So, who is the source of CNN/NBC???

I don’t know what to expect next week. I have suspicions but won’t share them because I don’t want people to treat my suspicions with any more weight than suspicions deserve, which is not much.

—-
You can tell us what you suspect, though…right? Just the people here on the website. We won’t repost it or anything. Promise.

respect (Aretha Franklin YEAH) to you MW for your truthfulness and responsible reporting.

https://youtu.be/6FOUqQt3Kg0

I await w/bated breath….

EW, on a recent media appearance (Pod Save America, I think?), you said you thought it was still possible– but by no means certain– that Mueller’s final move might be an overarching conspiracy indictment, probably charging a number of familiar Trump Campaign cronies as co-conspirators in the Russian hacking and interference crimes.

Does this news, if true, pretty much take that possibility off the table?

I ask because it seems likely that such an overarching indictment would have to either charge Trump himself as a co-conspirator or name him as an unindicted co-conspirator. Given DOJ’s policy against indicting a sitting president, and Mueller’s deference to institutional norms, I wonder whether Mueller might include all the evidence required for that final charge in his report to the AG and then leave the decision about whether to bring the final indictment up to Barr? Is that a possibility here, or do the Special Counsel guidelines require that all indictment decisions be approved or declined before the final report is filed with the AG?

Could it just be a “status” report? A “here’s where we are 21 months in, and here’s what’s left to do” report?

Based on the timing, here’s my speculation for what’s to come: the world is about to come crashing down on the Trump crime syndicate. Rosenstein will approve any last minute actions for Mueller then head for the exit. Barr will shirk any responsibility for the fallout and claim, correctly, that he had not been read-in to the investigation.

Question: Any ideas about the possibility that Trump might be named as an unindicted coconspirator, as happened in 1974 with Nixon? While there are some DOJ policies that generally disfavor such an approach, I understand that, unlike the indictment of a sitting president, there may be some room for discretion under the current DOJ policies.

Someone help me unwind my thinking on this. I’m often guilty of excessive optimism so I might need to be nipped in the bud here.

As I’m understanding it, there are effectively two categories of work products that can be produced by the OSC:

1. A report on the outcome of the investigation, which would be a narrative telling of all the various facts and observations collected during the investigation, culminating in a summary of both the OSC’s conclusions and questions for which no effective conclusions can be drawn.

2. One or more criminal indictments.

Of the two categories it’s my understanding that only item 1, the report, is a mandatory work product of the investigation. In spite of the numerous indictments that have been handed down since the investigation began, these are all secondary deliverables, right?

With the original referral of the Michael Cohen matter to SDNY, the reason given was that the matters being investigated were not within the scope of the OSC’s mandate and therefore needed to be referred out in order to be pursued. But, wouldn’t it be incorrect to assume that the OSC would only refer out matters that HAD to be referred out?

I guess what I’m getting to or asking is this: Doesn’t the OSC have the option to refer out potential indictments to other jurisdictions, EVEN IF those indictments are well within the scope of the OSC’s charter?

Because if so, it strikes me that these issues that are still “in flight” like Andrew Miller and the foreign entity, or even a massive ConFraudUS naming the Spawn etc… they could be handed off to other jurisdictions to continue the chase long after the OSC issued it’s mandatory report and shut down it’s own operations.

In fact, given the specific political and procedural vulnerabilities faced by the OSC, might it not in fact be tactically advantageous to refer EVERYTHING out, to as many different jurisdictions as can be justified, as a hedge against being a “single point of failure”?

The core reason I fear this is excessive optimism on my part is that what I am describing is a classic fictional trope, sometimes dubbed Can’t Stop the Signal.

what do you mean by “too close” to Mueller ?

CNBC reports that the court granted a stay to Mr. Cohen with respect to his report date.
Likely that Mr. Cohen will give a good deal of Mueller information to the House committee.
Hopefully by the time Cohen testifies in public the oversight committee will use professional staff to expedite information.
I anticipate a major from investigation to disclosure.
I have to guess that Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller have thought this through.

Whatever happened to Rudy Giuliani? Did he slink away while no one was looking?

@Willis
I can’t respond to you inline for some reason.

It’s not so much the literal “hearing from Assange,” it’s more figurative, “where in the world is he at this moment, and do we have any reason to believe his location might be about to change?”

Per ew, I think that would be a very good indicator that the grand conspiracy charge is about to come down (which I think there are reasons to believe might be about to happen, and others to indicate it isn’t).

@Rayne, is my name unique enough? Or should I got to one of my T.S. Eliot-base aliases?

There is another explanation for issuing a report next week that Explains a lot of what we’ve seen lately and an event scheduled for next week that’s also in the news.

I agree with Marcy that, if a significant report is issued next week, Mueller deemed it appropriate to do it then. So ask yourself the question: Would a man like Andy McCabe publish his book without Mueller’s being aware and deeming it appropriate also?

Talking points…

— Cohen got an extension on his testimony before Congress. It will take place on February 27th. Why was it postponed in the first place?

— McCabe is on every network suggesting that Trump may be a Russian asset and that Rosenstein was doing cabinet vote counts vis-a-vis 25th amendment considerations after the Comey firing. Would McCabe be saying these things without strategizing with Mueller, Rosenstein, and their respective teams about it?

— If you’re a cabinet member, given everything you’ve seen and heard, are you really going to vote against removing the President if/when Rosenstein or even Barr says, “we have the following evidence about Trump and the Russians… He needs to be removed.” Are you going to vote against removing him?

The timing trigger…

— Trump travels to Vietnam next week for a summit with North Korea. The security communities of the US must be deeply concerned about what might happen.

If you believe that Trump is a Russian asset (and I do) and a profoundly discontinuous phenomenon in US politics then it makes sense that bringing this chapter in the story to a close would be a discontinuous event.

If this explanation of the entire set of events above is correct, it’s not Mueller that set the timing of the chapter end. It’s Trump himself.

A discontinuous ending to the story is plausible.

Trump is right about one thing. Hasn’t he been the greatest… spy of all time?

If the Grand Jury is still in existence it could vote on a request to disclose the Grand Jury evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. It would be best to do that while the White House counsel is at a disadvantage relative to Committee counsel. That would make it unnecessary to even address the involvement of the Pres. in the conspiracy.

Two questions on the window theory:

1. From whose perspective does Rosenstein’s continued stewardship of the Mueller report “legitimize” it politically — and whose perspective should we be worried about? Remember, McCabe just called out Rosenstein as “absolutely serious” in raising the 25th Amendment, and even “counting votes.” And that is only the latest among reasons that Rosenstein is toxic to a substantial swath among the right. Just about everything that “legitimizes” Rosenstein to Trump critics/Mueller supporters disqualifies him to a lot of the right, especially the base. Folks here may not give a rip what that segment thinks — but the GOP does. In fact, Barr’s appointment, from the right’s perspective, is supposed to assuage everybody, but most importantly the rank and file right. And beyond the GOP, many among the Washington establishment are concerned BOTH to try to preserve or salvage the stature and legitimacy of the institutions involved, whatever the outcome, AND to try to prevent a civic meltdown if Mueller brings down a president. Batting away the perspective of Trump’s base as simply wrong doesn’t solve the problem. Point being, political legitimacy is a matter of perspective and the side that loses is the perspective that needs to be worried about. Which would dictate a correlation between the outcome of the report and at whom the optics are aimed: the more damning Mueller’s results and conclusions, the more it is the *right’s* perception that needs to be worried about; which (in principle) argues for Barr’s fingerprints being all over it (or at least for Rosenstein to be as distanced as possible). Conversely, the more of a nothingburger, the more it would be the *left* that would need assurances on legitimacy (and perhaps Rosenstein’s continued involvement checks that box).

Put it this way. If delivering the report under Rosenstein is indeed part of Mueller’s calculus  — it’s not to assuage the Trump people. Take from that what you will.

Which goes to Qt 2: Big picture, I think the idea was that enlisting Barr would legitimize Mueller’s results for everyone, whatever they are; but in actuality neither side really trusts him and whichever side is disappointed will suspect he was airlifted in to manipulate the outcome (whether by over-asserting himself, under-asserting himself, etc.). So in terms of perception, does it really matter if Barr remains hands-off while Rosenstein presides over the completion/delivery of the SC report (whatever the “report” turns out to be)? If what we see underwhelms, will it matter that Rosenstein stuck around? Who would be heartened by that? It’s Barr who determines what we all will see.

So I guess that gets at a question 3 — does the “Rosenstein legitimacy” theory purely apply to politics, or is the implicit suggestion that Rosenstein ensures substantive legitimacy as well? But again does it really matter exactly when Barr takes the reigns? The report is confidential — Barr is the only audience, and he determines what the public sees. Bottom line, it’s his now.

Seriously, who knows. My current take is that Barr’s volunteered for an unenviable role with really no upside, and having done so, plans to be read in almost immediately and be hands-on, and likely will act as a backstop for Mueller’s work and judgments. Whatever the Rosenstein choreography, this whole stink bomb became Barr’s the moment he was sworn in.

Can anyone explain why Rosenstein appointed Mueller in the way he did?

In his appointment order, Rosenstein did not say that he was appointing Mueller pursuant to, or “under,” the regulations. Nor did he cite the provision of the regulations, Section 600.1, that governs the appointment of a Special Counsel from outside the Department. Instead, he wrote that he was acting “[b]y virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice.”

Rosenstein relied only upon statutory, not regulatory, authorities in making his appointment of Mueller. Then, only at the end of his letter appointing Mueller, Rosenstein states that the special counsel regulations “are applicable to the Special Counsel”.

Barr’s testimony during his confirmation hearing refers to following “the regulations”, but there’s no discussion of how the statutes cited by Rosenstein relate to any report made to or by the AG.

Thanks in advance for any and all clarification!

This is just an impossible task of looking at the impartial evidence presented and determining the lacunae that the evidence indicates, and then figuring out Mueller’s strategy based upon guesses about the lacunae. You can think of a thousand possibilities: For example, perhaps Rodger Stone kept some information that was meant to be a dead-man switch if Trump betrayed him, and Mueller obtained it in the recent raid. Or perhaps the primary evidence existed from the start, but all of the parties had to be connected.
This is not my desired progress of the story, but to put things in perspective: “If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all.”
I hope you all don’t obsess about it too much, too early.

Did Flynn wear a wire? To get that sweet a deal after that heinous a crime he didn’t just give intelligence. He gave evidence.

@Migs, @HighDesertWizard

Doesn’t seem far-fetched to me. I don’t think there could be much direct communication however btw Mueller and Barr — very bad optics and couldn’t assume it wouldn’t come out. They’d need someone like Lindsay Graham as a proxy. Around the time Graham switched to agreeing with the Pres that it was appropriate to fire Sessions could have been when this sort of plan came into focus. “I’ll back you on replacement if you nominate Barr.” Trump wouldn’t get exactly who he wanted — he’d get who Lindsay and McConnell would allow — so Lindsay could sell Barr as having the stature to survive a democrat uprising, and the smarts and experience and political savvy to play it straight while possibly mitigating damage to institutions, including the presidency — all of which has the benefit of being true. Barr is probably the result of negotiations between McConnell/Graham and Trump; the Mueller/Barr friendship surely in the backdrop but probably not an active part of how it went down.

On discontinuous developments next week — I noted above that I find it unlikely; that’s assuming that whatever Mueller has, if anything, is more of a plodding, prosecutorial case that would need to be unpacked for the public and then presented to a court or taken up by Congress; not a bombshell or smoking gun (would that have taken two years?). I suppose a huge revelation might warrant this sort of rollout … but still just doesn’t seem like how it would be choreographed (especially not under a newly installed Barr, cast as the neutral “statesman”). Given the nature of the investigation so far, and the real obligation that Mueller (and Barr) would see to keep an indictment or damning report above politics, I don’t think he’ll drop it for political impact, e.g., in a way that seems designed to directly damage Trump’s foreign policy efforts. It’s not like he’s off to punch in the launch codes (that we know of …).

So, what to make of the timing? I have what would be an unpopular opinion around here, so I won’t delve too far down the rabbit hole. I’m not trying to troll. But to try to flesh out alternative possibilities. One thing to consider is that it’s not certain we’re dealing with black and white — as in, there is actually evidence of wrongdoing among pre-Mueller phases of the investigation, including FISA abuse which is very serious (and would have a lot of background players circling the wagons) and also criminal leaking, and that could prompt players (e.g., McCabe) to act for self-interested reasons that might not clearly line up with what Mueller’s doing. Pinning 25th Amendment on Rosenstein, over his own denials — how is that helpful to the DOJ, the FBI, Mueller, or to anyone’s credibility or perceived motives? (although it may have some CYA value for McCabe). Think as someone who hasn’t spent time following all the threads. It can sound like an alarming Constitutional over-reach or what Trump’s been saying all along — the FBI/DOJ were out to get him from the beginning. IMO not a good “primer” for a damning report on the horizon (contrast McCabe’s answers about FBI state of mind/worries about Trump back in May 2017 — seems like a much less extreme and thus far more mainstream-friendly primer for impending accusations ….).

