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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wt1531

(424 posts)
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 12:34 PM Dec 2017

Blissfully unaware that the investigators may already have multiple indictments

Mueller may have multiple sealed indictments that include Trump himself, and Trump and his Russia conspirator friends are blissfully deluded in thinking they will all get cleared, and may be even get flower baskets from Mueller for Christmas.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blissfully unaware that the investigators may already have multiple indictments (Original Post) wt1531 Dec 2017 OP
Can't help but wonder about the reasons, motivations behind his lawyers telling him that.. hlthe2b Dec 2017 #1
In other matters, trump's attorneys have proven themselves to be rank amateurs. George II Dec 2017 #7
don't overlook gov't staff attorneys..... getagrip_already Dec 2017 #11
Those government attorneys likely represent the office of the President, not Trump specifically. Caliman73 Dec 2017 #21
Yes. What we learn about the SC investigation is always 2 to 3 months underthematrix Dec 2017 #2
"You go down there." Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2017 #3
+1 2naSalit Dec 2017 #5
Good lord what an awesome film. byronius Dec 2017 #9
It does take two to three months Wellstone ruled Dec 2017 #4
On the other hand, Kushner has hired a crisis PR firm. As if PR will solve a heavy indictment. . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #6
They're reality show people, they think PR rules all. George II Dec 2017 #8
What is the evidence that there are sealed indictments? PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2017 #10
no "evidence", just circumstantial indications..... getagrip_already Dec 2017 #12
So some indirect evidence which might amount to reading tea leaves. PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2017 #14
I'm sure quite a few people know... getagrip_already Dec 2017 #18
Yes, very strong circumstantial evidence. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #17
I don't think there is real evidence, but there is some reason for optimism. Gore1FL Dec 2017 #13
I'm under the impression that Plamer and Axios are less than reliable sources. PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2017 #15
Axios proven rather reliable (jury still out on a couple stories). Palmer republishes & adds spec Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #16
I thought I said as much. nt Gore1FL Dec 2017 #19
Mueller bdamomma Dec 2017 #20
I just snorted with laughter when I read this. . . . Thanks for making me smile and laugh! BigDemVoter Dec 2017 #22

hlthe2b

(102,292 posts)
1. Can't help but wonder about the reasons, motivations behind his lawyers telling him that..
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 12:42 PM
Dec 2017

range from some very "out-of-touch"/"out-of-their-league" attorneys to desperate attempts to prevent catastrophic action to (I suppose) some horrific plot we've not even considered that would render all of this moot..

Regardless, he may be the ONLY one experiencing any level of "bliss"

getagrip_already

(14,764 posts)
11. don't overlook gov't staff attorneys.....
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 03:27 PM
Dec 2017

they are very, very, good at what they do, and they work for the orange groper.

Still, they may not be motivated to offer legal advice, maybe just prepare briefs on request. But they are probably 100x more qualified than his private attorneys.

Caliman73

(11,738 posts)
21. Those government attorneys likely represent the office of the President, not Trump specifically.
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 06:33 PM
Dec 2017

I would imagine as you stated, that they provide advice on filings and procedure when requested, though they are likely staying as far away from the whole investigation as they possibly can. I know I would limit (and record somehow) all of my interactions with that snake just as a CYA.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
4. It does take two to three months
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 02:03 PM
Dec 2017

for things to come together. You have Grand Juries,Court Docket's that need to be taken into consideration.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,862 posts)
10. What is the evidence that there are sealed indictments?
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 02:52 PM
Dec 2017

They keep on being mentioned here, and it's not clear to me that those indictments are anything but a figment of imagination.

getagrip_already

(14,764 posts)
12. no "evidence", just circumstantial indications.....
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 03:38 PM
Dec 2017

People are going by docket numbers. There is a system called Pacer which the courts and attorneys use to track cases moving through the courts. Anyone indicted will have a pacer docket number, even if the case is sealed for some reason.

So people have looked at the cases that were unsealed and noticed that there other, sealed indictments, with sequential docket numbers either before or after the ones that were unsealed. So if the page indictment was say, record number 100, but there were six sealed records from 101-106, you could guess they might be related, or at least entered at the same time by the same prosecutor.

The problem with this guessing is there are usually a large number of sealed indictments in the system at any time. They could be completely unrelated, or they could be indictments muehler really is holding as secret.

One other clue is that one of the charges against mannafort was labeled something like Amendment B. So people are guessing there is an amendment A out there which hasn't dropped yet.

It's all tarrot card reading.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,862 posts)
14. So some indirect evidence which might amount to reading tea leaves.
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 04:57 PM
Dec 2017

Is there a time limit on how long an indictment can remained sealed? If not unsealed does it just go away after a while? Why would an indictment be sealed in the first place?

Since no one has any idea what is in those sealed documents (would court clerks have read them? Not that I expect they'd leak anything) it's all endless speculation.

getagrip_already

(14,764 posts)
18. I'm sure quite a few people know...
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 05:24 PM
Dec 2017

But they isn't sayin nuttin.

The grand jury would know if they are gj indictments. The clerks, prosecutors, and judge would know. Even rosenstein would know since he (I think) has to approve indictments. And that means his staff would know.

But the system is designed to keep this stuff secret. It sometimes leaks, but not too often.

It does make you wonder though. If any indictments are against trump, I would think "someone" would have blabbed. People would tell their spouses about it for sure. Grand Juries are just people with families.

Someone would have blabbed about something like that. It is just too powerful a factoid to stay bottled up for long.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,007 posts)
17. Yes, very strong circumstantial evidence.
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 05:09 PM
Dec 2017

Four sealed indictments were issued between and at the same time as the Manafort and Papadopoulos public indictments at that Virginia courthouse.

Since then there have been other sealed indictments that circumstantially may connect.

Gore1FL

(21,132 posts)
13. I don't think there is real evidence, but there is some reason for optimism.
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 03:39 PM
Dec 2017

While this isn't especially current, I found an article suggesting 4 sealed indictments exist that might be Mueller's:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/22972/mueller-not-done-federal-court-docket-shows-four-emily-zanotti#exit-modal

Of course that's just speculative.

Then there is the transition email haul.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/ace-sleeve-mueller-2/6700/

Of course that's just a Palmer Report article expounding on an Axios scoop. I'm not inclined to let that ride by itself as proof, either. Additionally, the article implies the threat of indictment, not existing ones.

"Sealed indictments" are by definition secret, so at some level it's a "figment of imagination" or "wishful thinking" may be as good as it gets until something is unsealed. There is some reason to be hopeful based on the news that is coming out and the notion that Mueller and his team know way more than we do. Only time will tell.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,862 posts)
15. I'm under the impression that Plamer and Axios are less than reliable sources.
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 04:57 PM
Dec 2017

I am reminded constantly of Fitzmas.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,007 posts)
16. Axios proven rather reliable (jury still out on a couple stories). Palmer republishes & adds spec
Tue Dec 19, 2017, 05:06 PM
Dec 2017

Palmer's republishing is reliable. Their speculation: not so much.

Axios is well connected to Washington VIPs. Founded by the founder of Politico, but still rather new. People tar Axios with the Koch brush, but it seems to be a silent investment with little or no influence (along with other investors).
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Blissfully unaware that t...