• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Witness/Subject/Target (1 Viewer)

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
65,275
Reaction score
55,858
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There has been reporting that the POTUS has been a “subject” not a “target” in the SC investigation. My question is: Wouldn’t the POTUS be a “target” if the FBI opened an investigation to find whether or not he, Trump was a foreign “asset?”
 
Sounds like something from Buzzfeed? Here we go again?
 
Sounds like something from Buzzfeed? Here we go again?

What reminds you of Buzzfeed?

1) Is there not a Special Counsel investigation?
2) Multiple sources reported that the FBI opened an investigation after the Comey dismissal, many links.
 
There has been reporting that the POTUS has been a “subject” not a “target” in the SC investigation. My question is: Wouldn’t the POTUS be a “target” if the FBI opened an investigation to find whether or not he, Trump was a foreign “asset?”

Not necessarily. But, that distinction probably explains why Mueller was quick to point out the inaccuracies in the BuzzFeed story. The story clearly paints Trump as a "target."

Legally, the difference between witness, suspect, subject and target is clearly defined. But, in a practical sense, the objective for LEO is to manipulate the W/S/S/T, doing so by blurring the lines between them.

Thus, a witness can quickly become a target and then a suspect. But, once he/she becomes a suspect, Miranda warnings become increasingly mandatory, especially if said witness was in custody.
 
Last edited:
There has been reporting that the POTUS has been a “subject” not a “target” in the SC investigation. My question is: Wouldn’t the POTUS be a “target” if the FBI opened an investigation to find whether or not he, Trump was a foreign “asset?”

In the case of Trump, Mueller is lying. Trump is and always has been the target. IMO it's a legal definition to do with the power to investigate a political party. So what does an honest and proper FBI do? They change the definition. So like it or not, the agencies staffed by the prior administration are investigating the opposition candidate that just happened to win the election.

The biggest mistake Trump made was not removing each and every political appointee on day zero.
 
In the case of Trump, Mueller is lying. Trump is and always has been the target. IMO it's a legal definition to do with the power to investigate a political party. So what does an honest and proper FBI do? They change the definition. So like it or not, the agencies staffed by the prior administration are investigating the opposition candidate that just happened to win the election.

The biggest mistake Trump made was not removing each and every political appointee on day zero.

Or, maybe, Trump really is a crook and Russkie asset.

Of course, you won't believe it even if you see Trump kissing Putin's ass on live TV. But, my money is on that theory over yours.
 
A subject is in fact an investigation target, in common language. They are not a target for prosecution though. Target/witness/subject has more to do with the latter.

I thought it was something like this:

subject: part of the scope/behavior being investigated
target: well-evidenced to have committed crimes and building case to indict
witness: not believed to be involved but may have relevant information


Trump has been and continues to be a subject of a wide range of aspects of the Mueller investigation. They were investigating Trump's conduct, without a doubt. That's a subject.

Even today, one might argue that Trump is unlikely to be a target of the Mueller probe. There is something about targets being unlikely to be called in for interviews, and Trump has repeatedly, even recently, been asked to sit with investigators (and he refuses every time). While I can find a lot of discussion of that, nothing firm, so that's a big maybe at the end there.
 
Last edited:
There has been reporting that the POTUS has been a “subject” not a “target” in the SC investigation. My question is: Wouldn’t the POTUS be a “target” if the FBI opened an investigation to find whether or not he, Trump was a foreign “asset?”


A "target" is 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. An officer or employee of an organization which is a target is not automatically considered a target even if such officer's or employee's conduct contributed to the commission of the crime by the target organization. The same lack of automatic target status holds true for organizations which employ, or employed, an officer or employee who is a target.

A "subject" of an investigation is a person whose
conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.

DOJ Guideline 9-11.151

See also

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution




A sitting President almost likely cannot be indicted, and the DOJ's guidelines agree on that front. If a sitting president cannot be indicted and the DOJ's guidelines agree, then it makes little sense to refer to that person as a "putative defendant" so long as they are a sitting President. Simply put, they cannot be a defendant while in office, so they can't very well be called a "putative" defendant.

He's a "subject" because he can't be a "target" as a result of his status as a sitting President. And thus, the Trumpists' prior claims about innocence that were tied to the fact that he was a "subject" were bull.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom