So as soon as it was released that Donald Trump was not considered a target in the Mueller special probe, about a million and one liberal pundits (all but a couple without any legal background) suggested that it didn't mean anything because the President cannot be "indicted".
The problem with that suggestion is that an "indictment" is simply a consequence of being a "target". It really has nothing to do with the legal definition. The DOJ has specific definitions of what a target is and what a subject is. Whether or not an indictment will follow isn't within the scope of that definition.
By the guidelines of a federal investigation, if the investigation has uncovered evidence that makes investigators or a Grand Jury feel a particular person has committed a criminal action, then that person becomes a target. A criminal case is likely being made. The criminal complaint might be taking form. Evidence is being analyzed. Yes, a target should definitely worry about the possibility of an indictment, but it doesn't follow that every target requires an indictment to be considered a target..
So just because the President cannot be indicted (according to most experts), that doesn't mean that Special Counsel would not be obligated to still treat that person as if they have committed a criminal action. It would still require the investigator to put the criminal action into a report. It would still require them to build the criminal case. It would still require them to gather and analyze the evidence of said criminal action. They would still be treated as if they were a target.
This is what Ken Starr did when he provided a report stating the specific criminal acts that he believed President Clinton committed. It read pretty much like an indictment might read. It highlighted the laws that were broken, and the evidence of said criminal actions. I am sure if you asked Ken Starr, he would not have told Clinton and his attorneys that he was just a "subject" of the investigation. At least not if Ken Starr was following DOJ guidelines.
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203you know wp, i remind myself of that every time i take a trip down memory lane and reminisce about the 2016 presidential election.
that was one helluva landslide, no?"
It was. I thank God everyday.
Let me reiterate my stance on pro-choice Christians.
You can't be one.
You either believe that God knew you and everyone else in the womb and that His creation is worth protection. Or you believe a human should be allowed to murder Gods most revered creation.
You can't be Christian and pro-choice. And to be a proud Pro-choice Christian is to spit in the face of God's creation.
Sorry, not sorry.
You can be liberal and pro-life.
You can also be "pro-life" and yet NOT be an advocate of making that choice for women. You kill a baby, even an unborn one, yeah I think you're going to be in trouble with the creator. Abort a zygote a week after conception, how the hell should I know if it's a human person when literally no one else does? Not knowing, who am I to tell everyone else what they can or can't do about it? Women should make that determination, and among them who do, you'll be taking responsibility for your decisions one way or the other.
Where your logic leads: a neo-con can't be a Christian, because innocents will be killed in his military interventions, which he advocates for political or economic gain. A laissez faire Conservative cannot be a Christian, because those corporations he enables can legally knowingly cause deaths, as long as the "public good" is otherwise enough. You can't be a Christian if you're a judge in a capital punishment state, because you sentence people to death.
I'm not going to make these judgments. You can, if you want to, but are you sure that you're not spitting in the face of God's prerogative when you do?
Post a Comment