Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The investigations are ongoing: (Original Post)
tblue37
Mar 2019
OP
It would seem these ongoing investigations will outlast his presidency. He needs to face justice.
YOHABLO
Mar 2019
#2
I agree we need some new laws. Show your taxes and divest yourself..no more of this bullshit! nt
UniteFightBack
Mar 2019
#4
tblue37
(68,436 posts)1. More:
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)2. It would seem these ongoing investigations will outlast his presidency. He needs to face justice.
We can never allow someone of his ilk sit in the office of President ever again. Legislation must be passed to ensure this.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)4. I agree we need some new laws. Show your taxes and divest yourself..no more of this bullshit! nt
BigmanPigman
(55,138 posts)3. He wrote a 49+ tweet thread last night. It was a lot to think about.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109203639581712386/photo/1
Seth Abramson
1/ What this man, his family, and his aides did is criminal, harrowing, and would lead any reasonable observer to conclude that Trump, much of his family, and several of his aides are criminals who are a national security threat and need to be out of the White House immediately.
ago
2/ I have written two books on this with 4,500 citations in total. I'm sorry that people who have done less research than me—and therefore know less on these topics—have a bigger voice. I can't do anything about that except present my credentials and all the evidence I have seen.
3/ Mueller brought 199 charges. Work ongoing in 5 other jurisdictions will almost certainly produce more. Congressional and counterintelligence probes could eventually produce still more. But as to Trump, this was always a *political* question—not a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt one.
4/ I focused my 2 books on the collusion and conspiracy questions—because as to obstruction even just the evidence that we had publicly was clearly enough to convict the average American. But as the question was always what Congress would do with that evidence, I left it to them.
11 replies 83 retweets 422 likes
5/ The question of whether Congress has sufficient evidence to impeach has also never been in doubt—whether it's on emoluments, abuse of power, obstruction, violation of an Oath of Office, or various forms of coordination with a hostile foreign power that attacked our elections.
6/ Follow me on this, as it's critical: whether there was or is *beyond a reasonable doubt* evidence on Trump on *conspiracy* is not only *not* the question that's ever been before us, but so far from the question that only Trump and his allies have pushed it as a key issue here.
7/ As to conspiracy allegations involving Trump, the only question was *ever* whether there was enough evidence to impeach—which there is—and it was *never* whether Bob Mueller would or even *needed* to make out a *criminal* case with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof.
8/ Having said that, what *does* confuse people is that Mueller had ample evidence for conspiracy on Manafort and didn't proceed with it, and cut deals with Gates/Flynn to help them avoid potential conspiracy charges but then didn't indict the man they would've given up: Kushner.
9/ Do I have an answer for why the public evidence—just *that*—against Manafort didn't add up to conspiracy? No, I don't—not as a criminal attorney, and not as an investigator. And I don't know that Mueller can explain it, either. Why do you think he interviewed him for 50 hours?
10/ But I've tried many criminal cases—and I've no doubt I've written two books that would lead a reasonable juror to believe Manafort, Kushner, Flynn, and Gates participated in a conspiracy. Presumably, Gates and Flynn have helped Mueller so much that he decided to let them go.
11/ What Trump supporters want to hear—what even some in media want to hear—is those of us who've researched this issue say the evidence that's there isn't there. That's won't happen. But I *would* like to know why not one fact in Proof of Collusion has been contested. By anyone.
12/ Nor are there any facts in *Proof of Conspiracy* that don't come from major-media sources—so I don't expect any of the facts in *that* book to be contested, either. And everyone who read Proof of Collusion calls the facts harrowing (and the facts in the sequel are far worse).
13/ So I'm at a loss: not because the evidence isn't there (it is, and Mueller surely has much more); not because I don't have the professional background and experience to assess the evidence (I do); not because Mueller didn't seem distressed by the same evidence I was (he did).
14/ I watched a lot of TV tonight, and know what my peers in the law were thinking—not my peer Democrats; not rank partisans; not journalists with no legal/criminal-investigative background; what my *peers in the law* were thinking—that none of this makes sense. *Professionally*.
