Rosenstein Said to Tell Trump He's Not Target in Mueller Probe

[Chomsky]

Must be nice to be so darn smart. Smarter than the average bear. :doh

1. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Trump last week that the president is not a target in the Michael Cohen investigation, and that the investigation is focused solely on Cohen, the president's personal attorney, a source familiar with the probe told Fox News on Thursday.

2. Special counsel Robert Mueller told President Trump's attorneys last month that he does not consider Trump to be a criminal target in his investigation of Russian actions during the 2016 campaign, The Washington Post reported Tuesday night.


Not sure how the trump haters will understand this.

This is true, but you omitted the part where Mueller told Trump he was a subject of the investigation. Ostensibly being a subject means there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation into you, but not (perhaps yet) enough provable evidence to indict you at this moment in time.

Regrdless, being the subject of a federal investigation is not a good thing at all. It indicates there is evidence causing suspicion of you having done a crime, and the feds are going to further examine you in an attempt to provide provable evidence worthy of indictment.

I should also note, subject status can and often does change to target status, though it's not guaranteed.

Below is a summary of the DOJ guidelines on the three terms. Please note in the subject status paragraph, the subject's relation to the Grand Jury:

• Witness: Being a witness in a case involving the FBI, Secret Service, IRS or other Federal Agency does not necessarily mean that you observed or saw a crime happen. You may have information that law enforcement believes might be relevant in a criminal investigation to help prove either the guilt or the innocence of another individual or business. Although you may only be a witness, it’s critical to recognize that if you speak to Federal law enforcement your words are not protected without a proffer agreement and should you make a misrepresentation, you can be charged with the crimes of Lying to a Federal Agent[1] and Obstruction of Justice, each of which is punishable by as much as five years in a Federal penitentiary

• Subject of an Investigation: The term “subject of an investigation” has a particular meaning within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ Handbook[2], a “subject” is: “a person whose conduct is within the scope of a Grand Jury’s investigation.” A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness. A subject has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor isn’t certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.

• Target: The term “target of an investigation” is also specifically defined by the DOJ. A person is a target where the prosecutor or Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime. Designation as a target provides a clear warning of a person’s criminal exposure.

Source: Duffy Law) What’s The Difference Between a Federal Target, Subject, and Witness?

 

[Chomsky]

.... while being the "subject" often means "you're next".


Shall we consult counsel?

https://www.duffylawct.com/whats-the-difference-federal-target-subject-witness/

"........Subject of an Investigation: The term “subject of an investigation” has a particular meaning within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ Handbook[SUP][2][/SUP], a “subject” is: “a person whose conduct is within the scope of a Grand Jury’s investigation.” A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness. A subject has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor isn’t certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.

• Target: The term “target of an investigation” is also specifically defined by the DOJ. A person is a target where the prosecutor or Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime. Designation as a target provides a clear warning of a person’s criminal exposure.


Even though your status as a witness, subject or target may be important in guiding your strategy during a particular phase of a federal white collar crime investigation, the key thing to remember about these categories is that they are ultimately meaningless and offer you no protection. Why? Because even if you’re currently a witness or subject, there’s no guarantee that your status will remain unchanged...."

Damn, you stumbled upon my source I think.

 

[upsideguy]

Damn, you stumbled upon my source I think.

Yes, I was going to compliment you on your impressive Google skills.....

 

[Chomsky]

Yes, I was going to compliment you on your impressive Google skills.....

It's easy, when you chose the first hit! :2razz:

 

[upsideguy]

It's easy, when you chose the first hit! :2razz:

.... unfortunately too many posters on this board can't even find the 1st hit....

 

[Mycroft]

Im asking if it's illegal to lie to the potus. It's a crime to lie to the fbi, it would stand to reason that lying to the potus is also a crime.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Oh...yeah, I don't know. Talking to the President isn't the same thing as giving answers to an FBI investigation. I don't think one being illegal necessarily means the other is illegal.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Amazing that the distinction between the two has been completely lost here. If you are a target in an investigation it usually means you're already ****ed.

Before you can be a target, you need to be a subject.

 

[OldFatGuy]

In my reporting days I came to know a good many attorneys and a good deal about them. You are absolutely right on all counts, but have left off one trait they look for and that is 'can the client keep his mouth shut?'.

