Robert Mueller reportedly tells Trump’s lawyers president not criminal target

a reply to: Xcathdra

Isn't there a thread already here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

If Trump is not a target then Muellers investigation is done and over with. I would also point out the media outlet reporting this is the Washington Compost. An avid Trump hater.

There is no reason for Trump to do the interview with Mueller.

that is a failed conclusion.

Here you go from a non-political source unrelated to Trump, Mueller et al:

The first status you have to worry about is being a target. A target is the person to the prosecutor is gunning for, that's the target of investigation. It's the person who the prosecutor believes has committed a crime and their trying to figure out what the crime was and how to build a case against them.

A witness, on the other hand, is somebody who has really got very little exposure. The prosecutor believes that the person hasn't done it wrong, they simply have information, they were there, they saw something, they have documents that relate to something. They're not caught up in it.

The last status is in-between the two, you’re a subject. And so if you're subject in an investigation what that means is that you're not a target, so they're not gunning for you, but the prosecutor thinks that there is good reason to believe you may have done something wrong. You may have committed a crime or been a part of a criminal activity or part of a conspiracy.

www.whitecollarcrimeresources.com...

Mueller told trumps Attorneys (Who are leakers) that Trump is a "Subject" of the investigation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hope this all ends soon . Still got the prosecutor in Utah and have no idea when that will end . I am guessing the IG report is finished , hope they make it public soon . I think there is lots of information in that report , but some of it we already know .

The prosecutor in Utah is reviewing the info turned up in the IG report on FISA abuses and what not.

AKA the Barney Fife of the AG world assigned because even Sessions couldn't justify a second Special Counsel.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Again and pay attention.

The procedure for assigning a special counsel is to have a DOJ prosecutor assigned to review all the info and make a recommendation on the appointment of a special counsel.

It did not hapen in Mueller's case because it was Rosenstein who made the decision and not Sessions.

In this case Sessions is the one making the decision and he followed DOJ policy.

The fact Rosenstein did not should concern you but for some reason I just dont think you care.

Now - as for your link you need to read more and run yuor mouth less. It is stated in your link - see below

Initiating a special prosecutor investigation

The decision to appoint a special prosecutor rests with the attorney general (or acting attorney general), or, historically, with the president. Under the independent counsel statute that expired in 1999, Congress could formally request the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor (see role of legislative and judicial branches); however the law only required the attorney general to respond in writing with a decision and reasons, and in any event it is no longer in force.[18] Similarly, under the statute, the choice of who to appoint as special prosecutor was made by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. This is no longer the case, and the decision of who to appoint now rests entirely with the attorney general.

The current special counsel regulations specify that:[6]

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Let me break it down for you. In order to appoint a special counsel a determination must be made that a criminal investigation is warranted. This means specific violations of the law must occur to satisfy part of the SC policy (and law). That determination is made by a prosecutor with a recommendation to the AG / DAG and only when part 2 is met - conflict of interest.

What did Rosenstein say? - DOJ

“In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

Since Mueller has stated Trump is not the focus of a criminal investigation the Special counsel is now, and has always been, outside his authority. The appointment of Mueller is also in violation of the SC statute.

You understand it now?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hope this all ends soon . Still got the prosecutor in Utah and have no idea when that will end . I am guessing the IG report is finished , hope they make it public soon . I think there is lots of information in that report , but some of it we already know .

The prosecutor in Utah is reviewing the info turned up in the IG report on FISA abuses and what not.

AKA the Barney Fife of the AG world assigned because even Sessions couldn't justify a second Special Counsel.

The appointment of the UTAH DOJ official is to review the info to date and make a recommendation to sessions on a 2nd special counsel. Given the info the IG has turned up you could actually skip the 2nd special counsel and mvoe right into indictments and prosecutions.

a reply to: soberbacchus

and is not a target.

Not sure what part of that confuses you.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Isn't there a thread already here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yup and if you read the site T and C you can have a double topic if one of those topics is in a breaking news forum.

Interesting...

In Mueller's response to Manaforts motion to dismiss Mueller claimed Trump is still under investigation. Could it be the moment he says Trump is not his investigation is done and over with.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Interesting...

In Mueller's response to Manaforts motion to dismiss Mueller claimed Trump is still under investigation. Could it be the moment he says Trump is not his investigation is done and over with.

Muellers still pursuing trump a sa subject though. means he still wants to nail him for something.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Agreed.. However there is no reason for Trump to do the interview with Mueller. Mueller apparently has nothing. Why let him continue trolling for a non existent crime.

Come on it isn't even 2 years yet into the investigation...give it time...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

and is not a target.

Not sure what part of that confuses you.

This part from your OP:

If Trump is not a target then Muellers investigation is done and over with.

You seem to be severely confused about a long list of things.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The cat is already out of the bag on this one. They spoke about this themselves and can't keep a story straight.
www.intelligence.senate.gov...#

Senator Blunt. Director McCabe, on May the 11th when you were before this committee, you said that there has been no effort to impede the Russian investigation. Is that still your position? Director McCabe. It is, but let me clarify, Senator. I think you're referring to the exchange that I had with Senator Rubio. And my understanding--at least my intention in providing that answer was whether or not the firing of Director Comey had had a negative impact on our investigation. And my response was then, and is now, that the FBI investigated and continues to investigate, and now of course under the rubric of the special counsel, the Russia investigation in an appropriate and unimpeded way, before Director Comey was fired and since he's been gone. Senator Blunt. Well, I think, as I recall that conversation, it was a discussion about whether there were plenty of resources, whether the funding was adequate. And what you were reported to have said--I haven't looked at the exact transcript, but I have looked at the news article--was that you were aware of no effort to impede the Russia investigation. Director McCabe. We did talk about resource issues and whether or not we had asked for additional resources to pursue the investigation. And I believe my response at the time was we had not asked for additional resources, and that we had adequate resources to pursue the investigation. That was true then. It's still true today. Senator Blunt. And you would characterize your quote as ``no effort to impede the Russian investigation'' as still accurate? Director McCabe. That's correct.

Unimpeded means no obstruction.
So what exactly are they "investigating"?

This whole affair is a coup attempt by the democratic left. Mueller will not finish until he gets anything to snare Trump in any misdeed. It will continue for no other reason than to cover many indiscretion by Hillary Clinton and Debby Wassermann-Schultz in the last election.

The DWS/Awan brothers scandal is being slow walked by no one other than DWS's FBI agent brother. The s**t is deep on the Democrat side of the isle.

The sudden push to repeal the 2nd Amt. comes from exact congressional district in south Florida represented by none other than DWS.

I don't believe it coincidences in that all of these events happen at this time.

If there is nothing to charge him with, then the investigation should be ended today! Why should the taxpayers continue to fund a political easter egg hunt, just on the chance that some time; some day; they may get their pound of flesh!

Py

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

Unimpeded means no obstruction.
So what exactly are they "investigating"?

See if you can follow..

No one is ever convicted of successfully obstructing justice.

If they were successful, they would not be convicted. They would have successfully obstructed the investigation or finding of evidence.

People are convicted of "Obstruction of Justice" when they are unsuccessful in impeding the investigation. Their failure in obstructing justice is what leads to them being charged.

What Trump was attempting to do and what resulted are two different things.

That is why McCabe cited the appointment of the Special Prosecutor following Comey's Firing.

Investigation not impeded at that moment, but that does not speak to Trump's intent and he was obviously enraged at the appointment of the Special Counsel which is specifically what allowed the investigation to continue unimpeded.

a reply to: soberbacchus

See if you can follow:

Investigation not impeded at that moment, but that does not speak to Trump's intent and he was obviously enraged at the appointment of the Special Counsel which is specifically what allowed the investigation to continue unimpeded.

I see your "at that moment" and raise you a "subject and not a target" of the investigation.
In over a year he is still "not a target".
There is nothing to find.

a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

See if you can follow:

Investigation not impeded at that moment, but that does not speak to Trump's intent and he was obviously enraged at the appointment of the Special Counsel which is specifically what allowed the investigation to continue unimpeded.

I see your "at that moment" and raise you a "subject and not a target" of the investigation.
In over a year he is still "not a target".
There is nothing to find.

You seem unaware of the legal definition of "Subject" as it is defined in a federal Investigation.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus


unless you have trump saying he fired comey to impede the investigation intentionally this isnt anything.

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

www.vox.com...

C'mon dude, you gotta realize at this point that just Because Trump said he fired Comey over the Russia Investigation doesn't mean he fired Comey over the Russia Investigation.....