15/ You don't interview Cohen and Manafort for 50 hours each with no new indictments. You don't give Flynn a deal—or Nader or Gates—without new indictments coming from it. And if you think Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Nader and Gates don't point to Kushner you don't know the evidence.
16/ I saw @AllMattNYT falsely claim on CNN tonight that hashtag "resistance" folks—a group I'm not in—say there's still going to be a big conspiracy indictment. I've seen no one say that—but I *have* seen professionals say something here isn't making sense and it eventually will.
17/ And that's my primary message tonight: if you've worked this case hard for 2 years, and if you have the necessary expertise to grok the evidence, something isn't making sense right now—but you've also worked in the system long enough to know that it eventually (somehow) will.
18/ The opinions of those with no legal/investigative expertise—pro-Trump, anti-Trump, in media, out—don't matter now. And I mean that respectfully. So if you're a non-legal #MAGA troll writing to bark about a legal issue, I'm sorry to say that *as to that topic* I don't see you.
19/ Meanwhile, if you're someone with legal or investigative expertise and you're on media tonight saying that what's happening now makes sense, I can say for certain you don't know *this case*. And if you have expertise *and* know this case, I'm sorry—you're bad at what you do.
20/ There are folks out there who always approached this case as partisans—always dialogued through it as partisans—and if #MAGA folks want to bark at those folks tonight, well, it's premature, but it's also Twitter. But if you think any *experts* are sanguine tonight... no. /end
21/ As to what Mueller will do with one other category—inculpatory evidence he discovered involving potential offenses he regarded as outside his purview—I have no idea whether those will be in the report, were sent to other federal prosecutors, or will be given to Main Justice
22/ What we have today are a large number of non-attorney journalists who don't understand what a *small part* of the big picture is being dealt with and discussed today because they want to believe they have a handle on a story they do *not* have a handle on. That's distressing.
23/ Imagine that tomorrow Bijan Kian says, "I saw things on the national security team during the transition—I want to talk." Imagine Stone says that. Imagine that any of the cases Mueller's cooperating witnesses are working on now—including Gates and Flynn—beget new indictments.
24/ Under those circumstances, what would today's too-oft-heard pronouncement—"no new indictments"—even mean? Or what would it mean if any of the cases Mueller referred to SDNY, EDVA, DC, state courts, or Main Justice—whether in the past or just recently—lead to new indictments?
25/ What if the counterintelligence cases that do not appear to have been subsumed by Mueller's investigation return to the criminal sphere in the future as new indictments? What if Congressional investigations spurred by Mueller's work produce new evidence, and then indictments?
26/ Thus—given all this—my statement that this investigation isn't "Mueller's." It now resides within—besides, still, Mueller's grand jury—the Stone case, the Kian case, Gates' cases, Flynn's cases, Cohen's cases, SDNY, EDVA, DC, NYCDA, NYAG, Main Justice, FBI, CIA, and Congress.
27/ And "new indictments" in *any* of those spheres may not be prosecuted by Mueller himself—but they will be the product of his work and the fact that his investigation has unleashed a snowstorm of legal hurt upon Donald Trump the likes of which no president has previously seen.
28/ This explains, too, why "final"—applied to today's "report"—is false. There is only a finality to Mueller himself bringing new indictments (with the exception that many things could happen that *would've* led to new indictments for Mueller that he'll now allow DOJ to handle).
29/ But Mueller did something else for America that we are only just beginning to appreciate: news stories tracking down what Mueller was working on informed us that what we call "Trump-Russia" isn't really "Trump-Russia" at all—that Trump's malfeasance goes *well* beyond Russia.
30/ That is, no matter the scope of what Mueller "reports," we know he investigated—and may have sent to other prosecutors outside Main Justice—data on pre-election Trump collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Qatar: all intersecting with Russian collusion.