Trump is his own worst enemy and I can not see a long list of bright, up and coming attoney's perfectly suited to the job, all of whom would say 'no'. I would reject any approach simply based on that fact alone. Donald Trump is not a man who should EVER be allowed under oath.

I whole heartedly agree. When it comes to the public eye, most attorneys see their clients as their own worst enemies.

We like to think of Trump as stupid, but in courts of law he has always allowed his attorneys to speak for him. When on the stand, he goes by the scripts his attorneys prepare for him, from memory. His attorney preferences for his business transactions have been among the best. This is a different ballgame, but he is a client who takes attorney advice. The very real benefit for his new attorney is that she will gain more new clients. The pro to the con, intentionally meant to be ambiguous.

When I was the CEO of my company, policy was to reject all celebrities. It's next to impossible to securitize someone in the public eye and who's ego has them telling you how to do your job.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Oh...yeah, I don't know. Talking to the President isn't the same thing as giving answers to an FBI investigation. I don't think one being illegal necessarily means the other is illegal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

 

[Mycroft]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

I don't think this law applies to Trump and Comey sitting down to dinner and talking.

 

[OldFatGuy]

I don't think this law applies to Trump and Comey sitting down to dinner and talking.

Teddy Roosevelt threatened the arrest of a storyteller in the Whitehouse who told of a fish that got away, it was yo big, bigger, bigger, bigger...........

He was the storyteller.

Laws can be, and have been, applied in unanticipated matters.

In King Lear, we hear the cry, "Kill the lawyers first!" It was a call to revolution. Only the wealthy could afford to hire lawyers to write the laws that kept the people oppressed. Not much has changed.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I whole heartedly agree. When it comes to the public eye, most attorneys see their clients as their own worst enemies.

We like to think of Trump as stupid, but in courts of law he has always allowed his attorneys to speak for him. When on the stand, he goes by the scripts his attorneys prepare for him, from memory. His attorney preferences for his business transactions have been among the best. This is a different ballgame, but he is a client who takes attorney advice. The very real benefit for his new attorney is that she will gain more new clients. The pro to the con, intentionally meant to be ambiguous.

When I was the CEO of my company, policy was to reject all celebrities. It's next to impossible to securitize someone in the public eye and who's ego has them telling you how to do your job.

From what I understand in the US you can pretty well say anything you like about a public figure - they put themselves there. Why National Inquirer gets away with what it does.

Ever notice they never take on a Canadian

 

[OldFatGuy]

From what I understand in the US you can pretty well say anything you like about a public figure - they put themselves there. Why National Inquirer gets away with what it does.

Ever notice they never take on a Canadian

When I was much younger, the National Enquirer had an obviously doctored photo of a two headed calf with Marlon Brando's face superimposed on the calf's heads, accompanied by a headline suggesting Marlon fathered the calf. I decided then and there I would never buy or read a copy of the Enquirer.

In the name of a free press, the self appointed 4th Estate has abused and contorted our 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Designed to protect citizens criticizing government, limiting actions by the government in response to that freedom of speech, the media lies, accuses, embarrasses and assassinates character as if it is their inalienable right protected by law. Our courts have exacerbated the problem by placing the value of a free press above the lawful limitations of slander and libel. Our courts failed to make a distinction between a free press as a critic of governance with the rights of individuals, no matter their status in the public eye, to be protected from libel and slander. The Canadian government and courts have not failed their citizens with the same errors.

 

[Fearandloathing]

When I was much younger, the National Enquirer had an obviously doctored photo of a two headed calf with Marlon Brando's face superimposed on the calf's heads, accompanied by a headline suggesting Marlon fathered the calf. I decided then and there I would never buy or read a copy of the Enquirer.

In the name of a free press, the self appointed 4th Estate has abused and contorted our 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Designed to protect citizens criticizing government, limiting actions by the government in response to that freedom of speech, the media lies, accuses, embarrasses and assassinates character as if it is their inalienable right protected by law. Our courts have exacerbated the problem by placing the value of a free press above the lawful limitations of slander and libel. Our courts failed to make a distinction between a free press as a critic of governance with the rights of individuals, no matter their status in the public eye, to be protected from libel and slander. The Canadian government and courts have not failed their citizens with the same errors.