Re the summit: As I noted above, I think the reason Mueller would base his timing on impact (e.g., during foreign diplomacy effort), as opposed to administrative and prosecutorial judgment, would be if he *doesn’t* have the goods and thus his priority is not the integrity (perceived neutrality) of the case but to stoke public worry about a president he finds terrifying but can’t indict for conspiracy. I just don’t think dropping a report during presidential diplomacy is a move that comes from strength. Which is to say, if that’s what Mueller is doing, I don’t think the obvious assumption is that he’s got a bombshell report, but just as likely the opposite. Plus, even the report has a smoking gun — will we even know in real time? Only Barr will actually get the report — in principle we won’t know any more than we do today — so dropping it during the summit would only have the effect of prompting wild speculation to compete with the news cycle. I’m betting it’ll miss the summit. Here’s what I’d predict from where we are today: when the report is delivered, we’ll be informed as to whether it includes an indictment or indictable offenses of the president; if so, it won’t be delivered until Trump is back on U.S. soil, even if barely. If it “clears” Trump, it’ll drop at least 24-48 hrs before Trump leaves U.S. soil, to allow a solid cycle of “now where do the inquiries go …..” reporting.

As to why Mueller appears to have waited for Barr? Well either he thought Whittaker might throw a roadblock to protect the president, or the investigation outcome is a fizzle and he needs Barr’s perceived stature for credibility, so it doesn’t look like Trump’s stooge derailed it all. And that might be why it seems some attention is shifting to non-conspiracy/ non-Mueller crimes (e.g. Cohen, SDNY) and Adam Schiff is saying that even if Mueller’s investigation is inconclusive his committee will keep at it.

An the oh-so-coincidental timing of Cohen testimony (Feb. 27!). That’s Congress, not Mueller. And unlike Mueller/DOJ — the dems ARE interested in maximum political impact. Of course they’d jump at the chance to dovetail off of Mueller’s report and populate the news cycle during the NK summit. Doubtful there’s any coordination here with Mueller. They would want his sign-off re effect on the investigation, but once cleared on that, I doubt they’d take direction or give Mueller a veto on when they schedule it. Scheduling Cohen doesn’t mean they know what Mueller has in store — in fact, apart from what they can piece togoether from their own clearances/access to evidence, they don’t know any more than we do. They just see a good opportunity.

Anyway — who knows! All speculation and we don’t even know if what was reported today about timing will turn out to be true. I do think though that events and information in the public domain can be read different ways!

Occam’s Corollary: Republicans Are Scum.

It explains most ugly things.

Q: Can Mueller unseal any previously filed sealed indictments without Barr’s approval? In other words, has the train left the station on any sealed indictments? Thanks (obviously, I’m not a lawyer…)

I think it’s likely Muellers already indicted the people that conspired with Russia. Stone, Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Popadolous, Assange and he’s putting these offenders in jail.

There probably isn’t much evidence that Trump did or anyone else… Trump doesn’t email and he successfully got everyone to lie/obstruct so far. I don’t think that means Trump is safe from an indictment, just it won’t be about Russia.

It’s an Al-Capone didnt pay his taxes scenario.

They know what Trump did, but Russia conspiracy is probably not the vehicle prosecutors will chose to use for a moon shot.

After Stone I smiled and said “next”, fully expecting that name to be Steve Bannon. As deep as he was in the campaign, and with his position in Trumps circle, I can’t help put wonder how he’s escaped Mueller’s net?

What did I miss?

Whatever report is created is not going to include a finding of collusion. This has been promised all along and will be delivered. The Republicans will claim that as a clean bill of innocence.
What the talking memorandum and the report will show is the means available to the Russians to support T and Republicans, how they were applied, and what the results were in contested counties.
Drawing any inferences from those revelations will be up to the press and Congress.