3:17 PM · Mar 22, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
30/ That is, no matter the scope of what Mueller "reports," we know he investigated—and may have sent to other prosecutors outside Main Justice—data on pre-election Trump collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Qatar: all intersecting with Russian collusion.
31/ The extent to which Mueller pursued these leads is partly mandate-based and partly due to the imposition of urgency upon his work by voters, media, politicians, possibly DOJ itself. Investigation of these other courses of collusion—many quite baroque—can't be wrapped up soon.
32/ So for instance, major media reported that Mueller was looking into Trump-Saudi collusion—and soon after Representative Schiff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence picked up that thread, and will pursue it even if Mueller left it out of his "report" to DOJ.
33/ I keep putting "report" in quotes because what Mueller has made is a "report" by DOJ *regs* but not as we generally understand the term: it is not a conclusive statement that addresses all complexities of a given issue. It is a narrow perspective on a single subset of issues.
34/ DOJ can't charge someone with something *or discuss in much detail that they considered doing so*—or perhaps even *any* detail—unless they can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt: with 90%+ certainty. But would a full "report" tell us there was 78% proof of conspiracy?
35/ To put this in concrete terms: If Mueller found 81% proof that Trump criminally conspired with the Kremlin, it's entirely possible you wouldn't find that anywhere in any "report" Mueller files. Would you then call that a full and final "report on conspiracy"? No—you wouldn't.
36/ Just so if Mueller had 78% proof Trump Jr. perjured himself. Or 86% proof Erik Prince did. Or 69% proof that Kushner committed espionage. That's all stuff you'd like to know—and that we'd expect in any "report" deserving that name on those topics—but you wouldn't see it here.
37/ To be clear, this isn't sour grapes—as the fact that this intel *won't* be in this "report" media is over-hyping only means that, instead, you will see this 78% (or 86%, or 69%) proof of harrowing federal felonies *paraded before Congress on your TV screen at home*. And more:
38/ It will *continue* to be—invisible to you and me—the subject of ongoing investigations by the FBI/CIA such that, if/when proof of Kushner committing espionage (say) goes from 69% to 90%, it *will* reappear in the criminal justice system as a "new indictment." You bet it will.
39/ So when I say "Mueller's final Trump-Russia report" is neither Mueller's, final, "Trump-Russia," or a report, I mean it—it isn't any of those things. That doesn't mean it's not an important milestone in an historic test of our rule of law, democracy, and civic fabric—it *is*.
40/ We're not jurors—we don't need 90%+ proof of conspiring with Russia to find a POTUS unfit or shun Kushner the rest of his life. My book PROOF OF COLLUSION—and upcoming book PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—establish these things at the high level of certainty informed citizenship demands.
41/ As for offenses underlying collusion and conspiracy—obstruction, witness tampering, perjury, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, RICO and more—as to both Donald Trump *and* his family and aides I have every reason to believe such investigations and cases proceed onward.
42/ As for collusion and conspiracy—the latter a charge in itself, the former chargeable when it arises in conduct qualifying as conspiracy, aiding/abetting, bribery, fraud or even offenses like obstruction—there's *another* group that isn't jurors requiring 90%+ proof: Congress.
43/ PROOF OF COLLUSION and PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—taken together as a duology of Trump/Trumpworld treachery—make a fulsome case for impeachment in the context of the offenses alleged being national security threats no Congress can demand 90%+ proof of for an impeachment to proceed.
44/ And it's for this precise reason that *another* investigation will not be stopped should there not be found (by Mueller) 90%+ proof of conspiracy: the counterintelligence investigations that preceded Mueller's investigation and that are—as far as any of us know—still ongoing.
45/ In short, as to any offense which isn't a high crime or misdemeanor and involves Trump and his family, the investigation of such crimes continues; as to high crimes and misdemeanors, 90%+ proof not only won't be required and isn't expected, it *cannot* be set as the standard.
46/ I'd have liked Mueller to handle the prosecution of Don Jr., Prince, and others lying to Congress, but if others do so that's fine; I'd have liked Mueller to hold Kushner accountable for all that he's done with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others, but have *no* doubt he will be.
