What if Jack Smith reports like Robert Muller did

[Beachnutt]

then what ?
We all thought Muller had the goods on the conman but he turned out to be a chickenshit or bought off or whatever he was.

[relayerbob]

1. Pointless speculation

[Beachnutt]

3. So you're sure Jack will report a recommendation for indictment unredacted ?

Were you sure Muller would ?

[gab13by13]

9. Mueller laid out the evidence to indict Trump,

it was Merrick Garland who chose not to indict Trump. "Individual one" and 10 obstruction of justice crimes.

Do you think that Mueller should have challenged the DOJ memo that a sitting president can't be indicted with the fascist Supreme Court that we now have? If Mueller had indicted Trump we would now have it in stone that a sitting president can't be indicted.

You are wrong about Mueller, he laid out the evidence, it was not redacted.

[herding cats]

12. The report was released March 22, 2019. Bill Barr was the AG then, not Garland.

Barr never had any intention of indicting which he made perfectly clear in his public statement after it was released.

[gab13by13]

13. Then why blame Mueller?

Once again, I repeat, Mueller laid out the evidence to indict Donald Trump and the only reason that Mueller did not indict Trump was because of the DOJ memo that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller indicted and got convictions of plenty of Trump's pals while Bill Barr was AG; Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Popadopoulas, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Sam Patten, Richard Pinedo.

Once Trump left office Merrick Garland was free to indict Trump based on the evidence provided by Robert Mueller.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. Math has always been the weakest point of that crowd

It's always Garland's fault, don't you know that? That's always the answer, no matter what faulty math is used. Heck, I just read a few days ago here that Garland should have prosecuted Trump 8 years ago!
But what do I know, apparently supporting Garland makes me a MAGAT.
That's what happens when people only get their news from neocon pundits.

[FakeNoose]

17. Barr had his whitewashed rewrite ready for the press, even before Mueller was done

I'm not suggesting that Mueller colluded, but he sure made it easy for Barr to sweep it all under a rug.

[relayerbob]

19. Seriously, quit drinking Kool-aid

Take a deep breath, maybe take a walk.

You are way out of line and off base in this entire thread

[Walleye]

2. Smith is not a republican whose wife's best friend is the wife of Bill Barr

I think that Jack Smith is put in a lot of work on this and he’s not gonna want it to go for naught

[Johnny2X2X]

4. They have different roles

Mueller wasn't a special prosecutor with all the powers of a regular prosecutor. Smith is, and Smith is investigating someone who isn't the President currently.

[viva la]

5. Mueller bagged 40 crooks, including Manafort

Didn't get Trump but clearly recommended impeachment and gave lots of evidence.

And he did this while working under Bill Barr, who actively undermined him.

[Mad_Machine76]

15. And then Trump went and pardoned/commuted

just about everybody he nailed. Mueller did his job, though.

[Scrivener7]

6. There are a lot of posts on why that won't happen in this thread, but the fact

is, we just don't know.

I don't THINK he'll do that. He doesn't seem the type. But Garland has to approve everything that goes out from Smith's investigation, so who knows?

We can only wait and see.

[GenXer47]

7. nonsense, Jack Smith

has chunks of guys like Trump in his stool.

[agingdem]

8. I don't see Merrick Garland running interference for Trump

Garland's DOJ is not Bill Barr's DOJ..Barr weaponized the DOJ to protect Trump and punish perceived enemies..that's not Garland or Jack Smith...

[gab13by13]

10. See the E. Jean Carroll original lawsuit

that Garland was prepared to have DOJ represent Trump in court.

[onecaliberal]

11. Because sexual assault falls under the duties of POTUS if your pisswig.

[H2O Man]

16. This raises the questions

that philosophers and theologians have ponder for thousands of years: "What if my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?"

Your questions suggest that you lack even shallow insight on the context of Mr. Mueller's investigation -- or even the spelling of his name -- versus Mr. Smith's investigation. However, to be fair, you did spell "Smith" correctly.

[Beachnutt]

18. Have great day....

[H2O Man]

20. Unlikely ......

I'm cranky as hell today. Took a hard fall on Sunday, doctor's for a long appointment. I feel like a rabid dog chasing my tail in a furious slow-motion savage assault.

Barr was enforcing a policy (distinct from law) that a sitting president can't be indicted. Mueller was not going to challenge him, as Barr would have fired him, and hid his findings -- which he had the authority to do. Thus, Mueller made a strong case for impeachment, although in this case, it never came to be.

The defendent is now an ex-president. Although it has never been done before, there is no policy and again, no law, that restrains the DOJ from indicting an ex-president. While it is technically possible for the House to impeach & the Senate to convict the defendent, that obviously is not going to happen.

There are very few here -- or nationally -- who had heard of Jack Smith before he was appointed to his current position. But those of us who were familiar with him knew the A.G. had made a wise choice. Garland didn't draw a name out of a hat. I'm sure you saw reports yesterday that the defendent's legal team requested a meeting with the A.G. to beg him to instruct Smith to lay off the defendent. From this, we can speculate -- with "informed speculation" -- that this was their reaction to a notification from Smith about the defendent's status. And we can be absolutely certain it was not because they fear a mere report.