Has Trump been served a "sealed indictment"?

[Generic Other]

According to Claude Taylor.

"While many people suspect that Donald Trump could be a subject/target of a grand jury investigation, according to Claude Taylor, a former White House staffer for Clinton, Trump has officially been delivered a sealed target letter that informs him that he is deemed to be a target or subject of a grand jury investigation."

http://ir.net/news/politics/124945/donald-trump-target-letter/

Is this going to happen or is it just my fantasy?

[Foamfollower]

1. Claude Taylor spouts bullshit.

[JenniferJuniper]

2. Likely fantasy

[NewJeffCT]

3. Taylor and Mensch

have been saying this for a while now. I'm not sure how reliable a source both of them are - they've had some good scoops on a few things with Trump/Russia, but have been off on others.

[cwydro]

4. Wasn't this an op a few weeks ago?

With same sources?

[Generic Other]

13. I am behind the loop

Just saw it on my twitter feed.

[Quixote1818]

5. Is this new or recycled from what he said several weeks ago? nt

[marylandblue]

6. it may happen someday, but

but if had already happened, Trump probably would hit the ceiling and he"d either tweet out in anger, or yell at his staff, one of whom will leak it to the press.

[unblock]

7. a target letter is not an indictment, sealed or otherwise

plus, this is all speculation.

this would all be rather quick for an indictment.

[Shrike47]

8. Unlikely. Furthermore, a target letter and an indictment are not the same thing.

[hack89]

9. I vote for fantasy

Claude Taylor was a low level staffer in the Clinton's volunteer office. There is no reason to believe he has any special sources or insights.

[jmg257]

10. I guess a good question would be WHO is indicting tump? And for what?

Who are the investigators and what crime(s) is it related to?

[PdxSean]

11. Let's ask Miss Cleo.

[UTUSN]

12. He wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut about it!1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. No.

Taylor and Mensch make shit up to get hits on their blogs (and donations to support their "journalism&quot . If this were real it would be on the front page of the Washington Post.

[Igel]

15. When something is too good to be true,

and the source is uncorroborated independently and is anonymous, let those critical thinking skills rule. If it's too good to be true, it probably is. Even if it does bring in followers and boost revenues (or ego) for the leaker.

Even a lot of "multiple sources" rumors and leaks don't always pass the sniff test: "Three people were in the room, and here's what 5 people say two of those three were talking about." Really? It's a for-sure thing that those 5 people are all echoing one source and don't count as "multiple sources."

[Generic Other]

16. So are you saying I should quit following this person on twitter?

Some stuff he says comes true. And he says he's a former Clinton staffer.

I say, who ya gonna trust these days?

[MineralMan]

17. According to Claude Taylor:

That's your first clue. This is an old claim, and is almost certainly not true. If it were true, it would have been widely reported by other media outlets, not just by someone with no credentials of any consequence. The story relies on unnamed "sources," as do all stories from Taylor and his pal, Louise Mensch. It has not been corroborated by any other news media outlets.

I'd put the probability of its being correct at about 1%.

[Generic Other]

18. Well something seems to be going on now

Is it connected?