Who will be indicted?

Today’s the big day: a perp walk for someone indicted by the grand jury in Robert Mueller’s investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.  Who will it be? Put your guesses below. The first person to guess all today’s indictments correctly will win a hearty congratulations from Professor Ceiling Cat.

I can only imagine how nervous some people were this weekend! And Trump is losing it big time:

63 Comments

  1. roger
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Paul Manafort

    • Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:23 am | Permalink

      Yep, he’s turning himself in to Mueller after being indicted.

      I don’t know if that’s it for today.

      Congratulations, Roger!

      Oops–Rick Gates has been told to turn himself in.

    • Historian
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      The real question is whether this indictment and any future others will change the support Trump has in Congress and among his base. My guess is that his support won’t change dramatically. If so, the political situation will remain static and the demagogue will stay in office.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      I guessed Manafort here two days ago! 🙂

  2. BobTerrace
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    Manafort, Kushner and the unindicted co-conspirator Trump.

  3. Stephen Barnard
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    My guess is that both Manafort and Flynn have been indicted. I think Mueller wants to see who squeals first. If you’re Manafort or Flynn you don’t want the other guy to get the sweet plea bargain for rattng out your co-conspirators.

    • David Harper
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:43 am | Permalink

      Ah, the Prisoner’s Dilemma. How delicious. Please pass the popcorn.

      • Stephen Barnard
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:21 am | Permalink

        So it wasn’t Flynn, but it was Manafort AND Gates, so the Prisoner’s Dilemma is still in play. And it’s better, because Manafort and Gates are connected at the hip. What one knows, the other knows.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          I would assume that, if Manafort and Gates decide to cooperate with Mueller, they’ll come in together as a package deal. Under other circumstances, someone in Manafort’s position might be tempted to ride the rap, counting on a back-end pardon from the president. But Manafort certainly knows how unreliable and disloyal Trump is. Manafort’s also nobody’s fool, so will be unlikely to take a fall for the Donald.

  4. John Taylor
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Paul Manaforte and Michael Flynn. They’ll be coming for Trump Junior and Jared but not right away. They’ll let then stew for a while yet.

  5. Mike
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    From this side of the Pond,Flynn I would have thought possibly Kushner hopefully the demagogue himself.

  6. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    As we still do not know my wish would be Kushner and Trump JR. They would have to peel Trump off the ceiling.

    • Simon Hayward
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:03 am | Permalink

      I considered voting for Melania, but Trump has never been too attached to his wives

  7. Simon Hayward
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Manafort and Gates – at least that’s who my NYT feed says it is

    • Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      You cheated!

      • Simon Hayward
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:53 am | Permalink

        hard to avoid, my phone told me unbidden!

  8. John Dentinger
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    I’m too late to win, so I’m going with Ivanka. Why? Because the media would treat her perp walk like a red carpet walk, with fascinating analysis of her outfit and accessories–which, of course, is all most Americans would care about.

  9. dargndorp
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    My guess is that nobody will be *arrested* per se. Rather, we’re going to see some language implying someone’s being “held for questioning”, “taken into custody” or something similar.

  10. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    The word from CNN just now is Manafort. Turning himself in today.

    • Christopher
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:10 am | Permalink

      ManFart has been arrested! Let those dominos start falling!

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:18 am | Permalink

        Probably will know more in the next hour or two when they unseal the charges at court. Makes sense all around as this guy was more into the Russians than just about anyone. He even offered to brief Russians when he was campaign manager. If he flips (talks) Trump will be gone.

  11. Andy Lowry
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Manafort, Kelly, Page.

  12. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Here is a question for the constitutional lawyers out there. Can you be pardoned for Treason. I kind of doubt it. That may be why Mueller started with Manafort.

    • Simon Hayward
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      I don’t know – and I’m not a lawyer – but I did hear one on a podcast a week or so back (with Sam Harriss) who said that misuse of the pardon power is an impeachable offense. Which made me wonder about Arpaio…your scenario would, of course, be even more blatant

    • Curt Cameron
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      “Treason” has a specific definition, given in the Constitution. It has to do with helping enemies in times of war, so there’s no way this could be treason.

  13. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Trump is really losing it. How would an investigation that according to him will find no collusion not be helpful to him or not be doing anything? In his fake* world it would be a start to investigate his allegations.

    * A word I am not ordinarily using, but here it fits fine. And of course if it is a falsification, it would explain why he is hemorrhaging allegations, since that fact will further hamper him.

    The Irony is Thick with this grownup-child overall bully and specifically woman harasser. It was his previous allegations on Comey that instigated this investigation. And, despite his apparent wholesale Dunning-Kruger incompetency, he has belatedly managed to understand that his Tw***er wastage is non-presidential. He made that remark himself the other day. Yet he cannot internalize that knowledge and act on it.

  14. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    By the way, I read that Trump has finally made Putin look good in comparison. Media comments doing the round is divided if Putin should be reported at least as often as Trump, since Putin Makes Russia Great Again while Trump Makes US Small Again. (C.f. their current influence in Syria despite Russia started from zero and has lesser resources.)

    Or if Putin, which after all is only an efficient opportunist compared to Trump’s inefficient one, is painted with too much gold colors by US media and is not as much a risk as it appears.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      I take some small joy in knowing that it must gall Trump enormously that Putin has looted enough wealth to buy and sell him with pocket change.

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Trump spent the weekend in a panic at his crappy Virginia country club, sitting on the can punching the keys of his twit-twatter machine, and shitting blood at every mention of Robert Mueller’s name.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      Trump called in sick Monday 🙂

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      That is not a pleasant picture. Keep that one in the camera please.

      So how about the treason question. Can that be pardoned?

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        The reason I ask…now that more info is out, one of 12 charges on this is conspiracy against the United States. That sounds like treason material to me. I think Manafort is the can opener and Trump is the can.

        • tomh
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:38 am | Permalink

          The only limit in the Constitution on presidential pardons for federal crimes is for impeachment. A president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment …”

          The only real unanswered question is whether a president can pardon himself.

          • tomh
            Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink

            sub

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

            The other unanswered question is whether a sitting president can be indicted. There’s no precedent on either way on either issue (though I understand that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has written memos on those topics).

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:38 am | Permalink

          The count in the indictment you’re referencing was brought under the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC section 371. That section makes it a crime to conspire either to commit an offense against, or to defraud, the United States. That’s not synonymous with “treason”; it requires only a conspiracy to commit some other federal crime (in the case of Manafort and Gates, the failure to file certain reports required by federal law, or filing false such reports).

          • Randall Schenck
            Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

            Thanks and also to Tomh. So even with all the counts against him, Manafort could just wait until Trump pardons him. Also, Trump could still fire Mueller. Put the who thing back in the hands of our worthless congress.

  16. Stephen Barnard
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    The real importance of the indictments isn’t the money laundering and tax charges. It’s the conspiracy charges against Manafort and Gates and OTHERS (unnamed co conspirators), allegedly committed during the time they were working on the Trump campaign. Who are these others?

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:12 am | Permalink

      It’s general Justice Department policy not to name un-indicted co-conspirators in an indictment, on the theory that such people are afforded no opportunity to clear their names at a trial. An indictment will usually refer to them as “others known and unknown to the grand jury,” or similar language. The defense can usually obtain the names of the known co-conspirators by filing a motion for a “bill of particulars” fleshing out the indictment.

      This isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, however, regarding nondisclosure in the indictment, and sometimes, especially in high-profile cases where the parties involved are well-known, an un-indicted co-conspirator will be named in an indictment. That was the case, you may recall, with regard to Richard Nixon in the Watergate conspiracy indictment.

  17. Dave137
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Orange Moron showered praise upon Putin because Moron needs Russian oligarchs and banks to pad his tacky businesses: oligarchs and banks that are of course controlled by Putin. (Also in part why we’ll never see those less-than-impressive tax-returns.)

    As far as meddling, outside of the DNC hacks, I don’t know. If Americans actually were informed, and healthily skeptical of ALL media, influences such as foreignly invested ad-campaigns shouldn’t matter. But blind acceptance is the norm in this country, which isn’t surprising for a population rife with religiosity.

  18. Taz
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    DO SOMETHING!

    WTF does that mean?