47/ I'm sad that—for the sake of clicks, eyeballs, ratings, and the salaries of those who live by a breaking-news chyron—what happened today has wrongly been cast as the end of something rather than (as
@neal_katyal
wisely said) the beginning of something. But that's media today.
48/ The reason I often remind people that I was a practicing criminal attorney for years—and am still an attorney—and that I was trained as a criminal investigator at two universities and then practiced as a criminal investigator, is because I stand by my professional judgments.
49/ Trump is what I've said he is, and he's done what I've said he's done. Hundreds of hours of professional research for two books leave no doubt for me. Whatever we receive from Barr in the coming days—whether comprehensive and transparent or opaque and elusive—that remains so.
50/ You—whoever you are, reading this—want this to end *now*. I want it as much as you do—maybe far more. But it won't end anytime soon. What we see when we see Mueller's work will be the end of just *one* chapter of U.S. history's longest, most complex, most harrowing epic. /end
PS/ I just want to acknowledge a couple things I chose not to address in this thread: most notably, whether "no new indictments" from the SCO right now means no sealed indictments to unseal, or the fact that no obstruction indictment means nothing because Trump can't be indicted.
PS2/ Folks wisely note that Mueller gave great deals to a lot of people to get them to give info on people higher up, e.g. Flynn, Gates and Nader. That's why I noted that Flynn and Gates are still being used in multiple cases and Nader's help on Saudi Arabia may still be active
PS3/ Folks likewise wisely note that many people you'd expect to have seen interviewed either weren't (Ivanka) or only narrowly (Jared). That's why I noted that there are investigations ongoing in several jurisdictions that may well see these individuals *eventually* get noticed.
PS4/ The wisest thing I heard this evening was a smart progressive pointing out that the only thing we know now that we didn't know a few hours ago is that some sort of report exists. Basically everything else we read online and see on TV about what Mueller has said is a *guess*
Seth Abramson
1/ What this man, his family, and his aides did is criminal, harrowing, and would lead any reasonable observer to conclude that Trump, much of his family, and several of his aides are criminals who are a national security threat and need to be out of the White House immediately.
ago
2/ I have written two books on this with 4,500 citations in total. I'm sorry that people who have done less research than me—and therefore know less on these topics—have a bigger voice. I can't do anything about that except present my credentials and all the evidence I have seen.
3/ Mueller brought 199 charges. Work ongoing in 5 other jurisdictions will almost certainly produce more. Congressional and counterintelligence probes could eventually produce still more. But as to Trump, this was always a *political* question—not a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt one.
4/ I focused my 2 books on the collusion and conspiracy questions—because as to obstruction even just the evidence that we had publicly was clearly enough to convict the average American. But as the question was always what Congress would do with that evidence, I left it to them.
11 replies 83 retweets 422 likes
5/ The question of whether Congress has sufficient evidence to impeach has also never been in doubt—whether it's on emoluments, abuse of power, obstruction, violation of an Oath of Office, or various forms of coordination with a hostile foreign power that attacked our elections.
6/ Follow me on this, as it's critical: whether there was or is *beyond a reasonable doubt* evidence on Trump on *conspiracy* is not only *not* the question that's ever been before us, but so far from the question that only Trump and his allies have pushed it as a key issue here.
7/ As to conspiracy allegations involving Trump, the only question was *ever* whether there was enough evidence to impeach—which there is—and it was *never* whether Bob Mueller would or even *needed* to make out a *criminal* case with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof.
8/ Having said that, what *does* confuse people is that Mueller had ample evidence for conspiracy on Manafort and didn't proceed with it, and cut deals with Gates/Flynn to help them avoid potential conspiracy charges but then didn't indict the man they would've given up: Kushner.
9/ Do I have an answer for why the public evidence—just *that*—against Manafort didn't add up to conspiracy? No, I don't—not as a criminal attorney, and not as an investigator. And I don't know that Mueller can explain it, either. Why do you think he interviewed him for 50 hours?
