On Topic

Check out this highly informative, easy to understand podcast discussing the Mueller report, Barr's actions and implications of it all (and wherein the issue of ignorance of the law being a defense is explained):



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Barr's pre-emptive press conference

After introducing and praising Rod Rosensetein, Barr simply thanked Mueller, who was not there, whether by choice or lack of invitation, "for for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process."

But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter.

  DOJ

For Trump's base, many of whom - if not most - likely will not read Mueller's actual report, or any analysis thereof, this was sufficient, even though it's a lie. (I have not read the report itself, but have read excerpts quoted in other articles.) Mueller's report specifically notes the cooperation of the Trump campaign with the Russian operatives.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations.

But again, this is a lie. And we know it without Mueller's investigation. Trump specifically asked Russia to help find Hillary's emails on national TV. Beyond that, Mueller's report states that the campaign coordinated with the Russian hackers through Roger Stone and Wikileaks.

As the Washington Post notes, the dissemination of stolen material discussion is heavily redacted.  Since Barr misleads and lies so readily, we don't know what Mueller found. His report says that sharing and disseminating materials post-hacking were ruled out as crimes.  It also says they didn't charge any campaign officials with conspiracy because they had no evidence any of them knew they were dealing "with Russian national[s] engaged in the criminal conspiracy."  (And even that sounds a little weak to me.)

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps. The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Nor could they have done so "illegally" if it wasn't illegal, which Barr has just said.

After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Barr completely runs over Mueller here. Mueller stated specifically that he didn't look for collusion, since that's not a legal offense, but he did lay out TEN episodes of obstruction and clearly states that he does not bring charges because the DOJ policy in place at this time prohibits it. He carefully documents everything, including debunking all the Trump lawyers' attempts at defending or dismissing those episodes as obstructions, outlining specifically the avenue for Congress - and future prosecutors - to hold the president accountable, because, as the report states, no one is above the law.  His report says they “conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available," and that if they "had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.

No collusion!  No collusion!  Trump repeatedly made this statement throughout the past two years, so he could point to the final assessment as vindication.  There was never any investigation into collusion. There was indeed collusion.

As far as we can tell, any leaks were from the president's own people. And when and where else can someone dodge criminal charges because they were frustrated and angered? Is that a defense now? Millions of people will be happy to hear it.

Also, Mueller's report states that Trump did in fact try to "influence the investigation" but was "mostly unsuccessful" because the people he tried to get to do the dirty work wouldn't do it.  And then, it notes, he got even more direct in his attempts to obstruct when he learned there was also an investigation into obstruction of justice.

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.

Which is not "fully" cooperating, since the president refused to be deposed or interviewed.

Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Obviously, that is not evidence of non-corrupt motives. But is that Barr's answer to ten instances of obstruction? There was no corrupt intent? Ten times?

When Barr was questioned about whether the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president had anything to do with Mueller's decision not to charge obstruction, Barr plainly lied, saying he specifically asked Mueller about that and Mueller "made it very clear several times that that was not his position."  Mueller specifically notes in his report that was the very reason they didn't charge obstruction.

Something Barr didn't address in his speech was Junior's Trump Tower meeting.  There was speculation that it could be considered a campaign finance law violation, and Mueller addresses that by saying they decided the government probably couldn't get "and sustain" a conviction, being unable to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the idiots in the meeting knew they were breaking the law.  And there, I wonder what happened to the maxim that ignorance of the law is no defense.*

*Explained by Renato Mariotti in his podcast:  Campaign finance and tax law require a knowledge that you're breaking the law in order to be indicted.

Barr bullshit

Can there be any doubt that Barr is protecting Trump?  And also obstructing justice.

Is he watching Barr's press conference?

Daniel Dale is.

Barr says that, thanks to Mueller, "we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign." (Caveat with all of these statements: we haven't seen what the report does say.)

Barr, paraphrasing, says Mueller found "no collusion" by any American with any of the Russian Internet Research Agency's troll-disinformation effort.

And we know that's not true.  Mueller found insufficient evidence to bring a successful charge of collusion before a court.

Barr: "The bottom line" on collusion is that "the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded."

"The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks."

The only people leaking were those on Trump's side.

Barr says Trump took "no act" to deprive Mueller of the documents or witnesses he needed in his investigation. He says, of his no-obstruction decision, that there was good evidence showing Trump had "non-corrupt motives."

Asked how Mueller explained why he didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr says he'll leave it to the report, but when they met, Mueller "made it very clear several times" that it wasn't because of the government position that says a sitting president can't be indicted.

Barr says Mueller didn't indicate his intention was to leave the obstruction call "to Congress." He says he didn't talk to Mueller directly about his decision to make his own call, but he's been "told" that Mueller thought it was "my prerogative."

Asked why Mueller isn't here, given that it's his report we're discussing, Barr says, "No it's not. It's a report he did for me as the attorney general. He is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. I'm here to discuss my response to that report."

The press conference ended after Barr was asked if there was any impropriety in him pre-spinning the report. (An aide announced mid-question that it'd be the last question.) Barr simply said "no."

It's kind of surprising that Chris Wallace is still working at Fox.



That'll go to the courts.  Barr won't allow it voluntarily.

Barr's prepared remarks

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.