The letter raises many questions and is *not* the full report. But it does tell us many things that are very important. First, it sets forth the sheer amount of work that went into the Mueller investigation. He issued 2,800 subpoenas and interviewed 500 witnesses.
That is an amazing amount of work to complete in under two years, and it suggests that he thoroughly investigated these matters, even though there appear to be many remaining issues that he handed off to other components of the Justice Department.
For better or worse, the Mueller investigation has been wrongly turned into an exercise in whether "collusion" can be proved.
But Mueller *did* reach a conclusion, and the letter from Barr purports to directly quote Mueller's report: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
In the words you've heard a jillion times in the past two years, "NO COLLUSION!" Let the MAGAhead crowing and trashing begin. Or continue.
Trump's allies are right to point to this conclusion by Mueller as a "victory," although I suspect that when lawmakers dig into the weeds underlying this conclusion, the evidence will appear less conclusive to a layperson than the overall conclusion suggests.
That's not unusual. When I was a federal prosecutor, at times I declined cases where there was a lot of evidence that appeared very troubling, simply because I lacked sufficient evidence to prove a key element beyond a reasonable doubt.
But one thing that prosecutors always do is reach a conclusion, one way or another. And that makes the other piece of Barr's letter very troubling and bizarre. He said that Mueller "did not draw a conclusion--one way or another" regarding whether Trump obstructed justice.
According to Barr, Mueller said that there were "difficult issues" of law and fact surrounding obstruction of justice, which is why Mueller decided not to reach a conclusion. For what it's worth, I agree with Mueller that there are difficult issues of law and fact.
For one thing, Trump's best defense to an obstruction of justice charge would be his own very complicated state of mind. I've long said it is likely Mueller *would* conclude Trump obstructed justice, because of Trump's many statements and actions.
But unlike Mueller, I have not seen the underlying evidence or listened to witnesses. And no one would dispute that Trump's state of mind is complicated. He may lie so much that it's hard to separate what he truly believes from what he does not believe.
The legal issues are also complex, because there has never been a case in which a president has obstructed justice by using his official functions.
There is no question that lawmakers have a right to find out exactly what evidence Mueller gathered regarding obstruction of justice, and question him regarding his judgment and interpretation of that evidence. After all, obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.
I expect no one will rely on Barr and Rosenstein's separate judgment that Trump did not obstruct justice. Barr's memo on the subject, written prior to joining the Trump Administration, reveals his bias on the subject. So expect a fight about obstruction of justice ahead.
I should hope so.
Barr's letter says "Special Counsel referred several matters to other offices for futher action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."
So, that's me disappointed in our government and justice system once again.
And, just so we can all still fight with each other over whether Trump is a criminal or not - at least in regards to obstruction of justice - Mueller passes the buck:
And, of course, Barr clears Trump.
And, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable people can see that in fact, Trump did intend to obstruct justice. He fired Comey. He asked Whitaker to get someone in the SDNY favorable to himself. For two years he tweeted constant claims against the people investigating him. Beyond coming right out and saying, "I'm trying to obstruct justice here," Trump could hardly have done anything more to prove his intent.
This is a complicated and problematic decision for both of them. Before he took office, Barr wrote a memo preemptively attacking the obstruction component of Mueller's investigation. Rosenstein was part of the conduct (firing Comey) that the investigation would have examined.
Both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, in other words, had highly compelling reasons to recuse themselves from making any decision about whether Trump obstructed justice. They made the decision anyway, and in a manner that appears to serve their own interests.
And Jerry Nadler, to his credit, is not taking it sitting down.
And that needs to be a public hearing.
And impeachment proceedings need to be undertaken immediately. As Trump feels exonerated, and knows his DOJ and GOP Senate have his back, he'll be doing even more autocratic and unconstitutional things as fast as he can think of them.
UPDATE:
Gee, Kevin, you know the guy.
UPDATE:
No comments:
Post a Comment