You're talking to a retired journalist and citing garbage. In over 30 years cranking out political copy I was challenged ONCE about the political content of a story, and that was easily resolved.

In over 30 years I found the 'biased press' complain to be the furtherance of an easy myth about a group, slandering individuals within it. You talk about the National Enquirer, well someone reads that ****!

Every complaint about the media I have every entertained was wrong save one - we were way behind the gender curve by the mid 1970's.

First, everyone has a bias. No one is without, including you and you are spouting pretty much the right wing meme about the MSM, word for word I have been reading for 20 years. I can assure you that never in my history has there ever been a meeting of people in journalism to discuss what would be covered and what would not, what makes it into a story and what doesn't occurs at least once on every story as the reporter must clear all stories through his editor.

What I have seen is a market shift in the US, the FOX people saw a niche not being filled and filled it, just like PT Barnum found his. But it isn't news. When a station owner declares he would ban certain coverage, like Hillary's fifth or sixth Banghazi hearing, I know they don't do news, they do what the owner tells them.

With billions on the line per minute, the FREE press is under huge pressure to distinguish itself, and/or maintain it's stellar reputation, examining stories in depth to ensure that they are A - balanced and fair, B - accurate, and C - the latest and best. When you have outlets in multiples and they are all more or less saying the same thing, you can be sure it's real. In 30 years I never discussed the contents of even ONE story outside my newsroom before it was aired, there is no getting together and agreeing on what's being reported. To think so is itself showing a huge bias.

If a person is getting 100% of their news from Fox, they are getting the National Enquirer of television. If you notice, Fox doesn't report the original story, they report 'reaction", comments from their base of biased blowhards

 

[OldFatGuy]

You're talking to a retired journalist and citing garbage. In over 30 years cranking out political copy I was challenged ONCE about the political content of a story, and that was easily resolved.

In over 30 years I found the 'biased press' complain to be the furtherance of an easy myth about a group, slandering individuals within it. You talk about the National Enquirer, well someone reads that ****!

Every complaint about the media I have every entertained was wrong save one - we were way behind the gender curve by the mid 1970's.

First, everyone has a bias. No one is without, including you and you are spouting pretty much the right wing meme about the MSM, word for word I have been reading for 20 years. I can assure you that never in my history has there ever been a meeting of people in journalism to discuss what would be covered and what would not, what makes it into a story and what doesn't occurs at least once on every story as the reporter must clear all stories through his editor.

What I have seen is a market shift in the US, the FOX people saw a niche not being filled and filled it, just like PT Barnum found his. But it isn't news. When a station owner declares he would ban certain coverage, like Hillary's fifth or sixth Banghazi hearing, I know they don't do news, they do what the owner tells them.

With billions on the line per minute, the FREE press is under huge pressure to distinguish itself, and/or maintain it's stellar reputation, examining stories in depth to ensure that they are A - balanced and fair, B - accurate, and C - the latest and best. When you have outlets in multiples and they are all more or less saying the same thing, you can be sure it's real. In 30 years I never discussed the contents of even ONE story outside my newsroom before it was aired, there is no getting together and agreeing on what's being reported. To think so is itself showing a huge bias.

If a person is getting 100% of their news from Fox, they are getting the National Enquirer of television. If you notice, Fox doesn't report the original story, they report 'reaction", comments from their base of biased blowhards

Did you work in the states or Canada?

Remember Hearst? He started a war with yellow journalism.

Yes, we all have biases, and we cannot escape who we are. Of course, I have my own biases, but then I am not a journalist. However, American journalism has move far past individual biases to a world of journalism framed by Si Newhouse and Mark Kalish, "If there is no news, make it up."

During the past decade or so, the media has moved from doing its best to minimize subjectivity, to a point where sensationalism is all that counts for selling advertising. It is not right wing, it is not left wing, it is both.

When I was young I loved the NYC Journalism alternatives. A dozen mainstream newspapers to choose from, and eventually I became an addicted reader of the NYT, reading it daily, cover to last page, skipping the ads and the sports reporting. A personal preference on the latter. I'd watch Walter Cronkite with my dad and grandfather occasionally, but didn't have much time for TV.

I won't argue about the pressures caused by the need to sell time, there are pressures in every craft, profession, and form of work. Not excuses for throwing integrity down the sewers.