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

Not at all, on the contrary I want him replaced in the GOP primaries.

My point was only that he's up 6 points since the last election so who wins is entirely dependent on who the Democrats nominate.

 

No, it was not. He scored almost 48% in the election. Here are real numbers for you Steady Pie: He is down 6 to 9 points since the last election. And it's going to get worse.

Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 42, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +12

Wednesday, December 19
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 43, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +11
President Trump Job Approval Quinnipiac Approve 39, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +13
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 43, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +9

 

His approval was 37.5% though. He got more in the election because the Dems fielded Clinton.

 

Oh no JS ... you're riding shotgun on this fake news bandwagon. There isn't the slightest possibility that a sealed indictment of DJ Trump exists ... but you insist otherwise. You can't pin your own delusions on anyone else. My news, is that no prosecutor can indict a sitting president. The constitution isn't a fake news article.

 

The fake news team of PI and S P are having trouble. They make assertions without evidence, they are easily rebutted with evidence, then they double down on alt facts.

PI, DOJ regulations and FBI policy says a sitting President can't be indicted, but no law does. That's the way it is, until Congress says differently, meaning DOJ and FBI can change their collective mind.

 

Here is a great article explaining the problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/...nal-puzzle-can-the-president-be-indicted.html

 

And if the crime meets a standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, the House already tallied votes on impeachment and that was before the Democrats won the mid-terms. I don't know what this is, but if it's big then the elements are in place to get Trump in court.

 

There are "travesties", and there are travesties, Te. Each of us could spend the rest of the day enumerating them on both the Left and Right. I certainly do agree about Capital Gains... for as you accurately say -- INCOME IS INCOME. Furthermore, I will be honest enough to tell you straight-up that although I'm fairly 'well-off', but, retired, the Trump tax cuts did pretty much nothing for me, one way or the other....

If I were a radical Democrat (as I once was back in the 'ancient day'), I'd be hoping that the Mueller investigation's results can be brought forth about a month or two after the Democrats are fully 'back in the saddle' of the House of Representatives. By that point, everybody in both parties will know where the new assortment of 'knobs, dials, and switches' are located, and how they will work for the next two years.

My gut-feel? Trump will be named as an "unindicted co-conspirator", and an ugly, hateful "pissing-match" will ensue that will last throughout the 2020 campaign. Democrats probably won't 'waste their powder' on an impeachment 'Kabuki dance' unless they think they can get enough RINO's, et al, in the Senate to vote for removal -- but that may be very possible if there really is a 'smoking gun'.

With the arrival of such a 'smoking gun', I'd look for Trump to pull a 'Nixon' and resign. Please keep one thing firmly in mind -- neither myself nor anyone else on the Right that I know personally would support Trump if it is legally demonstrated that he broke the law!

But results? Ah, that's the tricky thing, Te... Obama, for instance, flat-out broke the damn law no less than THREE TIMES while he was president, and nobody did ANYTHING about it.... .

 

Yea, but that is a separate court (the Senate is essentially the court in the impeachment proceeding) from the one associated with the SDNY.

 

Obama has not a thing to do with Trump and can't be used as a comparison.

 

Given that the GOP want in complete control over Congress from 2014 onwards why did they FAIL to impeach Obama given your allegation against him? What "laws" did Obama break "3 times"?

The likelihood of the BLOTUS being successfully impeached has escalated considerably since he made the arbitrary and capricious decision to SURRENDER in the Middle East. By doing so he has jeopardized the PROFITS of the Wall Street Casino Bosses and that is an unforgivable political sin. Bush sr paid a steep political price with his "peace dividend". Why should the BLOTUS not be equally punished by the same Lords and Masters of the Universe AKA the Wall Street Casino Bosses?

 

The nature of sealed indictments is that there's no way for us to find out information on them. So what are we talking about lol

 

You know, when I read the multitude of posts like this, I can't help but picture this little dog with his tong stuck out, panting breathlessly.... soon... soon...

 

No ****ing comment, councilor

 

My assertion is that you're delusional if you believe Trump's already been secretly indicted. That's a real enough assessment JS ... but it ain't really "news" is it ...

 

Obama broke the law three times:
1. Broke the War Powers Act in 2011 by deliberately overthrowing the Libyan government, with which we were completely at PEACE.
2. Broke the law regarding recess appointments. Not even his appointed 'stooges' on the Supreme Court defended Obama on this!
3. Broke the law (that he, himself signed into law less than a year before) regarding prisoner 'swaps' out of Guantanamo prison.

I've written about this countless times. Look it up anywhere....

And, I also written countless times that if there are credible charges that should be brought against President Trump, then LET THEM BE BROUGHT FORTH, and let justice be done -- no matter what course it takes! Parenthetically, I was NO fan of either of the Bush presidents, for so many reasons....

BTW, have you managed to think of a GOOD Democrat candidate to run for the presidency in 2020? I'm serious. The job is probably the Democrats' for the taking if they can come up with someone who isn't a STOOPID, conniving criminal, and, less than, say, ANCIENT in age by January 2021.... If you could come up with anyone who even vaguely measures up to John F. Kennedy, you'd win in the biggest landslide since Reagan wiped the floor with Jimmuh Cawduh in 1980 (Oh, but THAT was *SWEEEEEET*).

 

I do. Not while in office, but once he leaves. And I have an inkling that he will leave - on his own for reasons of 'health' - before 2020.

Trump believed that being POTUS was going to be great for his business and make him wealthy...methinks he is rethinking that decision right about now...

 

Trump may well leave before 2020, supposedly for 'health' reasons.

 

If Trump lawyers were there it isn't an indictment. It doesn't work that way. Only the prosecutor and the grand jury would be present for an indictment.

 

There may well already be an indictment.

Time will tell.

 

IT’S LIKE THERE’S NOBODY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO SEE PEOPLE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR POLITICAL MANEUVERING: John Huber, Justice Dept. Sheriff Who Never Quite Rode Into Town.

John Huber was appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessionzzzz to investigate why the FBI spied on Trump’s aides and whether they protected Hillary Clinton and her foundation over alleged misdeeds. It was hoped the Salt Lake City-based prosecutor would aggressively expose the malfeasance that has already led to firings and resignations among the bureau’s top brass.

Instead, more than a year since his appointment, Huber’s lack of traction on either front is leading many once hopeful supporters to dismiss his investigation as a “sham.”

RealClearInvestigations has learned from potential witnesses, their lawyers and others close to the investigations, that Huber has not impaneled a federal grand jury to subpoena witnesses or hear evidence.

They are puzzled as to why he has failed to interview key witnesses – such as disgraced FBI officials and Trump advisers targeted by them, as well as Clinton Foundation whistleblowers — who could shed light on whether FBI and Justice Department officials misused their power when they obtained spy warrants to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page; or whether such officials turned a blind eye to millions of dollars in foreign Clinton Foundation donations influencing Clinton’s official decisions as secretary of state. Even when whistleblowers have reached out to Huber, offering reams of evidence, his office has not followed up.​

I didn’t used to see the Department of Justice as a politicized cesspit, but I kinda do now.

 

You miss the points that Huber cannot fine violations to bring to a grand jury.

He won't make up lies for the far right haters.

 

Exactly how are you going to get an indictment without impaneling a grand jury

 

The grand jury can be impaneled secretly, do its job secretly, and indict secretly, all at the Judge's approval.

 

The point is, thats not what happened when Trump lawyers argued with Mueller lawyers with the judge.