General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums538. "5 Scenarios For How Mueller's Investigation Could End"
And what they mean for Trump.
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5-scenarios-for-how-muellers-investigation-could-end/
lots to read - I am including the five headings snips in between
Scenario 1: Trump is implicated in some form of coordination with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election
Scenario 2: Trump is implicated in obstruction of justice
Scenario 3: Trump isnt accused of wrongdoing, but someone close to him is
Scenario 4: Muellers findings arent made public, so we dont know whether Trump is implicated in wrongdoing
Scenario 5: The findings are made public, and neither the president nor any of his close associates are implicated in further wrongdoing
last paragraph
And this, perhaps, is the most important lesson from all of these scenarios: that whenever the Mueller investigation does finally end, its likely to trigger another high-profile process whether its a fight over the final report, further investigations by House Democrats and other prosecutors, or even impeachment proceedings. So whatever happens, dont expect the drama to end when Mueller packs up his office and turns off the lights.
______________________________
my comment - with what we've seen already, and looking at "its" behavior, I can't imagine scenario 5.
lark
(23,142 posts)He's nothing more than a party hack and has already signalled his belief that a sitting president can't be charged. I think after Mueller is subpoenaed by the House and tells all he knows, Scenario 1 and 2 will be true and impeachment will be filed by the House.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)He will only go so far. He will leave the decision on whether or not to remove a president up to the Congress. He will put forth all the circumstantial evidence to complete the investigation and the Congress and the Senate will have to decide what to do about it?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Kushner tried to create a "back-channel" with the russian ambassador.
Don Jr. met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer/lobbyist/agent of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, for the purpose of acquiring something of value that would influence the 2016 election.
WhiteTara
(29,721 posts)meetings themselves. Over 100 contacts between the campaign and Russians.
cally
(21,594 posts)It's absurd how a former campaign manager, national security adviser, longtime friend and adviser et al are not considered "close associates". What is the definition? Family members only?
Wounded Bear
(58,685 posts)hanging around the periphery of the campaign running papers back and forth and stuff.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)onenote
(42,737 posts)violations.
That's the missing ingredient so far.
This analysis spells out the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-evidence-of-collusion-everywhere-but-is-it-a-criminal-conspiracy/2019/01/27/03e87fa4-2265-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
unblock
(52,286 posts)"implicated" is used in 4 out of 5 headers here, but there's a huge range in terms of degree of involvement, and that matters immensely. "more than enough for indictment" would be (well, should be) the end of donnie's tenure and political career, but "might have been vaguely aware something was going on" would be seen as clearing him.
even "obstruction of justice" has a range. personally, i think he's more than crossed the line simply via twitter, but again, if the statements can be spun easily enough as intended to be innocuous or just something an idiot like donnie might not have realized was "technically" illegal, that's a big difference between "clearly intended to sabotage the investigative process".
finally, it also matters if family like donnie junior and jarvanka get indicted. pence, too. that could be very important.