https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/poli...N040318donald-trump-russia-mueller0908PMStory
What's the next axe to grind?
What's the next axe to grind?
Mueller to Trump lawyers: Not considered target of Russian probe
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
This can mean only one thing: Russia has hacked both the Washington Post and CNN.
“Special counsel Robert Mueller has told President Donald Trump's lawyers that the President is not currently being considered a criminal target of the Russia probe,...”
Want me to explain what that means in “cop speak” when he is trying to get someone to the table to talk with him voluntarily?
Want me to explain what that means in “cop speak” when he is trying to get someone to the table to talk with him voluntarily?
well, whatever the dummy is saying or doing, it ain't workin'...speaking of mueller. Just a big waste of everyone's time and effort for some kind of democratic political gain which will be minuscule. This whole thing will fade quicker than chappaquiddick.
Teddy couldn't notify the police immediately. He needed time to firm up the continuance of his waitress sandwiches with Chris Dodd.
Yep, not a "target" but rather is identified as being a "subject" of the investigation. As JD can explain better than I, being a "target" typically means you are about to be indicted. Being a "Subject" means you are suspected of being involved in some criminality, but the prosecutors are not ready to indict. Until they get their sit-down interview with him, they will keep him listed as a subject of the investigation.
This is FAR from the "all-clear" some here think it is.
they've got him now, or
someone is gonna get a month in jail...but might get out in 3 weeks with good behavior.
quit wasting everyone's time....
someone is gonna get a month in jail...but might get out in 3 weeks with good behavior.
quit wasting everyone's time....
So... anybody seen the movie about Chappaquidick that's coming out 50 years later?
Ben Shapiro says the movie is excellent. That's enough to convince me.
“Subject” means more that they are still looking at you rather than you being suspected of being involved in criminality. “Target” does typically mean they have decided you are the guy and are just building their case. “Suspect” isn’t really used that much by LE anymore (at least smart or well advised ones)....everybody is a suspect until they have been fully cleared as a subject...plus if you name them as a suspect, you open yourself up to lawsuits and whatnot. The popular catchphrase now is “person of interest” which is much more neutral sounding.
Trying to coax him into that sit down meeting IMO.
To see if he can get him to make a false or misleading statement.
I was thinking in the opposite direction. Probably hoping he gets a little too candid.
To get him on the record with regards to his intent and his thoughts with regards to certain actions, and to determine what he claims he knew and when with regards to any host of issues.
It’s not some nefarious trap or anything as you seem to be hinting at. It’s a pretty standard practice to attempt to get all information you can from all available sources. If he lies, that’s on him. He can always say he doesn’t recall, doesn’t know, or even refuse to answer the question.
That being said, if I was his attorney I wouldn’t let him do it. Never let my clients do it when I was in private practice (well...a few times, but the usual answer was no) because it’s not their duty to prove themselves innocent. It’s the duty of the prosecution to prove their case. I also almost never put my defendants on the stand to testify on their own behalf...I can think of twice and in both situations it was only after I concluded we weren’t disputing the facts of the incident, but needed to explain why it happened. Both were of the “that sumbitch needed beating/shooting and I was just the guy that the responsibility fell on” type defenses.
You speculate that I'm hinting at a nefarious trap, yet you then go on to say you'd never advise it and have never advised it.
I guess a distinction can be made on what the definition of "nefarious" and "trap" are. There are at least two avenues/levels of consequence, probably more.
While getting an interview with Trump might not be "nefarious," it could be. You claim with certainty that it is not. I don't think anybody but Mueller can know that with certainty.
Knowing that I'm not Mueller, I'm just a bystander throwing rocks at people, undecided on his intent but open to all possibilities. My sole desire is that when it all comes to a close, Mueller acts with dignity in regards to the process of law and spirit of his role. I don't want some half measure that leaves doubt in the majority of folks as to whether Trump was evidently guilty of something significant or not.
Regardless of who is in power, my idealistic belief is that they largely be unencumbered from executing the will of those that electorated them (checks and balances withstanding).
To gather facts and find out what his version is? Maybe he knows something that would assist the investigation. You'd think he'd be a pretty important witness.
JD,
Mueller has grand juries seated in both Northern Virginia and DC. If he get's a summons/subpoena for Tump to testify before the Grand Jury, is there anything his attorneys can actually do to avoid him having to appear? (I guess if he appeared he could take the 5th Amendment repeatedly, but that's not going to go over well. Secondly, Trump's attorney would not be allowed inside the Grand Jury room during questioning, he could only excuse himself and conference with them outside the room.)
Neither Nixon or Clinton were allowed to avoid testifying before a Federal Grand Jury, Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate and Clinton during the Ken Starr chaired Office of Special Counsel's investigation.
So it probably comes down to whether Trump's attorneys want him to be questioned while they are in the room and can lodge objections, or whether they want him to be questioned in front of a grand jury.
Mueller has grand juries seated in both Northern Virginia and DC. If he get's a summons/subpoena for Tump to testify before the Grand Jury, is there anything his attorneys can actually do to avoid him having to appear? (I guess if he appeared he could take the 5th Amendment repeatedly, but that's not going to go over well. Secondly, Trump's attorney would not be allowed inside the Grand Jury room during questioning, he could only excuse himself and conference with them outside the room.)
Neither Nixon or Clinton were allowed to avoid testifying before a Federal Grand Jury, Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate and Clinton during the Ken Starr chaired Office of Special Counsel's investigation.
So it probably comes down to whether Trump's attorneys want him to be questioned while they are in the room and can lodge objections, or whether they want him to be questioned in front of a grand jury.
No lose for Mueller.... Trumps ego likely won't let him avoid either incriminating himself or perjuring himself.
I certainly speculated that that is what you were hinting at. I also said I would never advise to do the interview...along with an explanation why that such advise wasn’t a result of fear or suspicion of nefarious traps. I then made a statement of belief based upon my personal knowledge and experience in the same field (do I really need to preface every statement I make with such a disclaimer that it’s my belief or opinion based upon experience? If so, please note that for the record, I believe ANYTHING is possible in most any situation and all statements of seemingly definitive assertions are merely my belief or opinion based upon my knowledge and experience UNLESS I specifically state that what I propose is an absolute, definitive certainty). It was a persuasive statement of belief rather than a statement of absolute certainty of an indisputable fact.
With regards to your third paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly.
With regards to your fourth paragraph, I agree mostly depending upon the breadth of your subjective term “largely”. I don’t believe elected individuals should be unencumbered from the requirements of the law and appropriate due process in carrying out the will of those that elected them.
Maybe....probably. Grand jury testimony is largely confidential so I’m not sure how persuasive you “ not going to go over well” thoughts are.
Bullshit! He's out to nail Trump and has been from the start. (Disclaimer: I voted for Neil G., so not a cheerleader).
no, but i read a lot of stuff and then see how things actually play out rather than how i hope they do. at this point, it seems safe to say trump isn't terribly threatened by the mueller investigation. would you like to know more?
