More from Seth Abramson on Trump being told he's a subject of investigation

[triron]

Link to tweet

10/ In the past, the White House—and reporters—only said Trump would be asked about Flynn's Russia contacts during the transition. "Any contacts by his associates in 2016" is a broader area of inquiry, and one I felt Mueller always should've been looking at for a Trump interview.
6:19 PM - 3 Apr 2018

New conversation
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

11/ Now we come to the BS part of the Post piece—which is of course where it summarizes Trump's views on all this: "The president has privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview."
7 replies 61 retweets 356 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

12/ Trump isn't "relieved" at anything. He knows he's guilty, continues to fear being caught, and knows a subject can turn instantaneously into a target at Mueller's will. For that reason he is not now—and never has been—planning to sit with Mueller for a free-ranging interview.
12 replies 103 retweets 510 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

13/ If Trump believed in his own innocence, and that he'd never become a target, and that all his lying/obstructing in the past hadn't been enough for Mueller to want to charge him with anything, he'd sit down immediately for a no-holds-barred interview with Mueller—but he won't.
10 replies 90 retweets 399 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

14/ Now, the silly part: "Several legal scholars and impeachment experts believe Mueller may conclude he does not have the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime under an opinion written by the DOJ in 2000." Yes, of course—but this fact is neither here nor there.
4 replies 53 retweets 299 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

15/ No one in America, Trump included, is primarily focused on whether Trump will go to jail, as 99.9% of the impact of the Mueller probe for Americans lies in whether Trump will be *impeached*—which has nothing to do with whether a Special Counsel can indict a sitting president.
15 replies 64 retweets 355 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

16/ In other words the matter of indicting a sitting president is—in fact—a non sequitur. Mueller can refer impeachable offenses to the DOJ, and the DOJ can refer impeachable offenses to the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Judiciary Committee can refer them to the House.
13 replies 57 retweets 314 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

17/ Mueller thinking he can't indict a sitting president may explain his statement to Trump's lawyers that Trump isn't a target. Is that because Mueller believes a sitting president *can't* be a target for indictment, or that he thinks—at present—Trump, POTUS or no, shouldn't be?
15 replies 50 retweets 279 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

18/ In any case, Trump's allies will make far too much a to-do about this Washington Post article, whose ledes are interesting but (a) not identified as such by the structure of the article, and (b) way more important and newsworthy than the facts the article positions as ledes.
12 replies 41 retweets 247 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

19/ Note: Mueller not having authority to issue a public report doesn't mean Rod Rosenstein can't (upon a finding of public interest in the case and a need for confidentiality waiver). So what the Post is implying is that Rosenstein "pre-cleared" Mueller issuing a public report.
1 reply 52 retweets 271 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
59m59 minutes ago

20/ I say that because it would be unlike Mueller to say he's going to violate DOJ regulations of his own volition; clearly, he would have checked in with Rosenstein and gotten his blessing, first, for issuing a public report (which Rosenstein *would* review before release). /end
11 replies 48 retweets 289 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
54m54 minutes ago

PS/ Naming someone a target isn't the same as accusing them of a crime, which is why I said "as good as" in this thread's first tweet. But if Mueller had named Trump a target today, every newspaper would've reported—not unreasonably—that Mueller expected to end up charging Trump.
12 replies 45 retweets 244 likes

End of conversation
link : https://twitter.com/SethAbramson

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Good question! Thanks for bringing to our attention.

[triron]

2. knr