A Subject Not a Target
The Washington Post broke the news Tuesday night: the Mueller team told President Trump’s lawyers last month that Trump was not the target of an investigation, but the subject of one. These are “terms of art” in the prosecution world. A target is a person who can reasonably expect to be indicted, or in layman’s terms, charged against them are likely to be filed. A subject is someone that prosecutors are checking out, but have not reached that conclusion.
While some Trump supporters are cheered by the news, the reality is that this is a legal distinction with little difference. President Trump is being investigated, and Special Counsel Mueller’s team is looking into his actions on multiple fronts. There is an investigation into his actions conspiring with Russia to influence the election (what has been categorized as collusion.) There is an investigation into the President’s finances, particularly as it relates to Russian influence. And there is an investigation into the President acting to obstruct justice by trying to stop the Mueller investigation.
So why a “subject” but not a “target?” First, the Mueller team may not have enough evidence to reach the “probable cause” level. Probable cause means that, taking the evidence at its face value, a crime has been committed. It requires probable cause to ask for an indictment (press charges). Certainly the pressure that the Mueller team continues to put on Paul Manafort might signal that Mueller needs more on the President.
But there is likely a more complicated answer. Most commentators believe that Mueller already has a “probable cause” case against the President for obstruction of justice. Given that, why would he signal that the President was not a target?
Can a serving President of the United States be subject to criminal indictment and prosecution? The Constitution does not give a clear-cut answer to the question. Article 1, Section 3 states the following:
Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So this leaves the question up to interpretation, since the Constitution states that the President can be subject to law after impeachment and conviction, does that mean that he cannot be charged BEFORE impeachment has occurred.
There are differing opinions about this (New York Times) but there is one serious impediment to the Mueller team taking this kind of action. During the Watergate crisis, the Department of Justice developed internal policy stating that the President could not be indicted. While this is NOT law, it is a policy of the Department.
Robert Mueller serves as Special Counsel under a wide-ranging charge, supervised by Rod Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General for this investigation. One of the few ways that Mueller can be removed (as the charge is written) is by violating Department of Justice policy. If Mueller went ahead and indicted the President, it could lead the way to his being removed as Special Counsel, causing a disruption in the investigation.
So how did the Watergate investigators get around this particular policy? First, President Nixon resigned from office prior to his certain impeachment by the House of Representatives. In the Watergate indictments, there were multiple defendants charged, and one “unindicted co-conspirator.” While the co-conspirator went unnamed, it was clearly Richard Nixon. After he resigned, according to Article 1, Section 3; Nixon was subject to indictment, and the Watergate prosecutors moved to begin that process. It was the blanket pardon issued by President Gerald Ford, forgiving Nixon for anything he might have done, that stopped the matter.
Mueller will continue to pursue his investigation, and given his reputation, will follow all the evidence to the end. Mueller has already indicted several persons, including the former National Security Advisor, and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Trump 2016 campaign. Mueller will also issue a “report” on his investigation, a report that would serve as the basis for a Congressional impeachment hearing.
That the President will be indicted seems unlikely. What is likely, is that the Mueller investigation will send their results to the House of Representatives. The current House is not likely to impeach the President, and the current Senate less likely to convict. So the real fate of Donald Trump may rest on the results of the 2018 Congressional elections. Should Democrats win the House, then impeachment is likely. Should Democrats control the Senate, it still would require a two-thirds vote (67) of the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office.
We have a long way to go.
A literal reading of Article 1 Section 3 does not seem to preclude an indictment from occurring BEFORE an impeachment. Remember that Article 1 deals with Legislative powers. This part of Section 3 seems to say merely that an impeachment (by the legislative branch) cannot include a trial, judgment, and sentence (which would be the separate responsibility of a court).
I agree, but I think the Mueller investigation will be governed by the Dept of Justice finding from Watergate that the President cannot be indicted. It’s NOT law, but the thought would be that if Mueller tried to override it, that action would give enough cause for calls for him to be fired for violating the Special Counsel agreement.