No indictments 90 days before an election

[Equinox Moon]

I heard that the law states no indictments, from Mueller, 90 days before our mid-term elections in November.

I thought I would pass along this tidbit I heard on the radio.

[MineralMan]

1. Where'd you hear that?

I'd like to see such a law. So...fess up.

[Funtatlaguy]

2. I think it's standard DOJ policy....but there is no law

[lagomorph777]

36. Correct, it's the policy that Comey violated so blatantly, setting the new precedent.

Oops.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I don't think that's true. There is a general DoJ policy

where they try to avoid taking action that might affect an election but I'm unaware of any law or rule preventing the issuance of indictments within any particular time period.

[Equinox Moon]

12. Thanks Velveteen. I heard it on the radio.

I did not look it up with an Internet search, but I might later tonight when I have more time.

[sprinkleeninow]

19. But it's perfectly A-OK to issue a destructive pronouncement, 11 days before,

affecting the outcome of the national election for the highest office in our country?? HILLARY!!
💙🇺🇸🌊

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Exactly the point. There is a policy that's not a law or a rule.

Comey disregarded that policy but he didn't violate any rule or law. So, Mueller could legally issue indictments any time, and a good argument can be made that since Trump isn't a candidate in the November elections, issuing indictments in late October wouldn't even violate the policy.

[sprinkleeninow]

33. I don't have high blood pressure, but now it's most likely elevated

recalling what comey* pulled.

Mueller needs to put [figuratively speaking/the proverbial] *butts in slings* dès que possible.

[lagomorph777]

38. "Asses in his briefcase"

to quote Wilford Brimley in "Absence of Malice"

[still_one]

45. Yes he could, but he won't

[WhiteTara]

30. Note the Comey memo 12 days before an election.

Mueller should bring indictments as they come. F the General Policy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I would say that it wouldn't even violate the policy, since Trump is not a candidate

in the upcoming elections - so one could credibly argue that indictments wouldn't affect the outcome.

[WhiteTara]

34. very good point.

This is one we can push.

[lagomorph777]

40. +1 and Comey has set the new precedent anyway. Re the elections: voters have a right to know!

[lame54]

4. According to McConnell...

It's not an election

[bronxiteforever]

9. This +100000

[Stallion]

5. So By My Calculations That Would Be August 7th

[ooky]

6. Whatever the policy is I expect Mueller will respect it.

If 90 days, could mean a bunch of indictments in the next week or so?

[WhiteTara]

37. Trump isn't running so that rule shouldn't apply

since this is about him and not necessarily any congressional peeps.

[beachbum bob]

7. No such law...the DOJ has a policy concerning announcements and such

That may impact an election, the same policy Comey ignored. But indictments against trump jr and kushner isn't part of that..

[leftieNanner]

8. I think Mr. Mueller will indict

whomever and whenever he's good and ready.

[More_Cowbell]

10. Lawfare blog recently discussed this unwritten policy

https://www.lawfareblog.com/norms-and-unwritten-rules-facing-special-counsel-trump-presidency

[Wellstone ruled]

11. My prediction is this,

Team Mueller has bigger fish frying in the Pan. Watergate took 900 days,Trump Gate will take years to complete.

[Equinox Moon]

14. I figured it would be after the midterms, but years? Wow.

We need this fake president out now!

[Wellstone ruled]

23. Looking at the trial schedule for Team Mueller,

we are seeing Virginia wrap up end of August. Then DC October till well into 2019. And with testimony from Manafort Players,things will be added to their Investigations. Trump will be indicted sometime in late 2019 in New York first,and then allowed to resign or be Impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the fall of 2020.

[spinbaby]

54. I like John Oliver's name for it

Stupid Watergate.

[alwaysinasnit]

13. FWIW, Comey had no such compunction. However, Mueller appears to be more cognizant of DOJ policy

and will respect it.

[Hoyt]

15. Could mean no indictments of trump or close aides before elections. If that is case, I wonder

just how committed Mueller is to making sure country is protected from corruption. Seems to me, if there is evidence trump colluded, participated in, encourage, knew about, etc., collusion/conspiracy to interfere in election, voters need to know that before November 6, 2018.

I really don't understand why we continue to think Mueller wakes up every morning bent on bringing trump down. I did believe Fitzgerald was bent on bringing george war bush down, but learned my lesson with that one.

[lunasun]

43. +1 -same thoughts on Mueller except I had no faith in Fitzgerald either because I'm from Chicago

Did you know fitz is godfather to one of Comey's children? He appointed fitz acting in Ashcrofts place...just a side note

[Hoyt]

47. Wow, small world. I hope we elect some people who will straighten this stuff out, but I'm starting

to wonder if it is possible.

[lunasun]

48. And to think recently he helped Mich State hide what knowledge they had and when they knew

of abuse there and now he is Comeys personal lawyer ...

makes me wonder about super heroes people like to create to feel like someone is watching out for them and will make things "right again"
It's no different than the people putting too much faith in trump thinking the same.


The attorneys who represented Nassar’s victims in the case believe Fitzgerald used his clout as a well-known and respected attorney to shield Michigan State from criticism.

Fitzgerald was hired in 2016 to deal with the Nassar investigation and with any litigation against the university, The New York Times reports. He was paid an hourly rate of up to $990 and has reportedly billed the university for roughly $4.4 million.