10/ But I've tried many criminal cases—and I've no doubt I've written two books that would lead a reasonable juror to believe Manafort, Kushner, Flynn, and Gates participated in a conspiracy. Presumably, Gates and Flynn have helped Mueller so much that he decided to let them go.
11/ What Trump supporters want to hear—what even some in media want to hear—is those of us who've researched this issue say the evidence that's there isn't there. That's won't happen. But I *would* like to know why not one fact in Proof of Collusion has been contested. By anyone.
12/ Nor are there any facts in *Proof of Conspiracy* that don't come from major-media sources—so I don't expect any of the facts in *that* book to be contested, either. And everyone who read Proof of Collusion calls the facts harrowing (and the facts in the sequel are far worse).
13/ So I'm at a loss: not because the evidence isn't there (it is, and Mueller surely has much more); not because I don't have the professional background and experience to assess the evidence (I do); not because Mueller didn't seem distressed by the same evidence I was (he did).
14/ I watched a lot of TV tonight, and know what my peers in the law were thinking—not my peer Democrats; not rank partisans; not journalists with no legal/criminal-investigative background; what my *peers in the law* were thinking—that none of this makes sense. *Professionally*.
15/ You don't interview Cohen and Manafort for 50 hours each with no new indictments. You don't give Flynn a deal—or Nader or Gates—without new indictments coming from it. And if you think Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Nader and Gates don't point to Kushner you don't know the evidence.
16/ I saw @AllMattNYT falsely claim on CNN tonight that hashtag "resistance" folks—a group I'm not in—say there's still going to be a big conspiracy indictment. I've seen no one say that—but I *have* seen professionals say something here isn't making sense and it eventually will.
17/ And that's my primary message tonight: if you've worked this case hard for 2 years, and if you have the necessary expertise to grok the evidence, something isn't making sense right now—but you've also worked in the system long enough to know that it eventually (somehow) will.
18/ The opinions of those with no legal/investigative expertise—pro-Trump, anti-Trump, in media, out—don't matter now. And I mean that respectfully. So if you're a non-legal #MAGA troll writing to bark about a legal issue, I'm sorry to say that *as to that topic* I don't see you.
19/ Meanwhile, if you're someone with legal or investigative expertise and you're on media tonight saying that what's happening now makes sense, I can say for certain you don't know *this case*. And if you have expertise *and* know this case, I'm sorry—you're bad at what you do.
20/ There are folks out there who always approached this case as partisans—always dialogued through it as partisans—and if #MAGA folks want to bark at those folks tonight, well, it's premature, but it's also Twitter. But if you think any *experts* are sanguine tonight... no. /end
21/ As to what Mueller will do with one other category—inculpatory evidence he discovered involving potential offenses he regarded as outside his purview—I have no idea whether those will be in the report, were sent to other federal prosecutors, or will be given to Main Justice
22/ What we have today are a large number of non-attorney journalists who don't understand what a *small part* of the big picture is being dealt with and discussed today because they want to believe they have a handle on a story they do *not* have a handle on. That's distressing.
23/ Imagine that tomorrow Bijan Kian says, "I saw things on the national security team during the transition—I want to talk." Imagine Stone says that. Imagine that any of the cases Mueller's cooperating witnesses are working on now—including Gates and Flynn—beget new indictments.
24/ Under those circumstances, what would today's too-oft-heard pronouncement—"no new indictments"—even mean? Or what would it mean if any of the cases Mueller referred to SDNY, EDVA, DC, state courts, or Main Justice—whether in the past or just recently—lead to new indictments?
25/ What if the counterintelligence cases that do not appear to have been subsumed by Mueller's investigation return to the criminal sphere in the future as new indictments? What if Congressional investigations spurred by Mueller's work produce new evidence, and then indictments?
26/ Thus—given all this—my statement that this investigation isn't "Mueller's." It now resides within—besides, still, Mueller's grand jury—the Stone case, the Kian case, Gates' cases, Flynn's cases, Cohen's cases, SDNY, EDVA, DC, NYCDA, NYAG, Main Justice, FBI, CIA, and Congress.
27/ And "new indictments" in *any* of those spheres may not be prosecuted by Mueller himself—but they will be the product of his work and the fact that his investigation has unleashed a snowstorm of legal hurt upon Donald Trump the likes of which no president has previously seen.
28/ This explains, too, why "final"—applied to today's "report"—is false. There is only a finality to Mueller himself bringing new indictments (with the exception that many things could happen that *would've* led to new indictments for Mueller that he'll now allow DOJ to handle).
29/ But Mueller did something else for America that we are only just beginning to appreciate: news stories tracking down what Mueller was working on informed us that what we call "Trump-Russia" isn't really "Trump-Russia" at all—that Trump's malfeasance goes *well* beyond Russia.
30/ That is, no matter the scope of what Mueller "reports," we know he investigated—and may have sent to other prosecutors outside Main Justice—data on pre-election Trump collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Qatar: all intersecting with Russian collusion.
3:17 PM · Mar 22, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
30/ That is, no matter the scope of what Mueller "reports," we know he investigated—and may have sent to other prosecutors outside Main Justice—data on pre-election Trump collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and Qatar: all intersecting with Russian collusion.
31/ The extent to which Mueller pursued these leads is partly mandate-based and partly due to the imposition of urgency upon his work by voters, media, politicians, possibly DOJ itself. Investigation of these other courses of collusion—many quite baroque—can't be wrapped up soon.
32/ So for instance, major media reported that Mueller was looking into Trump-Saudi collusion—and soon after Representative Schiff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence picked up that thread, and will pursue it even if Mueller left it out of his "report" to DOJ.
33/ I keep putting "report" in quotes because what Mueller has made is a "report" by DOJ *regs* but not as we generally understand the term: it is not a conclusive statement that addresses all complexities of a given issue. It is a narrow perspective on a single subset of issues.
34/ DOJ can't charge someone with something *or discuss in much detail that they considered doing so*—or perhaps even *any* detail—unless they can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt: with 90%+ certainty. But would a full "report" tell us there was 78% proof of conspiracy?
35/ To put this in concrete terms: If Mueller found 81% proof that Trump criminally conspired with the Kremlin, it's entirely possible you wouldn't find that anywhere in any "report" Mueller files. Would you then call that a full and final "report on conspiracy"? No—you wouldn't.
36/ Just so if Mueller had 78% proof Trump Jr. perjured himself. Or 86% proof Erik Prince did. Or 69% proof that Kushner committed espionage. That's all stuff you'd like to know—and that we'd expect in any "report" deserving that name on those topics—but you wouldn't see it here.
37/ To be clear, this isn't sour grapes—as the fact that this intel *won't* be in this "report" media is over-hyping only means that, instead, you will see this 78% (or 86%, or 69%) proof of harrowing federal felonies *paraded before Congress on your TV screen at home*. And more:
38/ It will *continue* to be—invisible to you and me—the subject of ongoing investigations by the FBI/CIA such that, if/when proof of Kushner committing espionage (say) goes from 69% to 90%, it *will* reappear in the criminal justice system as a "new indictment." You bet it will.
39/ So when I say "Mueller's final Trump-Russia report" is neither Mueller's, final, "Trump-Russia," or a report, I mean it—it isn't any of those things. That doesn't mean it's not an important milestone in an historic test of our rule of law, democracy, and civic fabric—it *is*.
40/ We're not jurors—we don't need 90%+ proof of conspiring with Russia to find a POTUS unfit or shun Kushner the rest of his life. My book PROOF OF COLLUSION—and upcoming book PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—establish these things at the high level of certainty informed citizenship demands.
41/ As for offenses underlying collusion and conspiracy—obstruction, witness tampering, perjury, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, RICO and more—as to both Donald Trump *and* his family and aides I have every reason to believe such investigations and cases proceed onward.
