Barr v. Mueller

How William Barr misled the public about Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump
Deceit wrapped in rank partisanship.

link: https://thinkprogress.org/how-attorney-general-william-barr-misled-the-american-people-about-muellers-decision-not-to-charge-trump-0c7de3d1c894/

From the moment news broke that special counsel Robert Mueller completed his report on the Russian government’s efforts to boost President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, Attorney General William Barr appeared determined to protect Trump from political fallout — and to mislead reporters and the American people about what Mueller’s report said and whether Mueller suggested that Trump violated the law.

In his summary of Mueller’s report, and in subsequent statements to the press, Barr made carefully worded statements that conveyed a misleading impression that Mueller concluded that Trump’s actions were not criminal. The reality is much more complicated.

Mueller leaned heavily on a longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president in his decision not to charge Trump. Mueller also strongly implies in his report that impeachment and removal from office may be the appropriate sanction for Trump’s actions.

The report is divided into two volumes. The first largely concerns his investigation into Russia’s efforts to impact the election and lays out why he decided to charge specific individuals with crimes. The second volume primarily concerns Trump’s efforts to thwart an investigation into Russia’s efforts to bolster Trump’s campaign. It also explains why Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump.

In his letter summarizing the report, Barr states that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence compiled by Mueller “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,” and that this determination was made “without regard to . . . the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” A pair of memos by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which lays out the basis for the policy against charging a sitting president, claims that doing so would be unconstitutional.

At a press conference on Thursday morning, Barr further downplayed the role of the OLC memos in Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump. “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion,” Barr told the press, claiming that Mueller “was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”

On the contrary, Mueller’s report explicitly states that the OLC’s opinions played a significant role in his decision not to charge Trump. Mueller opens the second volume of a report with a list of four “considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation.” Here is the first:

[A] traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

Two parts of this statement (bolded above) are worth emphasizing. The first is Mueller’s explicit statement that, as a Justice Department attorney, he believed he was bound by OLC’s conclusion that an indictment of a sitting president is unconstitutional.

The second is Mueller’s somewhat cryptic reference to “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The primary process that the Constitution contemplates for dealing with a criminal president is impeachment, conviction, and removal from office by the Congress. Thus, Mueller appears to be suggesting that, in addition to believing that he lacked authority to charge a sitting president, such an indictment could interfere with a Congressional investigation into Trump’s actions, and into possible impeachment proceedings.

Mueller, moreover, is quite explicit about the fact that he did not conclude that Trump is innocent. “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the special counsel writes. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

In a painful irony, Mueller also explains that he decided not to charge Trump due to the very same fairness concerns that should have kept Trump from becoming president in the first place. “Fairness concerns counseled against” concluding that Trump committed a crime, “when no charges can be brought.”

That’s because “the ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case.” Yet, because Trump is immune from prosecution under DOJ policy while he remains president, Trump may not “use that process to seek to clear his name.” Thus, to accuse Trump of a crime without bringing him to trial would have the effect of punishing him without affording him due process, because the mere allegation against a sitting president would carry political consequences.

The same concerns counseled against former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to publicly impugn Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s character during the 2016 election. As I wrote at the time,

The Justice Department’s longstanding policy of not disclosing information that could influence an election is very much an extension of our constitutional structure. The Constitution imposes escalating burdens of proof on the government in order to prevent the state from bringing its force to bear against someone who has not be shown to be guilty of any crime. And the Justice Department’s policy serves this same goal.

As [former Deputy Attorneys General Jamie] Gorelick and [Larry] Thompson explain, DOJ policy exists to “avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.” The New Yorker’s Jane Meyer quotes an unnamed former senior Justice Department official making a similar point. A disclosure like the one Comey made on Friday “impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.”

Had Comey showed the same integrity — and the same respect for our constitutional structure — that Mueller showed in his report, it is likely that Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election and Russia’s efforts to shape that election would have failed.

