Russia Investigation Heating Up

[Parkbandit]

Congratulations on having demonstrated how little you understand about American politics.

Seriously? YOU of all people?

stop. Now it's not entertaining.. it's morphing into almost pity for how dumb you are.

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah I've been gone for 6 months. But keep making things up.

Remember when you said there wouldn't be a democratic backlash in the 2018 elections?

Congratulations on having demonstrated how little you understand about American politics.

butter.jpg

[Fortybox]

Yeah I've been gone for 6 months. But keep making things up.

Remember when you said there wouldn't be a democratic backlash in the 2018 elections?

Congratulations on having demonstrated how little you understand about American politics.

Why would you come back if this forum was so full of meanie heads? Glad you’re back, the forum needs some entertainment.

[Fortybox]

I’m sorry to break this to you but Mueller has squat on Trump:

Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target...
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 a charge.

Source: Trump’s nemesis, the Washington Post no less.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.eca36e563916

I’m sure something will “come up” when it gets closer to election time. You can see what they are doing from a mile away.

[cwolff]

I’m sorry to break this to you but Mueller has squat on Trump:

Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target...
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 a charge.

Source: Trump’s nemesis, the Washington Post no less.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.eca36e563916

Trump might not get nailed for anything. It's hard as hell to bring down a president. It is too early to be so confident that Mueller has nothing on trump. It feels weird to even have to point that out. He's under investigation right now. When the investigation's over we'll know what Mueller has or doesn't have.

[Parkbandit]

Trump might not get nailed for anything. It's hard as hell to bring down a president. It is too early to be so confident that Mueller has nothing on trump. It feels weird to even have to point that out. He's under investigation right now. When the investigation's over we'll know what Mueller has or doesn't have.

So now, it's too hard to convict President Trump for all the Russian collusion he obviously did... because he was elected President?

[time4fun]

I’m sorry to break this to you but Mueller has squat on Trump:

Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target...
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 a charge.

Source: Trump’s nemesis, the Washington Post no less.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.eca36e563916

I hate to burst your bubble, but you're grossly misinterpreting this news.

1) Trump is currently (well as of a month ago) the subject of a criminal investigation- which means this isn't a charade, and it definitely does not mean Mueller has squat on Trump. If Mueller had nothing on him, he would absolutely, 100% not be a subject of a criminal probe. You don't become a subject of a probe until there is evidence of potential wrongdoing, and you can't actually stay a subject without additional evidence from the probe itself that indicates you should, in fact, continue to be a subject. And I want to emphasize here- this is particularly true if you are investigating a sitting US President.

So any narrative here that Trump is exonerated, or that there is no evidence against him is abjectly false and literally contradicts what we just learned.

Having said that, there are two very likely scenarios that Trump currently finds himself in. One scenario that is potentially better for him, and one he desperately doesn't want to be in.

The one he wants:

Robert Mueller is a DoJ employee. The DoJ's current guidelines say that a sitting President can't be criminally indicted. A target of the probe is someone they have enough evidence to indict. Even if Mueller is sitting on enough evidence for a criminal indictment, it's actually very likely that Trump still would not be considered a target of the probe because of the aforementioned DoJ policy. That doesn't mean Trump is in the clear, however. Because Mueller would still present that evidence in his final report, and Rosenstein would almost certainly take it to Congress (and could decide to release the information publicly).

It's also possible that while there is enough evidence to indict, it's not enough evidence to convince Congress to act. So there's actually a lot to cushion Trump in this.

The one he desperately does not want:

He's not a target because they haven't interviewed him yet. They likely don't consider themselves to have enough evidence to indict if there's been no interview. It's actually inconceivable that they would consider charges in a case like this without that interview, regardless of what their standard practice is. This involved obstruction- you can't indict until you've established corrupt intent. That would require an interview. In that case (the article actually goes into this as well), Trump is a subject until he walks into the interview, and then- once they have their interview as evidence- he walks out as a target.

There is actually some hinting at this in the article:

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 [obstruction] portion of his probe, the people said.

There is also the possibility that ultimately there won't be enough evidence to indict, but literally nothing about this article suggests that is the most likely outcome.

And, again, your interpretation that Mueller has nothing on Trump is 100% contradicted by this new information. What you just learned is that Mueller very much has evidence of at least potential criminal wrongdoing, and they are continuing to gather more evidence to build the case. If they weren't, he would not be a subject of the investigation right now- even if he had been at one point.

[Androidpk]

Trump is a subject until he walks into the interview, and then- once they have their interview as evidence- he walks out as a target.

There is actually some hinting at this in the article

.

[Parkbandit]

I hate to burst your bubble, but you're grossly misinterpreting this news.

1) Trump is currently (well as of a month ago) the subject of a criminal investigation- which means this isn't a charade, and it definitely does not mean Mueller has squat on Trump. If Mueller had nothing on him, he would absolutely, 100% not be a subject of a criminal probe. You don't become a subject of a probe until there is evidence of potential wrongdoing, and you can't actually stay a subject without additional evidence from the probe itself that indicates you should, in fact, continue to be a subject. And I want to emphasize here- this is particularly true if you are investigating a sitting US President.

So any narrative here that Trump is exonerated, or that there is no evidence against him is abjectly false and literally contradicts what we just learned.

Having said that, there are two very likely scenarios that Trump currently finds himself in. One scenario that is potentially better for him, and one he desperately doesn't want to be in.

The one he wants:

Robert Mueller is a DoJ employee. The DoJ's current guidelines say that a sitting President can't be criminally indicted. A target of the probe is someone they have enough evidence to indict. Even if Mueller is sitting on enough evidence for a criminal indictment, it's actually very likely that Trump still would not be considered a target of the probe because of the aforementioned DoJ policy. That doesn't mean Trump is in the clear, however. Because Mueller would still present that evidence in his final report, and Rosenstein would almost certainly take it to Congress (and could decide to release the information publicly).

It's also possible that while there is enough evidence to indict, it's not enough evidence to convince Congress to act. So there's actually a lot to cushion Trump in this.

The one he desperately does not want:

He's not a target because they haven't interviewed him yet. They likely don't consider themselves to have enough evidence to indict if there's been no interview. It's actually inconceivable that they would consider charges in a case like this without that interview, regardless of what their standard practice is. This involved obstruction- you can't indict until you've established corrupt intent. That would require an interview. In that case (the article actually goes into this as well), Trump is a subject until he walks into the interview, and then- once they have their interview as evidence- he walks out as a target.

There is actually some hinting at this in the article:



There is also the possibility that ultimately there won't be enough evidence to indict, but literally nothing about this article suggests that is the most likely outcome.

And, again, your interpretation that Mueller has nothing on Trump is 100% contradicted by this new information. What you just learned is that Mueller very much has evidence of at least potential criminal wrongdoing, and they are continuing to gather more evidence to build the case. If they weren't, he would not be a subject of the investigation right now- even if he had been at one point.

[time4fun]

Oh PB. Your confidence is inspiring.

You were wrong about Clinton

You were wrong about Russia not having meddled in our elections

You were wrong about Trump's Russia connections not being a big deal

You were wrong about Comey's firing being totally fine and not warranting a special prosecutor

You were wrong about Trump not being under investigation

You were wrong about Mueller having no evidence on Trump

But I will give you this- if you keep guessing A, eventually the answer will be A. So keep it up, and maybe one day you'll be right about something.

Anything.