Can anyone provide or cite to a list of criminal investigations DOJ is currently conducting?

[StarfishSaver]

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. If I haven't heard about it, then it must not exist

And I will complain they aren't doing their jobs.

[malaise]

41. Nicely played

[StarfishSaver]

42. Interesting that aside from one "No, but ..." response, no one has answered the question

[malaise]

43. Is that required?

It's way easier to just attack Garland

[LanternWaste]

45. They really should get that on a t-shirt.

"Well, I've never seen that happen so I will remain hipster-skeptical" is one a hundred variations on the 'never trust anyone over 30' crap.

[Ocelot II]

2. I see what you did there...

[Ohio Joe]

3. That is not a public thing...

[Ocelot II]

4. Exactly the point.

[Ohio Joe]

5. Heh...

See... That is what happens when I read DU on only my second cup of coffee. I should really wait till late afternoon when I'm awake and paying actual attention

[Effete Snob]

6. No, but I can provide a list of people who are not indicted

For example:

Not indicted : Matt Gaetz

Indicted : Stephen Alford (the guy who tried to extort Matt Gaetz over various allegations made about him)

The DoJ can move pretty fast when they want.

Or, try this on for size:

Not indicted : Rudy Giuliani - not indicted five months after his premises searched and devices seized

Indicted : Michael Cohen - pleaded guilty four months after his premises searched and devices seized

Another thing I can do is tell whether it is raining or someone is pissing on my leg.

Some of this stuff is heading into a carbon copy of the Q "storm" theory, or the Louise Mensch nonsense about secret indictments.

If we build enough of these, then the real ones will return with cargo:

[StarfishSaver]

7. I'll put you down as a "No."

Thank you.

[Effete Snob]

12. Congratulations

You managed to condescendingly read the entire first word of my post.

I guess the rest was more difficult.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I read your entire post

Nothing in it after "No" was responsive to my question. Your admission that you can't cite to any current DOJ investigation answered my question.

The rest of your post wasn't difficult. It was just irrelevant to the topic.

[NurseJackie]

26. ...

[Effete Snob]

30. Do you actually talk to people like that in your real life?

Is this a normal conversation for you? Or just rhetorical point scoring against strangers?

Entire cults are premised on "We don't know what (God / Jesus / intelligence agencies / law enforcement / angels / cosmic forces / aliens) are up to. Therefore, some (optimistic premise / snake oil / religious belief / whatever) that I have to offer is superior."

For example, I don't know what Jesus is up to, but I'm pretty sure the folks who think he's coming back are kind of pathetic to keep hanging on.

The Q nuts had remarkable faith in the fabled "storm" - a round-up of miscreants they didn't like.

Here at DU, there's been Fitzmas, the Mueller report, and so on.

A lot of federal crimes have statutes of limitations as low as five years. So, yes, there does come a point where one can safely assume that a crime committed in, say, 2016 is not going to be prosecuted. And that doesn't require any knowledge of what's inside the black box being touted by the man on the soapbox at the medicine show.

But get your personal digs in to some stranger on the internet, if that's what floats your boat.

[StarfishSaver]

33. What crime committed in 2016 do you think can't be prosecuted in the next few months or year?

And besides Fitzmas and the Mueller report, what are the other cases your "and so on" refers to?

[Effete Snob]

35. Wire fraud, for one

I’m not going through every offense in 18 USC for someone who treats others like punching bags for having a different opinion.

I asked you if you talk to actual people that way in real life.

But, fine, wire fraud taps out in five years. And if you are going to say “nobody’s being investigated for that” then how about you provide the list of offenses being investigated - or does the “we don’t know” rule only apply to others?

But in general, the SOL for ALL federal non-capital offenses is five years under 18 U.S. Code § 3282:

18 U.S. Code § 3282 - Offenses not capital

(a) In General.—
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.

So, that’s basically most offenses relevant to the Mueller investigation relating to the 2016 campaign.

And since that’s the default federal SOL, then how about you identify relevant offenses that AREN’T subject to the default rule.

[StarfishSaver]

37. Those crimes are ongoing and the statute of limitations doesn't start to run until the last act

in furtherance of the crime has been completed.

Trump has continued to engage in acts related to those campaign finance violations long past the date of the initial act, so the statute of limitations likely won't expire this year.

In fact, I can't think of any serious crime that Trump could be accused of in which the statute of limitations is in danger of running out in the next few months.

Also, I suspect that DOJ is preparing a RICO case against Trump, which would mean a panoply of crimes - including fraud
obstruction of justice, slavery, money laundering, etc. - will be tied together to show a pattern of criminality on his part. If that's what they're doing, the five year statute of limitations will be tolled until the last racketeering act was committed. And since he probably is continuing to commit crimes to this day, the statute may never actually start to run ...

[Effete Snob]

38. Oh, so now you know what the DoJ is doing?

Ah, RICO! The battle cry of proponents of odd legal theories everywhere.

A common theme in many religions is the belief in divine agencies which will punish the prosperous wicked in the afterlife. IMHO it is a common religious belief due to widespread disappointment in the observable reality that the prosperous wicked are seldom punished.

[StarfishSaver]

39. I didn't say I knew what DOJ is doing

Re-read my post.

And no, "RICO" is not the "battle cry of proponents of odd legal theories everywhere" nor is it based on a "belief in divine agencies."

If you think that, you might want to check in with R. Kelly, who was convicted today on RICO charges and, as a result, will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. He probably has an entirely different take on the efficacy of RICO than you do.

[Effete Snob]

36. The "and so on"

Is inclusive of the Mensch nonsense, the Qanonsense, and various “war crimes” so-called tribunals popular during the W administration.

The “lock him/her up” rallying cry is not exclusive to any one political orientation. Stoking belief in imminent criminal prosecution is a time-honored set piece of political rhetoric.

[LanternWaste]

46. Ten bucks says you fail to see the irony of telling others they're condescending.

Leading beautifully ironic into your second sentence.

Congratulations, indeed!!










(space provided free of charge below to move goalposts if ethically necessary)

[NanceGreggs]

8. Can you tell us ...

... the current status of the investigations into the people you've listed, and any other individuals that are being investigated - and provide your sources for that information?


TIA!

[Effete Snob]

9. A dream is a wish your heart makes

Michael Cohen is a former Trump attorney. He was criminally charged weeks after being searched.

Rudy Giuliani is a former Trump attorney. He remains uncharged months after being searched.

You can believe in whatever unicorns you want, but merely wishing things to be true is a poor way to live. You can also remain blind to the political cargo cults such as Q and the Mensch nonsense, all of which hinge on beliefs and hopes for future criminal indictments.

If you click your heels three times, Fitzmas will come.

Say hi to Linus out there.




You want to tell me what happens after death? No? Well, there's lots of people making bank on hopes and dreams based on that simple proposition.

[StarfishSaver]

14. The only thing Giuliani and Cohen have in common is that they were both Trump attorneys

And not even, for the most part, at the same time.

The facts relating to each of them are completely different, so comparing them and insisting that Giuliani's case should proceed on the same timeline as Cohen's because they are both "former Trump attorneys" makes no sense.

[Effete Snob]

20. That's kind of odd

You are the one who believes and, as noted in your “prediction” post, has stated your apparent confidence in future events based on no evidence whatsoever.

I’m old enough to remember when the Mueller report was going to bring them all down. I’d be willing to bet without looking that certain people believed that too.

[Effete Snob]

10. Tick tock...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215384328

^^^^ Name One ^^^^^

[mcar]

11. No, but GARLAND ISN'T DOING ANYTHING AND HE MUST INDICT TRUMP NOW11!!

[Ocelot II]

15. How do you know he's not doing anything?

Have you spoken with him? Visited his office? Watched him work, read his emails? Why do you think he should publicize his department's criminal investigations? How long do you think complex criminal investigations of former presidents are supposed to take?

[StarfishSaver]

19. I think mcar was being sarcastic

[Ocelot II]

21. Maybe so - apologies if that was the case.

I just get a little prickly on this issue.

[StarfishSaver]

22. It is often hard to tell the difference

[NurseJackie]

27. ...

(she was)

[mcar]

29. No worries

I get prickly on the issue too (as you can see).

[mcar]

28. Did I really need to include the sarcasm emoji?

Oh well, guess I did.

[Ocelot II]

31. My bad. Your satire of people who really think that way was too convincing!

[StarfishSaver]

32. With all due respect to mcar, it wasn't hard

It was a direct quote ...

[mcar]

34. Thanks

[Hekate]

17. KnR

[msfiddlestix]

23. Beating a dead horse is so much fun..

[StarfishSaver]

24. You apparently think so ...

[msfiddlestix]

25. I guess a sarcasm coda is required from time to time

so here it is for reference to previous post:

[StarfishSaver]

47. So far no list has been forthcoming

Why is that, I wonder?

[EffieBlack]

48. Hmmm

[StarfishSaver]

49. Kick

[BigmanPigman]

51. You're kicking your own post?

Hmmmmmmm

[CanyaDigIt]

52. Notice posts 47 and 48...

Where she responds to herself.

[BigmanPigman]

53. Yes, I did. That is why I had to comment.

And she "kicked herself" again over a week after she posted the original OP. What's up with that?

[StarfishSaver]

50. Kick

Since the "Where's Merrick Garland" drumbeat seems to be starting up again ...