The Mueller report: What you need to know

https://www.ratemyjob.com/humor/2469363/people-share-the-satisfying-ways-theyve-gotten-back-at-an-awful-boss?utm_campaign=rmj-kwy-d-us-96f10f0a&utm_content=2046&utm_source=kwy&utm_term=rmj-kwy-d-us-96f10f0a.7xq0ua94&kwp_0=1198795&kwp_4=3825762&kwp_1=1595419&fbclid=IwAR18RXSxyH6qGQje5CbHPylVC_VB9RArBagBzC8IkUFWEqpph7rOwNSmR7c

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated report presents a sweeping narrative of Russia’s 2016 election interference and clears the Trump campaign of criminally conspiring with the Kremlin. It also details the president’s efforts to curtail the nearly two-year probe, though Mueller declined to say whether or not Trump’s conduct amounted to illegal obstruction.

The report reaffirms the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia favored Trump over Hillary Clinton, and notes that the Trump campaign believed it would benefit on Election Day from Moscow’s interference.

But Mueller found the Kremlin’s acts on Trump’s behalf and numerous contacts between the campaign and Russia didn’t rise to the level of criminal conspiracy or coordination. These contacts comprise the report’s first volume, which is heavily redacted in some sections, mostly owing to its use of material that relates to cases still being pursued by other prosecutors.

In the report’s second volume, Mueller’s team documented 10 instances of Trump trying to impede the investigation or directing his staff to do so (including firing Mueller). Ultimately, Mueller chose not to say whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice.

Mueller: There were numerous contacts, but no criminal conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
Mueller found the Trump campaign did not engage in a criminal conspiracy or illegal coordination with Russia.

The special counsel’s decision not to charge Trump with conspiracy came despite what Mueller described as a series of “salient moments” over the 2016 election season and presidential transition — which will be familiar to those who have followed the investigation.

Mueller confirmed that the triggering event for the FBI opening a counterintelligence investigation into links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government came as a result of an April 2016 meeting between campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a source who said Russian government officials could offer “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

The report also recounts the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower that Donald Trump Jr. arranged based on a promise that a “Russian government attorney” would supply the campaign with incriminating evidence against Clinton as part of the Kremlin’s support for his father’s candidacy.

Mueller also notes that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI has linked to Russian intelligence, and discussed with Kilimnik the campaign’s strategy for winning over Democratic voters in the Midwest.

At least some of these contacts occurred while Trump pursued Trump Tower Moscow deal and publicly espoused pro-Russian policies.

Nonetheless, Mueller found the series of links and alignment of interests did not amount to a criminal conspiracy or illegal coordination.

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” Mueller’s report states, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Mueller did not reach a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed

Mueller declined to say if Trump had obstructed justice. Attorney General Barr and the deputy attorney general concluded Trump had not.

The special counsel explained that the unusual circumstances surrounding the probe made it difficult to issue a traditional binary judgment about whether to indict. But Mueller’s reluctance to reach a prosecutorial conclusion should not be interpreted as an exoneration of the president on the issue of obstruction, he said.

“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” Mueller said. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

After Mueller declined to reach a conclusion about obstruction, Barr stepped in.

In a move that left legal experts divided, Barr reasoned that Mueller’s silence “leaves it to the attorney general to determine” if Trump obstructed justice. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded the president had not done so.

Trump’s efforts to curtail the investigation

Though Trump will not be charged with obstruction of justice during his presidency, Mueller’s report paints a searing portrait of Trump’s attempts to hamper investigators.

Mueller lists some 10 “key issues and events” that his team examined as part of its obstruction investigation. Some of the events had been previously reported in the press, while other conduct has been made public for the first time through Mueller’s report.

The special counsel’s team probed events that James Comey has testified about before Congress, including Trump’s request to then-FBI Director Comey that he drop the investigation into Trump’s embattled former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who has since pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

Mueller also investigated other highly publicized events, like Trump’s firing of Comey, and the president’s involvement in crafting a misleading statement on his son’s behalf regarding the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

But the report also provides a window into Trump’s distress over the news that a special counsel had been appointed in the wake of Comey’s firing.

“Oh my God. This is terrible,” the report quotes Trump as saying. “This is the end of my presidency. I’m f—–.”

Trump grew more alarmed following media reports that the special counsel’s office would look into whether Trump obstructed justice, according to the report.

It describes a frantic Trump calling then-White House counsel Don McGahn at home and ordering him to say Mueller should be removed due to conflicts of interest. McGahn refused.

“The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” the Mueller report notes, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”