42/ As for collusion and conspiracy—the latter a charge in itself, the former chargeable when it arises in conduct qualifying as conspiracy, aiding/abetting, bribery, fraud or even offenses like obstruction—there's *another* group that isn't jurors requiring 90%+ proof: Congress.
43/ PROOF OF COLLUSION and PROOF OF CONSPIRACY—taken together as a duology of Trump/Trumpworld treachery—make a fulsome case for impeachment in the context of the offenses alleged being national security threats no Congress can demand 90%+ proof of for an impeachment to proceed.
44/ And it's for this precise reason that *another* investigation will not be stopped should there not be found (by Mueller) 90%+ proof of conspiracy: the counterintelligence investigations that preceded Mueller's investigation and that are—as far as any of us know—still ongoing.
45/ In short, as to any offense which isn't a high crime or misdemeanor and involves Trump and his family, the investigation of such crimes continues; as to high crimes and misdemeanors, 90%+ proof not only won't be required and isn't expected, it *cannot* be set as the standard.
46/ I'd have liked Mueller to handle the prosecution of Don Jr., Prince, and others lying to Congress, but if others do so that's fine; I'd have liked Mueller to hold Kushner accountable for all that he's done with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others, but have *no* doubt he will be.
47/ I'm sad that—for the sake of clicks, eyeballs, ratings, and the salaries of those who live by a breaking-news chyron—what happened today has wrongly been cast as the end of something rather than (as
@neal_katyal
wisely said) the beginning of something. But that's media today.
48/ The reason I often remind people that I was a practicing criminal attorney for years—and am still an attorney—and that I was trained as a criminal investigator at two universities and then practiced as a criminal investigator, is because I stand by my professional judgments.
49/ Trump is what I've said he is, and he's done what I've said he's done. Hundreds of hours of professional research for two books leave no doubt for me. Whatever we receive from Barr in the coming days—whether comprehensive and transparent or opaque and elusive—that remains so.
50/ You—whoever you are, reading this—want this to end *now*. I want it as much as you do—maybe far more. But it won't end anytime soon. What we see when we see Mueller's work will be the end of just *one* chapter of U.S. history's longest, most complex, most harrowing epic. /end
PS/ I just want to acknowledge a couple things I chose not to address in this thread: most notably, whether "no new indictments" from the SCO right now means no sealed indictments to unseal, or the fact that no obstruction indictment means nothing because Trump can't be indicted.
PS2/ Folks wisely note that Mueller gave great deals to a lot of people to get them to give info on people higher up, e.g. Flynn, Gates and Nader. That's why I noted that Flynn and Gates are still being used in multiple cases and Nader's help on Saudi Arabia may still be active
PS3/ Folks likewise wisely note that many people you'd expect to have seen interviewed either weren't (Ivanka) or only narrowly (Jared). That's why I noted that there are investigations ongoing in several jurisdictions that may well see these individuals *eventually* get noticed.
PS4/ The wisest thing I heard this evening was a smart progressive pointing out that the only thing we know now that we didn't know a few hours ago is that some sort of report exists. Basically everything else we read online and see on TV about what Mueller has said is a *guess*
tblue37
(68,436 posts)5. Yes, I read his tweets daily. nt
tblue37
(68,436 posts)6. BTW, I see you took my advice in order to embed actual tweets. nt
BigmanPigman
(55,138 posts)7. No, I copied and pasted each one since
I am a tech mo mo (I know my weaknesses and this is one of the biggies) and tried what you said and couldn't figure it out on my touch screen tablet. I get really frustrated quickly. 
tblue37
(68,436 posts)8. Go to the tweet on his page and click it. That takes you to the tweets in
proper order on a separate page. Then copy the URL for that page, but when you paste it, remove "mobile." so that the link begins with "twitter" rather than "mobile." Don't forget to remove the period between " mobile" and "twitter" in the link.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)9. We need to keep investigating until we get indictment of tRump.