    • David Coxill
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      Help me jebus ,i bet the Clinton’s are laughing their heads off at all these goings on.

  19. W.Benson
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Mueller, I suspect, will proceed by nibbling from the edges to the center. And remember, they put the gangster Al Capone in the can on tax charges.

  20. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Right now I feel a sense of glee. Hard to concentrate on work right now.

    • Blue
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Maybe it is naughty (interpersonal relations
      – wise) and I should not; but Dr Sturtevant,
      soooo do I ! Am of glee ! hehhehheh … …

      Blue

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Yeah, the schadenfreude around here is as thick and tasty as chateaubriand. 🙂

    • darrelle
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      Me 3, or 4.

  21. Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    My prediction is that Trump will come out of this unscathed. He’s already spinning it as some sort of establishment conspiracy and his followers will just lap it up.

    I sincerely hope there are people in the USA planning other ways to get Trump removed from office when the Russia scandal doesn’t work.

    • Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      By “removed from office” I mean by constitutional means (e.g. voting him out in 2020), not violence.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      Robert Mueller and his untouchables are as relentless and implacable as the tides. Trump’s base won’t save him when the receding waters reveal him to be a Russian stooge and a major obstructor-of-justice.

      Before this is over, however, Trump likely will thrust us into an unprecedented constitutional crisis, perhaps by firing Mueller.

      • Ken Phelps
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        Or, as likely, through the distraction of a war.

      • darrelle
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:05 am | Permalink

        Or by trying to start a war, or “incident,” and being thwarted by DoD and / or military leaders refusing orders to do so. That would be a right mess.

      • nicky
        Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        Can Mr Trump actuaĺy ‘fire’ Mr Müller?

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 11:48 am | Permalink

          Sure, just as he did to the head of the FBI. Remember Nixon. He fired the guy who was investigating him. Did not do him any good but he fired him.

          • Stephen Barnard
            Posted October 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think that’s right. I believe Trump would have to instruct Rosenstein (Deputy AG) to fire Mueller, and if Rosenstein refused and resigned (which he probably would) Trump would have find someone else to do the dirty work. That’s exactly what happened with Nixon in Watergate Saturday Night Massacre. He went through AG Richardson and Deputy AG Ruckelshouse before he found a compliant Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork to fire Cox (who had subpoenaed the White House tapes).

            BTW, the current AG has recused himself so he presumably can’t fire Mueller, but I wouldn’t put it past him to try.

        • tomh
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          For all practical purposes he can, by ordering whoever is acting attorney general to do it. If that one refuses, just keep firing them until he gets down to someone who will. That’s what Nixon did and finally found Bork to do the job.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 30, 2017 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

          I think Trump might have to go deep into the Main Justice organizational chart before finding anyone to do the dirty deed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some mass resignations at the Justice Department. It’s not like Trump’s firing Mueller would take anybody by surprise, so everyone’s had plenty of time to think about where they want to go down in history on this one.

          It’s weird that Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who became the acting AG after Trump fired Sally Yates for refusing to enforce the Muslim travel ban (remember way back then?), just resigned.

          This is what a looming constitutional crisis feels like.

  22. Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I don’t really think that the issue is a Trump-Russia collaboration but is Russia meddling in the affairs of the West in general. Destabilising the EU by assisting Brexit, or dividing the USA with Trump . Whether they are actively collaborating or not, the propaganda and fake news gets the job done for them.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 10:14 am | Permalink

      Now it is a collaboration issue. Papadopoulous, the former campaign foreign advisor pleaded guilty to collaborating with Russia, secretly in early October.

    • Curt Cameron
      Posted October 30, 2017 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      The issue really is the Trump-Russia collaboration. OF COURSE Russia meddles in the affairs of the West as much as they can. But it’s not OK to get help on the inside from the guy who’s now President.

  23. Blue
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    As much as Mr Spicer was so, so difficult to
    hear, I hafta state that, as exactly outta
    the mouth o’her own Daddy’s, the lies out of
    Ms Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ orifice are just
    as nauseatingly difficult to receive … …
    as they traverse upon my one working 8th cranial nerve.

    Blue

  24. Diane G.
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:35 am | Permalink

    sub


%d bloggers like this: