Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target By Carol D. Leonnig and Robert Costa April 3 at 8:02 PM Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions. In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges. The special counsel also told Trump’s lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president’s actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations. Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump — both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe, the people said. Mueller’s description of the president’s status has sparked friction within Trump’s inner circle as his advisers have debated his legal standing. The president and some of his allies seized on the special counsel’s words as an assurance that Trump’s risk of criminal jeopardy is low. Other advisers, however, noted that subjects of investigations can easily become indicted targets — and expressed concern that the special prosecutor was baiting Trump into an interview that could put the president in greater legal peril. John Dowd, Trump’s top attorney dealing with the Mueller probe, resigned last month amid disputes about strategy and frustration that the president ignored his advice to refuse the special counsel’s request for an interview, according to a Trump friend. Trump’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, and Dowd declined to comment for this report. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions to White House attorney Ty Cobb. “Thank you, but I don’t discuss communications with the president or with the Office of Special Counsel,” Cobb said Tuesday. Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment. The wide-ranging special counsel investigation, which began as an examination of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has expanded into other areas, including whether Trump sought to obstruct the Russian probe. Mueller’s investigators have indicated to the president’s legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages — with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions. Under special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to report his conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who has the authority to decide whether to release the information publicly. “They’ve said they want to write a report on this — to answer the public’s questions — and they need the president’s interview as the last step,” one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller’s team. Trump’s attorneys expect the president would also face questions about what he knew about any contacts by his associates with Russians officials and emissaries in 2016, several White House advisers said. The president’s allies believe a second report detailing the special counsel’s findings on Russia’s interference would be issued later. The president has privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview, the people said. He has repeatedly told allies that he is not a target of the probe and believes an interview will help him put the matter behind him, friends said. However, legal experts said Mueller’s description of Trump as a subject of a grand jury probe does not mean he is in the clear. Under Justice Department guidelines, a subject of an investigation is a person whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation. A target is a person for which there is substantial evidence linking him or her to a crime. A subject could become a target with his or her own testimony, legal experts warn. “If I were the president, I would be very reluctant to think I’m off the hook,” said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University and impeachment expert. “My sense of it is the president — given that information — ought to have pretty fair warning anything he’s saying in the deposition would be legally consequential. Depending on what he says, it could wind up changing how the special counsel is thinking about him.” Still, several legal scholars and impeachment experts believe Mueller may conclude he does not have the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime under an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000. If Mueller finds Trump engaged in criminal conduct, he could detail it in a report, experts argue, and let Congress to decide whether to launch impeachment proceedings based on Mueller’s findings. “The president’s personal risk is primarily on the impeachment front,” Whittington said. “Even if there are not things that lead to indictment, there may be matters that warrant an impeachment investigation and proceedings.” Some of Trump’s advisers have warned White House aides that they fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about the president’s actions. Several of Trump’s public actions have called into question whether he sought to blunt or block the criminal probe, a line of inquiry that prosecutors began pursuing last year. He has repeatedly called the investigation a “witch hunt” that has unfairly sullied his administration and hampered his ability to accomplish his policy agenda. He fired FBI James B. Comey in May after Comey told Congress that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump was furious that Comey did not state that he was not personally under investigation, The Washington Post previously reported. The president also asked top intelligence officials to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. Mueller’s team has told Trump’s attorneys over recent months that they are seeking to learn more about the firings of Comey and national security adviser Michael Flynn last year and the president’s efforts to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. Nevertheless, Trump has repeatedly expressed an eagerness to sit down for a voluntary interview to answer Mueller’s questions — a move Dowd believed would be a mistake, according to a longtime Trump friend. Dowd told the president the case against him was weak, but warned Trump he could create criminal jeopardy for himself if he agreed to an interview and misspoke under oath, the friend said. Dowd repeatedly pointed to the Trump campaign advisers who have pleaded guilty to making false statements in the Mueller probe — including Flynn, adviser George Papadopoulos and former campaign official Rick Gates. “Mueller hasn’t hesitated to [charge] people for lying on some pretty tangential stuff,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel in the probe of President Bill Clinton. However, Sekulow and Cobb gave the president the opposite advice as Dowd: that it would be politically difficult for Trump to refuse to answer questions after insisting for months there was no collusion or crime, according to three people familiar with their advice. However, Sekulow and Cobb gave the president the opposite advice as Dowd: that it would be politically difficult for Trump to refuse to answer questions after insisting for months there was no collusion or crime, according to three people familiar with their advice. “I think he would do much better than people think,” Wisenberg said. “But there are plenty of instances where a guy walks into a grand jury a subject. He gets out and is told: ‘Guess what, you’re a target now.’” Ashley Parker, Philip Rucker and Julie Tate contributed to this report. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.ec97332465f3
I have to agree with John Dowd. Agreeing to meet with Mueller would be a terrible mistake, just like it was a mistake to talk to Comey privately. Mueller, his team, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, these people are all snakes, without any character or honor. Their two goals are to cover up their own wrongdoing and to get Trump. Mueller is going to write a highly negative report, no matter what Trump does. If the democrats take over congress, their deranged base will demand impeachment, no matter what Mueller reports. Trump should be fighting back, not cooperating. Granted, it's hard to do with Sessions as AG.
A graduate of Princeton University, Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" for heroism and the Purple Heart Medal. After graduating from the University of Virginia School of Law (1973), he worked at a private firm in San Francisco for three years until his appointment as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the same city. Prior to his appointment as FBI Director, Mueller served as a United States Attorney, as United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and as Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General.
Exactly, a Trump supporter calling out others for not having character or honor. Hahahhahahaha, these people are unbelievable.
The department of justice has a standing memo (that has never been legally tested) that the president cannot be charged with a crime. Technically, there is nothing wrong with Mueller’s statement.
Wait until Mueller comes up with NOTHING on Trump. Gullible Tony and exGOPer who believe everything the Trump-hating leftist media tells them to, will turn on him in a second and lose what's left of their TDS-ravaged minds.
Reality is a bitch. When will the media accept that Trump is not a criminal target? BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/04/18 In terminal medical cases, doctors often deal with patients who move through “stages” that begin with denial. These so-called Kübler-Ross stages can be a long road toward acceptance. A weird form of Kübler-Ross seems to have taken hold of the media. Rather than refusing to accept indicators of impending death, many journalists and analysts seem incapable of accepting signs that the Trump presidency could survive. That painful process was more evident Tuesday night when the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert Mueller told the White House last month that Trump was not considered a “target” but only a “subject” of the investigation. After a year of being assured that “bombshell” developments and “smoking gun” evidence was sealing the criminal case against Trump, the dissonance was too great for many who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of this disclosure. The U.S. Attorney’s manual defines a “subject” as a “person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.” It is a designation that can change but it is also a meaningful description of the current status of an individual. Mueller at this time apparently does not believe Trump meets the definition of a target or a “person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” That would have been less notable when Mueller was appointed in 2017 than it is now, after more than a year, dozens of criminal counts, hundreds of thousands of documents, and a bevy of cooperating witnesses. That Mueller does not believe there is “substantial evidence linking [Trump] to the commission of a crime” would seem to merit some, albeit grudging, recognition. However, there has been a disturbing lack of objectivity in the coverage of this investigation from the start. Throughout it, some of us have cautioned that the criminal case against Trump was far weaker than media suggested. Fired FBI Director James Comey himself told Congress that Trump was not a target of his investigation. Indeed, Trump was reportedly upset with Comey largely because Comey would not say that publicly. When Trump fired Comey, I supported the call for a special counsel, and I still support Mueller in completing his investigation. However, the case of criminal conduct by Trump has not materially improved over the last year. Last October, Mueller brought the first indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Richard Gates. Notably, none of the indictments were linked to the campaign, let alone Trump. When that obvious point was raised, we were told that it meant nothing and Mueller was likely holding back the really damaging indictments while pressuring Trump aides. Commentators continue to announce “bombshell” disclosures against Trump on a daily basis, with experts alleging clear cases for treason to obstruction to witness tampering and other crimes. Then, in November, came the disclosure of plea agreements with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. However, these pleas were for making individual false statements to federal investigators. Neither the charges nor the narratives in the filings tied Trump or his campaign to any criminal act. Later indictments involving lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and internet operator Richard Pinedo involved a false statement and a single count of identity fraud, again unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Nevertheless, commentators insisted Mueller was just laying the groundwork for his major filing. In February, Mueller handed down indictments of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for election-related crimes, from hacking to identity fraud. Not only did these charges not implicate Trump or his campaign, but the filing expressly stated that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly engaged Russians in these efforts. Now, Mueller reportedly has said he does not consider Trump a “target” of the criminal investigation. Looking at each of the prior filings, the disclosure would seem consistent with a lack of compelling evidence of a crime by Trump. Indeed, it would indicate Trump’s status has not changed from when Comey told Congress that Trump was not a target. Still, some analysts immediately denied that Mueller’s disclosure was anything but bad news for Trump. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin insisted that “being a ‘subject’ is a very serious thing” and a “very significant designation” because it is clear “the FBI is investigating the president.” Of course, the only lower designation in a criminal investigation would be “witness.” Moreover, it was confirmed last year that Trump was being investigated. http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ia-accept-that-trump-is-not-a-criminal-target