it? After Mueller does his thing, who takes it from there? (please don't say Sessions,as he may be one indicted) would it be Rosentein?

[AJT]

1. I would think the department of justice could stop all of it by refusing to prosecute.

Is that right?

[marylandblue]

3. No, Mueller is the prosecutor

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Thus why they are trying to destroy him as we speak.

If they are successful, we no longer have a country or laws.

Very scary.

[marylandblue]

9. Exactly. That's why we must defend him at all costs.

And it's also why I am pretty sure he will indict Trump. He's been a lawman all his life, he does not intend for the rule of law to end on his watch.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. My prediction is NY indicts trump on money laundering and Mueller indicts

everybody else on election tampering, computer tampering.

And, Mueller could have an obstruction indictment in his back pocket on trump, too.

[titaniumsalute]

20. Actually he's not the Prosecutor...he is leading the Investigation

It would need to be revealed to the DOJ and Congress. Nothing will be done as long as Repukes run the House.

[marylandblue]

22. See my post 5. on 28 CFR 600.6

It says he has the same authority to investigate and prosecute as a US Attorney. They don't need authority from DOJ or Congress to prosecute.

[titaniumsalute]

29. Yep you are correct and I stand corrected thank you

[marylandblue]

2. Mueller has full prosecutorial authority

He prosecutes and the courts decide. Republicans can raise a fuss, but they can't stop the prosecution.

[bluestarone]

4. AWESOME

HOPING SO!!!!

[gibraltar72]

26. And Mueller is

The Lone Ranger. Hi Ho Silver away..

[marylandblue]

5. 28 CFR 600.6

"... the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney."


And just to be clear, US Attorneys themselves act as independent prosecutors. They do not need approval from the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute a crime.

[guillaumeb]

27. Nice responses to the question.

You might consider a separate post about this matter.

[marylandblue]

28. Thanks, maybe I will do that.

[L. Coyote]

7. Mueller doesn't hand out indictments. USAs indict. Mueller convened grand juries.

Grand jury has a prosecutor. Prosecutor seeks indictments from the gran jury. They vote to indict or not. Mueller reports to the USA. US Attorney then hands down any indictment and files charging papers.

[bluestarone]

10. so possibly

Rosenstein?

[L. Coyote]

14. One of the grand juries is in Eastern District of Virginia. See Flynn plea nad Manafort charges.

I think one is in DC district? where Trump was trying to load that court system with a total ignoramus lackey. Manafort and gates were chargedin DC.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html

“There’s a large-scale, ongoing investigation of which this case is a small part,” Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, a prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team, said at Mr. Papadopoulos’s plea hearing this month.

The grand jury has to be in the district where the crime is alleged. The District's USA is the one bringing the indictments. They are reported to Rosenstein, but the USA acts independently. Rosenstein gets a heads up beforehand and could inform Trump, et.al., so watch the tea leaves for clues something is about to happen.

[marylandblue]

18. In this case, the crimes are multiple jurisdiction or international

Then it can be the DC district. For financial crimes, its often the New York District because most of the banks have an office there.

[marylandblue]

16. Mueller does not report to any US Attorney and USAs do not indict

He is the grand jury prosecutor. The constitution requires that grand juries indict, but most of the time, the grand jury indicts whoever the prosecutor wants.

[Jim__]

8. My guess is that Trump's attorneys would appeal any prosecution of Trump to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is stacked.

Trump could pardon the others. Bush I already used the pardon to pardon people who could have implicated him.

[bluestarone]

11. But then maybe

STATE CHARGES?????

[Jim__]

15. He couldn't pardon anyone who is charged by a state.

I'm guessing his lawyers would appeal the power of any state court to try Trump while he is still president.

[marylandblue]

12. They will certainly appeal

But this is different from Bush I. The evidence against him was less clear and he was much smarter about keeping his hands clean. He knew where Nixon went wrong and didn't make the same mistakes.

[Jim__]

17. Is there a way to prevent a president from pardoning someone under federal charges?

The president does have the power to pardon. Bush did pardon people before they were convicted. Is there a way to block that?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

19. No

Barring a SCOTUS decision on it, the President's pardoning power is absolute.

Edit, I should have added, for Federal crimes only. The President cannot pardon state level convictions.

[marylandblue]

21. Probably No, but maybe yes

Presidential pardon authority is broad and the limits have never been tested. So theoretically, the President can pardon anyone at any time. However, there could be an exception if the purpose is obstruction of justice. Courts have never decided the issue, but Mueller could choose to challenge the pardons on that basis.

However, I don't think Trump will be issuing blanket pardons, or if he does, it will help him. He's distanced himself from everyone who's been indicted or pled out so far. He's also has a long history of double crossing people. Based on that, even if he pardoned everyone, can they trust Trump won't later seek revenge for going against him in the first place? Moreover, if pardons, they can be forced to testify without 5th Amendment protection, a fact which Trump will no doubt be made aware of.

[bluestarone]

23. Just your thinking. Do you feel the supreme court of today

will save tRump? After all this shit? I truly hope not,but could it be a tossup whether they would or would not? Your opinion please TY

[marylandblue]

24. My opinion is they will not save Trump

They still have an interest in the rule of law. This will not be some wishy-washy case. It will be clear that the rule of law is at stake, and whatever else bad you might say about them, the majority still believe in the rule of law.

[bluestarone]

25. TY for that

I do feel better. I am very concerned about our supreme court, but i do feel better.