Trump, Capone, & Syphilitic Dementia
“By late March, the crimes of Trump, his family, and his associates will much more fully exposed. More republicans will find it impossible to defend the Trump mob. The legal cases in the courts and the House committee investigations will be plowing the decaying feces known by the brand name “the Trump administration” under. And much of what might seem to be rotting will instead be understood to be part of the necessary process of germination. And between late March and June, those of us at the grass roots level will have the opportunity to plant the seeds of democracy as a follow-up to the fantastic efforts made for the last elections.”
H2O Man; White House Rats; 12-25-2018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211591082
A lot of people are concerned about the “end” of the Mueller Team's investigation. This includes many who are worried about what is being said about reports that this part of the investigation will not produce further indictments. And some are repulsed by the republicans gloating that there was “no collusion.” All of this, without any knowledge of what Mr. Mueller's report to Attorney General Barr says or doesn't say.
Let's take a closer look. To begin with, we know that what became the Mueller investigation started with a counter intelligence effort by the FBI. It expanded, due to evidence that numerous people connected to the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians and Russian-connected interests. This, as Malcolm Nance has pointed out, raised the question of if they were witting or unwitting dupes.
If they were witting dupes, it was possible that criminal charges would follow. If, on the other hand, they were merely half-wits being duped by Russia, their actions may or may not have been legal. An examination of this could lead prosecutors to charge them with other crimes related to their activities.
In either case, there are two factors to keep in mind. First, the counter intelligence investigation involved “intelligence” from both other domestic agencies, and information from at least three other countries. Much of this is from levels that federal prosecutors rarely, if ever, can use as “evidence” in a court case. Hence, we hear former federal prosecutors and intelligence people on the news making the distinction between “intelligence” and “evidence.”
This intelligence is almost never used when a related counter intelligence operation is ongoing. This can, unfortunately, tie the hands of prosecutors in a large case such as Mr. Mueller was investigating. Yet that does not equal the entire case being “over.” (Mr. Mueller's indictment of the Russian military intelligence members was based upon “intelligence.”)
The second factor is that federal prosecutors only indict when they know the evidence they have provides a higher level of certainty of a conviction than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” instruction a jury receives. This concept is essential for our understanding of what will be coming after the Mueller report. I've been told that a federal prosecutor needs to believe she/he has a 95% chance of getting a conviction to move forward.
There has been speculation -- from sources reliable and unreliable – that there were sealed filings in the court where the Mueller team filed indictments and other related documents. Based upon the sequence of those filings, some thought they might be indictments from Mueller. The fact that none were unsealed on Friday indicates they are not from Team Mueller.
However, recent court activities relating to Rick Gates, as well as Michael Flynn, indicate that investigations relating to the Trump crime family are on-going. As has been reported numerous times, Mr. Mueller began shifting cases to at least three other offices.
What does all this mean? I tend to listen closely to Nick Ackerman, when he is on MSNBC. I also have great respect for a retired investigator I speak with from time to time. Among other things, he helped put mobsters from the construction industry in the federal pen.
I like people who think outside the box. For example, can a president be indicted? The same part of the Constitution that addresses impeaching the president also covers the vice president and federal judges. Think Agnew. Consider a federal judge, Robert Collins, being incarcerated in 1991 before being impeached. No one is above the law.
Why no indictments for conspiring with the Russians? This can't be answered until Roger Stone's case is completed. But it may be due to the counter intelligence nature, as well as the 95% rule. Manafort's first trial showed that a single juror might disrupt justice. The Scooter Libby case showed that if one defendant refuses to tell the truth, even when facing conviction for lying, it makes it difficult to prosecute at the next level.
Yet, I was reminded that Patrick Fitzgerald openly called upon Congress to investigate VP Cheney's role per the Libby case. Justice requires coordination between those agencies and institutions tasked with insuring the rule of law.
Finally, I was reminded of the “Capone Rule.” Often, it is more of a “sure thing” to follow the money with mobsters, to get the sure conviction.
We don't know – yet – what the Mueller Report contains. It's unlikely we will, even if Barr shares his impressions with some in Congress today. Be patient. There is much more to follow.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
Disappointed ... 
but only slightly
My big cooking day - prescient as always 
Agree - there is much to follow.
