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

NRaleighLiberal

(60,018 posts)
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 10:24 AM Jan 2019

538. "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 isn’t accused of wrongdoing, but someone close to him is

Scenario 4: Mueller’s findings aren’t made public, so we don’t 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, it’s likely to trigger another high-profile process — whether it’s a fight over the final report, further investigations by House Democrats and other prosecutors, or even impeachment proceedings. So whatever happens, don’t 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.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

lark

(23,142 posts)
1. I think situation 4 is most likely with Bob Barr AG.
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 10:31 AM
Jan 2019

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)
2. None of the above:
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 10:36 AM
Jan 2019

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)
3. It won't be #5. Kushner and Don Jr. haven't been indicted yet. And they will be.
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 10:50 AM
Jan 2019

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)
10. those weren't tries, those were backchannel
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 01:08 PM
Jan 2019

meetings themselves. Over 100 contacts between the campaign and Russians.

cally

(21,594 posts)
4. Close associates have already been indicted!
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 11:00 AM
Jan 2019

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)
5. C'mon now, we all know those were just coffee boys...
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 11:04 AM
Jan 2019

hanging around the periphery of the campaign running papers back and forth and stuff.

unblock

(52,286 posts)
8. this is missing some critical elements.
Mon Jan 28, 2019, 11:12 AM
Jan 2019

"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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»538. "5 Scenarios For How...