Why being named a “subject” in Mueller’s probe is reason for Trump to worry

In certain quarters, Trump’s designation as only a “subject” after a year of investigation is cause to celebrate. The president’s team, however, should not get out the champagne. Being a subject is a very fluid state and is often liable to change. The fact that Trump is not a putative defendant at this moment only means that prosecutors do not have enough evidence to call him a defendant at this point. It does not mean that they cannot develop that evidence. For some, like Alan Dershowitz, the fact that the Department of Justice hasn’t developed such evidence over the course of the year means that a case against Trump doesn’t exist. The idea that the investigation would be concluded in a year was always a far-fetched notion, perhaps concocted by defense attorneys to undermine the investigation as it persisted beyond that point. The national security implications of Russia’s involvement in the US election, the possibility of a conspiracy between Russian actors and a presidential campaign plus the related probes of obstruction and Paul Manafort-like money laundering makes this perhaps the biggest and most complicated investigation that anti-corruption prosecutors in the U.S. will ever handle. Such complex investigations will not happen quickly. Nor should they.

Take the example of Congressman William J. Jefferson who was indicted in 2007 for a bribe scheme that occurred from 2000-2005. Or consider Alabama Governor Don Siegelan who was charged in 2005 for a racketeering conspiracy that ended in 2003. A grand jury indicted former Senator John Edwards in 2011 for conduct that occurred in 2007 and 2008. Likewise, it took two years to put together an illegal campaign donation case against Connecticut’s former Governor John Rowland, who was charged in 2014 for conduct that ended in 2012.