What can one rationally infer about the charges the "Russia" investigation's grand jury have issued

[usmbguest5318]

Since Friday, there's been a lot of talk about the charges the grand jury have handed down, but what can one credibly infer about them, regardless of whom is charged and what be the specific charges?

Given the scope of the Mueller's charge, not much beyond the details of whatever be the specific charges levied and that, in the view of the grand jury, the evidence Mueller's team has presented to them is probative with regard to the likelihood that the charged parties indeed violated one or more provisions in the CFR.

• There is no requirement that the first charges pertain to the 2016 election or Trump campaign
• The issuance of a given charge(s) does not indicate whether there are or are not coming charges against other individuals.
• There is no requirement that there be now or later one indictment against one person. There are multiple possible combinations of charges and persons charged.

I've also heard a lot of speculation about what strategy Mueller may be pursuing in filing whatever charges he does in whatever sequence he opts to file them. The facts are these:

• Regardless of what tack he may, at any point in the process, be able to follow, the only persons who know what approach is indeed being applied are Mueller and his key team members.
• It really doesn't matter what criminal act one has committed, if there is probative evidence that the requisite mens rea existed in the commision of an actus reus, the actor and any conspiratorial aiders and abettors of the criminal act(s) are subject rightly to prosecution. Mueller, like any prosecutor, would be remiss to do anything other than to file the charge(s) and, provided the court does not summarily dismiss them, argue for conviction on account of the actor's having committed said crimes.

AFAIK, the only reason prosecutors seal indictments is because there is legitimate basis for thinking the charged individuals will flee apprehension, particularly by leaving the country or "disappearing" within it. It's hard to imagine that being so for any of the currently foreseeable indictees. On the other hand, it may be that the charge is something fully/largely not what we think it might be, and the person(s) charged would, as might anyone facing similar charges, flee. I began wondering what sorts of charges might inspire such an act. One that comes to mind and that may be in play given the nature of what's been posited at various points in the discussion about the "Russia" investigation is "straight up" espionage or something like it.

On one hand, that as a reason for prosecutors to be concerned about the indictee's fleeing seems rather far fetched to me. On the other hand, the issue at hand does involve an adversary to America. More likely in my mind, however, is something markedly less contrived and salacious, such as Mueller's team and/or law enforcement personnel knowing the indicted person wasn't in the country last Friday and has the means or potential opportunity to remain in a place in which the U.S. has few or no extraditing means. Which of the "usual suspects" were abroad last Friday and/or over the weekend and where were they? Additionally, if the indictments are not unsealed today, Monday, that reason becomes all the more plausible.

At the end of the day, the indictment(s) that have been sealed over the weekend are what they are: reflections that the grand jury believes there is sufficient evidence to charge and obtain a conviction of one or more individuals for having committed (intentionally, where intent is required) one or more criminal acts. That's the beginning and end of what can be inferred from the indictment(s).

 

[Kosh]

No one on the far left has shown how many votes the Russians changed in the election.

Thus any interference charges are just baseless accusations because the far left can not handle the fact that they lost!

 

[tyroneweaver]

I’m sure Monica lewinsky is saying close but no cigar

 

[Mac1958]

The fact remains that the interest in this whole thing is about partisan politics: Both ends always looking for any advantage, instead of doing the heavy lifting of offering the American electorate a better plan and better execution.

Maybe Americans can't be blamed for being more interested in the Kardashians.
.

 

[DJT for Life]

To answer the question posed in the thread title.

It can logically be construed, that after over a year of
investigating, if this is all they have...they are wasting
Taxpayers money.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The fact remains that the interest in this whole thing is about partisan politics: Both ends always looking for any advantage, instead of doing the heavy lifting of offering the American electorate a better plan and better execution.

Maybe Americans can't be blamed for being more interested in the Kardashians.
.

Oh, hell, no! They most certainly can and deserve to be both blamed and impugned for that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To answer the question posed in the thread title.

It can logically be construed, that after over a year of investigating, if this is all they have...they are wasting
Taxpayers money.

Hypothesis contrary to fact -- We do not yet know whether that is "all they have," accordingly, there are no valid inferences that can currently be made based on the notion that the evidence giving rise to the released charges is "all they have."

​

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

• There is no requirement that the first charges pertain to the 2016 election or Trump campaign

To impeachment or the rule of Law ?

Other people studied law, you know. Its not a guess for them.
I detect long extended exposure to fake news. What news channels have you been watching?

 

[iceberg]

To answer the question posed in the thread title.

It can logically be construed, that after over a year of investigating, if this is all they have...they are wasting
Taxpayers money.

Hypothesis contrary to fact -- We do not yet know whether that is "all they have," accordingly, there are no valid inferences that can currently be made based on the notion that the evidence giving rise to the released charges is "all they have."

​

man, consider your massive bulletpoints talking about a hypothesis of more impending action to come, you're quick to stop someone else from:

• doing exactly what you're doing
• while you're hellbend on keeping a focus of trumps guilt
• and never once addressing how we got all this trump/russia "evidence" as well

kinda funny actually.

 

[blackhawk]

What can rationally be inferred is that a lot of time and money has been spent to indict two men on charges that have nothing to do with Russian interference or the 2016 election. This might change over time but right now that’s all it is.