It Is Mueller Time: Who Will Be Indicted And What Are The Charges?

Often news is dropped on a Friday to limits its coverage. In this case, the news that Mueller is preparing his first charges in the Trump investigations, is dominating the news this weekend. As CNN reported:

A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.

The first obvious question is who will be charged. Paul Manafort,  Michael Flynn, and Carter Page lead the lists in speculation. I don’t think anyone will be surprised if one or more of them are indicted next week. There will be greater surprise if Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, Jr., or perhaps even a Democrat is indicted now that we have learned that the Podesta Group is also under investigation.

The next question is what the actual charges will be. From what has been released to the public so far, we have see much more evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice than we  have seen of the original crimes. There have been indications that Mueller is conducting the investigation more as would be expected if the concentration is on financial crimes including money laundering.

The evidence released to date for collusion leading to an actual change in the presidential election result  looks quite weak–with indications that this was more an excuse from Hillary Clinton to deflect blame for her own mistakes which caused her to lose. The stronger case for any sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia might involve Paul Manafort who allegedly offered to give a Russian billionaire private briefings on the campaign. However there is no evidence that such briefings took place and past speculation has also primarily been on an indictment for financial crimes such as money laundering or tax evasion.

There is also the meeting which both Donald Trump, Jr. and Kared Kushner attended with Russians, which they were lured to attend with promises of information on Hillary Clinton. However it appears that was only to get them to attend with the Russians reportedly having nothing to offer. While it indicates a willingness on their part to collude with Russia, there is no evidence that such collusion actually occurred. There very well could be legal violations in their actions, but this falls far short of Clinton’s claims of Trump and Russia working together to alter the election results.

Whatever indictments are issued, this means that the matter moves from a primarily political fight to a legal battle where rules of evidence prevail and Donald Trump’s cries of a witch hunt are even more meaningless. As occurred with Watergate, early indictments might lead to deals which ultimately result in evidence against those higher up. Also as with Watergate, a big question will be what did the president know and when did he know it.

Update: First Indictments Involve Money Laundering But Plea Bargain By Papadopoulos Could Be More Important


  1. 1
    akivajeff says:

    It will be someone like Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS. Anyone they can tie up for a while in order to block the money trail to Clinton.

  2. 2
    akivajeff says:

    There seems to be an assumption that collusion is a crime. It is not.

    It is, however, a crime to claim money spent on "opposition research" as "Legal Services". 

    If a small fry democrat is indicted it could legally tie up the money trail to major criminal activity.

    Even if someone on the right is tapped, it would only be a tax issue, fraud, laundering, etc. Nothing on national security, which is the Main issue at stake.

  3. 3
    djchefron says:

    Pitiful. Using old links and not recent info. But hey you and your fans keep being you and while our national security may be  ​​​​​​compromised you can get your rocks off by blaming Hillary  for something because we know everything that is wrong is her fault

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    The post includes posts from the day it was written along with older posts with relevant background information. Once again you lie to deny the facts. Plus this post in no way blames Hillary for everything, although you have repeatedly denied well documented facts about Clinton.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is also rather pitiful on your part to see the extensive use of links in the posts here to present facts to back them up as something bad. That does go along with your general disregard for the facts.

Leave a comment