The contract, which was first obtained by The Detroit News, shows that Fitzgerald was hired to protect Michigan State from lawsuits filed on the part of Nassar’s victims.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/25/comey-lawyer-nassar-investigation/

I knew about Kelly's racist history with Southern Command before his appointment by trump
yet others saw him as someone who was going to make things all right too...

GOTV
it's one thing we can do ourselves and as you said let's hope we elect some folks who can do the right thing, ferret out the rot and rebuild

[Hortensis]

16. Equinox, if someone really said there was a law,

take note of the name and possible motive in pushing this misinformation. Was it an honest mistake or are Republicans trying to develop outrage among the electorate, based on a lie, if any actions are taken after August 7?

[Equinox Moon]

18. It was a progressive radio station

[Hortensis]

22. HOW left wing? A lot of anti-Democrat

propaganda is being disseminated via the farther left. Unfortunately, those in opposition to the Democratic Party on the left and those on the right (our own conservative right and Russia) have opposition in common and a lot of messages serve both sides.

[Eyeball_Kid]

17. There is no law, only a rule from DOJ. But...

since indictments are likely to include members of Congress and the Cabinet, Mueller may feel morally compelled to release the indictments sometime before the election. These indictments may be seen as a warning that any incumbents issued indictments have to be held accountable, not only in a court of law, but also by the court of voters. If, for instance, any incumbent Republicans are re-elected, but then afterward, indicted, there may be a public outcry because the public wasn't informed about the indictments before the election. An indictment of an incumbent may be legitimately helpful in determining whether voters cast their votes for someone else.

My guess is that Mueller still holds the cards for when to release indictments, regardless of the traditional application of the rule. He may make an exception, due to the gravity of the incidents involved.

[dalton99a]

20. It's 60 days. But there is no hard and fast rule

There is an unwritten guideline about not filing cases or commenting on investigations in the 60 days before an election.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/30/robby-mook/clinton-campaign-says-comey-letter-violates-justic/

[Gothmog]

27. This is consistent with my understanding

[LisaL]

55. And presumably that rule would only apply to candidate running for an election.

Not to everybody else.

[dalton99a]

58. Yep.

[krispos42]

24. Fanta Menace isn't up for re-election for a couple of years

Sadly.

As far as I know, Mueller isn't investigating anybody up for re-election this November. Anybody know different?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. "Fanta Menace" LOL!

Because neither Trump nor any other candidate in November is likely to be indicted, a good argument could be made that issuing indictments any time before the election would not violate DoJ policy.

[MontanaMama]

52. Fanta Menace?!?!

you can punch out and go home early with pay, kripos42. Your work here is done!

[Gothmog]

26. I understand that it is 60 days

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Policy only - not a law.

[procon]

28. Unfounded rumors. This snippet from Politifact states 60 days is the guideline.

In August 2008, President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Michael Mukasey, sent an internal memo entitled "election year sensitivities" to employees on the department’s policies on political activities. Part of it reads:

"Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department's mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution."


Attorney General Eric Holder resent the memo in March 2012.

While the memos don’t discuss limitation of timing specifically, former U.S. attorneys have alluded to an unwritten guideline about not filing cases or commenting on investigations in the 60 days before an election.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/30/robby-mook/clinton-campaign-says-comey-letter-violates-justic/

[pnwmom]

49. Right. n/t

[Fullduplexxx]

29. If there are any indictments we should know about them before they get re-elected

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. There is nobody on the ballot in November who is likely to be indicted.

Not even Nunes, though he probably should be. But that makes a good argument for issuing indictments even inside the 60-day policy guideline because if no possibly-indictable person is a candidate, any indictments that are issued are not likely to affect the election.

[hlthe2b]

35. Not a law, a policy. Nonetheless there are 98 days before the election. So, indictments can come.

[Renew Deal]

41. Wasn't Mark Foley indicted a few weeks prior to the election?

[dalton99a]

42. Foley was never indicted

He resigned when Democrats pushed for an investigation

[wishstar]

44. No such rule- esp. since none of likely indictees are running for office this election year

All experts on DOJ I have heard say if Mueller's team is ready, they will indict during August and September especially since those likely to be indicted in Trump's campaign circle are not themselves running for election. Also DOJ knows it is vital to our election system that Mueller works as expeditiously as possible to take action on criminal indictments before the election.

That was just speculative BS on Thom Hartman radio show.

[gratuitous]

46. Considering how respectful Republicans have been of "unwritten rules"

I don't know that anyone else needs to be constrained by this one. If Republicans can pass on nominations for federal judges without a blue slip from both (or even one) of a state's Senators (to cite just one example that Democrats slavishly obeyed to no good purpose), I don't see any reason why the Special Counsel should feel like this unwritten rule is one that needs to be followed.

[pnwmom]

50. Why? Of course there are MANY indictments in the three months before every election.

Why couldn't Michael Cohen be indicted? Or Roger Stone? Or Jared Kushner? Or Junior?

None of them are politicians running for office in November.

[brettdale]

51. How many days till the election from now?

More than 90 isnt it??

[LisaL]

53. There is no such law.

[kacekwl]

56. Nonsense, I want an indictment 90 days out

and every day forward until the elections. God knows they have plenty of criminals to choose from.

[book_worm]

57. I actually hope there aren't indictments before the election

Indictments will only motivate Trump supporters. I can wait until after the election and let Trump and company sweat a little more. They have been losing it the last couple of weeks. You can see the desperation and fear of what they know is coming.