Could There Already Be There An Indictment Under Seal for Trump?

I never said Trump could be charged with obstruction; I said a person can be charged with obstruction. Moreover premediated intent does not have to be shown to charge someone with obstruction, so the reason behind the obstruction is irrelevant.

Furthermore Trump cannot be indicted (and therefore charged) for obstruction per DOJ policy (determined after extensive constitutional analysis -- twice, in the 70s and the 90s), and this type of policy cannot be altered by a judge. A federal judge never directs a US Attorney to get an indictment or to file a charge.

It is not illegal to hold back on a sealed (or unsealed) indictment that arose from the same series of crimes. It is just highly irregular and the judge would want to know the reason the prosecutor is making more unnecessary work for the court.

 

Of course I was in abject denial, because there was no crime.

 

Trump cannot be indicted under current DOJ regulations, which are being reviewed for either regulatory or federal court action to declare the regulations illegal.

Thank you for admitting that an indictment can be held back, RodB.

 

That might be one reason for the highly irregular holding back a charge or indictment until after the trial. It is hard to see how that would work, but it is thinly possible.

Well, for the 171st time there cannot be an indictment of the president, sealed or not.

 

The practical dilemma is how can a prosecutor's decision to not indict or charge someone be found illegal by a judge? ANS: it can't

 

ANS: meaning, then, that Mueller can have Trump indicted.

 

There are no DOJ rules stopping them from charging Trump, it's an opinion really. As for holding back an indictment against Cohen, if it's related to Trump, Mueller could hold it back since he is still working on unravelling the Trump/Russian web. There is no way Mueller will not follow down every lead or possible crime before he acts or files his report.

 

But you just admitted that there was a crime when you made this statement;

Illegalities = crime!

 

Yes! He did because he knows what Trump is but supports him likely for one main reason. It's called the deal with the devil many Trump supporters have made.

 

Good point.

Something else worth noting is that there is a direct correlation between what the BLOTUS lies about and what his supporters are in denial about. This manifests itself in them insisting that up is down and that alternative "facts" are their "reality" no matter how absurd.

 

Where did this come from????? I never said nor implied that because it is not true (at least according to the law).

 

Check on "the law" and indictments of presidents.

 

The DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel has twice, in the 70s and in the 90s, issued extensive analyses and opinions that the president cannot be indicted, and that was made official policy. The Special Counsel law says an appointed special prosecutor must follow DOJ procedures and policy. This means Mueller cannot charge the president with anything because he cannot ask for nor get an indictment. By the way, this makes prefect sense for anyone objectively interested. Simply, they determined that one man with a law degree cannot upset the presidency and potentially stymie the man or woman constitutionally elected by millions of citizens and the one person ultimately charged with running the entire country.

Presumed Trump/Russian web stuff is nowhere to be found in any of Cohen's accusations, pleas, or charges.

 

Opinion not rules.......not official policy.

 

I have no idea what you mean.

The point is that a person can plead guilty to something he did not do or wasn't even a crime. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations but was not explicitly charged with them by the SDNY.

 

Nothing you say bears any connection with any facts of the discussion. Par for the course.

 

see post # 413. Now I'm getting really damned tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Trump was elected president and the sun rises in the east -- all opinion, but evidently not policy.

 

We are tired of correcting your explanations. Their is no "law" against indicting Presidents, RodB.

 

It hardly matters, Bill Clinton pled guilty to obstruction of justice after he left office (lying in the Paula Jones case) and all he got was a fine. Trump can actually expect less as he can cite the various dodgy behaviours of Comey and co /

 

I see that you can no longer defend your position so you are trying to step away from it. Understood.

 

Nope, he can't expect that even if he tries it.

 

Well, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel says otherwise. Take it up with them; I'm done here.

 

Nice to see you have some comprehension left.

 

It's easy to identify inability due to lack of rational thought.