Thread by @BusterUSMC

What It Means That @realDonaldTrump Is:
***"Only A Subject"***
1. Yesterday the Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezoswho also owns Amazon) reprtd that Robert Mueller views the @POTUS as a subject, not a target, of his grand jury investigation: washingtonpost.com

2. In the article:
"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed @POTUS @realDonaldTrump ’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does NOT consider him a criminal target at this point, acc to 3 people familiar with the discussions."

3. The Article Continued:
"In private negotiations in early March abt a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election..."

4. "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.'"

5. The hot takes (predictably) are raining down.
Here's one by John Podhoretz not to pick on him, because it's not unusually bad or wrong, but by way of example: commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas…

6. Poodhoretz: "Yes, the story goes on to say that he might become a target later. But Mueller has been at this now for 9mos w/an aggressive staff. He has issued indictments of various figures & might be going after others.
So telling Trump he’s not a target is a very big deal."

7. Well, not really.
That's an "overconfident overstatement."

The feds, (by doctrine & tradition), divide EVERYONE (of interest to a Federal Grand Jury Investigation) into these three categories: You are either a:

1) Target
2) Subject
or
3) Witness.

8. A "witness" is someone who has useful information but is NOT considered a potential suspect in any wrongdoing.

Here's how the U.S. Attorney's Manual defines targets and subjects:
justice.gov/usam/usam-9-11…

9. From the U.S. Attorney's Manual:
A TARGET is a person as to whom the Prosecutor (Robert Mueller) 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, (Robert Mueller) is a putative defendant."

10. Also From the U.S. Attorney's Manual:
"A SUBJECT of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the Grand Jury's investigation."

11. This is rather dry.
Colloquially, most fedl prosecutors & defense attys wld prob descr it this way: "calling one a TARGET="we're planning on indicting you if we can."
Calling one a SUBJECT="we're developing evidence abt what u did & if we find supprt 4it we may indict you."

12. The distinction has some legal significance — under the provision linked above, prosecutors are NOT ALLOWED to subpoena a TARGET into the Grand Jury without 1st warning them that they are a target, for instance.

But the practical differences are murky.

13. Different prosecutors have diffrnt practices abt whn they call som1 a "TARGET."
Some will use that label as soon as they think it is likely they will be indicted. Some are more "cautious" &only classify one as a target whn they are quite sure that they'll indict. ..

14. Some prosecutors (ones who risk a bad reputation) will disingenuously classify someone as a "SUBJECT" in order to lure them & their attys into talking to the government, even if talking to the govt wld b manifestly a bad idea. ..

15. Other prosecutors are overcautious in the other direction & label people "TARGETS" so no one can accuse them of "hiding the ball."

16. There's a benefit to knowing you're a" target"
-there's no ambiguity & you can focus on going to the mattresses.

It's trickier if you're a "subject."

17. Clients & some lawyers will clamor to talk to the prosecutors to convince them that they should NOT be a "SUBJECT",
.....that they should only be a "WITNESS."

They see the "subject" designation as an opportunity to talk their way out of it.

18. But for more cautious Federal Defense Attorneys, the "SUBJECT" classification does NOT change "the strategy" very much.

19. The client (in this case the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump )
can still become a "TARGET" (of Robert Mueller) at ANY time.

~Talking to the government may well provide the information they need to make that decision....at ANY TIME.

20. Furthermore, talking to the government often generates its own "NEW CRIMES", as we've seen again & again in Mueller's investigation as defendants have been charged (&in several cases pleaded guilty) to the CATCH-ALL Charge of "LYING TO THE GOVT." nationalreview.com/2017/06/trump-…

21. The situation is still 1of GREATDANGER, & no experienced defense attorney is relieved to hear that their client ( @POTUS @realDonaldTrump) is now
"ONLY a SUBJECT."
(BTW: Wasn't That What US Army General M. Flynn Was At One Time, or was that his son?) freebeacon.com/national-secur…

22. The analogy:
~if ur a TARGET, ur walking across an open field & a sniper is shooting at you from a tower.

~If ur a SUBJECT, ur walking across an open field & a sniper is shooting, but not shooting at you at this particular moment.

Now ask "How much safer do I feel?"

23. Many Legal Eagles Say That Robert Mueller is rather "by-the-book." Even when his goals are aggressive, his methodology is not envelope-pushing, he's meticulous about seeking judicial approval in the form of warrants & court orders.
larouchepac.com/20170927/rober…

24. Some have speculated that Robert Mueller's classifying Trump as a "SUBJECT" is only because @realDonaldTrump can not be indicted while in office and therefore can't be a "TARGET."

(that is foolish thinking..)

25. That logic strikes me as fanciful: NO COURT has EVER held the idea that a sitting President can NOT be indicted, Robert Mueller has NOT said or done anything to indicate that he holds that constrained view of his powers,

26. ...&... Mueller's more likely to take a conservative read of the U.S. Attorney's manual & warn @realDonaldTrump if he becomes a "TARGET" under ANY theory without applying such concealed logic.

27. Given Robert Mueller's caution (applying for judicial approval whenever necessary) & standard methodology (developing the case through subpoenas & interviews, catching suspects in lies & using those lies to attmpt 2flip them as cooperators, ...

28. ...steadily indicting new defendants as they become vulnerable), the most reasonable explanation is that "he means what he says"
And What He Said Is:
"The @POTUS — @realDonaldTrump IS A "SUBJECT."

29. That doesn't mean he's made a determination that @realDonaldTrump will NOT BE indicted, or that it's somehow UNLIKELY that he will ever be indicted, or that he has NOT committed crimes or wrongdoing. ...

30. It does NOT reflect a judgment on whether there has been a crime.
It means that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is NOT there.....YET.
Calling @realDonaldTrump a "SUBJECT" is consistent w/continuing to pursue evidence that would move Trump into the "TARGET"column.

31. It does NOT reduce @realDonaldTrump 's exposure at all.
It does NOT change the dilemmas his lawyers face. It does NOT reduce the DANGERS of him making a statmnt to of ANY KIND to Mueller.
~They Want Him To Say Something...ANYTHING...To Crack Open Another Door To Look Into.

32.And It does NOT stop the aimless process or the process stories or the steady rolling-up of @realDonaldTrump associates for various minuscule 'fibs' or forgotten dates fr yrs ago. They'll get u: LYING TO GOVT which becomes a msm headline "Trump Assc-Convicted Federal Crime."

33. And in this "post-factual" and "obstinately legally illiterate world," though, the distinction ("SUBJECT") will be used for propaganda.

I say to the @POTUS -Don't fall for it.
~This IS a Witch-Hunt.
~You ARE Under Sniper Fire
~"Subjects" ARE "Targets"

Like Gen Flynn

~End.