Have you read Attorney General Barr's summary of the Mueller Report? The letter seeks to characterize a report that most of us will probably never see. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the Mueller Report is dead on arrival. Without being able to read the actual report and see all of the evidence collected as part of the Special Counsel's investigation, no one will be able to mount a successful challenge to Barr's interpretation of the report.
Why is that a problem? Because there is abundant reason to believe that Barr has mischaracterized that report!
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: '[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
Notice how the fact of Russia's interference in our election gets sidestepped in these remarks. Sure, Barr goes on to tells us that "The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election." (Same source as above) Even here, however, Barr reiterates the fact that the Special Counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..." (Same source)
Several observations about this portion of Barr's letter seem appropriate. First, it seems highly probable that this is a very truncated summary of an important part of Mueller's Report (the story of Russia's interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Trump campaign). Second, Barr discloses the legal findings of the Special Counsel with regard to a collusion conspiracy - He does not tell us whether or not any evidence of collusion/coordination was gathered in the investigation. This is an important distinction because the legal standard for bringing formal charges against a person for this crime is beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, it does not explain the Trump Tower meeting with Russian officials, Flynn's Russian contacts or Trump's invitation to Russia to recover Hilary's deleted e-mails.
The second portion of Barr's letter addresses Mueller's findings on whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. This part of the letter is even more troubling than the other, because Barr plainly tells us that he is making his own determination on this matter.
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." (Same source as above)
In other words, Barr has decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller merely laid out the evidence, and Barr decided that it was insufficient to prove that Trump obstructed justice.
What evidence did Mueller present? Will we ever see it? What about all of the stuff that went on in plain sight with regard to obstruction of justice? What about the appointment of Bill Barr as Attorney General?
Remember, Barr had a track record on the question of obstruction of justice prior to his appointment as AG. In his nineteen page June 2018 Memo to DOJ on "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory," Barr stated that "Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5638848-June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction.html He went on to say: "As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch."
It looks to me like Trump won this one months ago when he picked Bill Barr to be his AG (after reading this unsolicited memo on "Mueller's Obstruction Theory"). Barr assures us that he made this determination in consultation with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, but Rosenstein would almost certainly have been aware of his boss' views on this aspect of Mueller's investigation. Obviously, Democrats should have pushed harder for Barr to recuse himself on this matter.
Barr also assures us that his decision in this matter was not influenced by DOJ policy on indicting and prosecuting a sitting president. However, his assurances on this point only raise other alarms. Was this assurance included to forestall congressional Democrats from insisting that they be allowed to see the evidence on obstruction of justice? After all, we know that they would argue that since DOJ policy precluded that department from acting on the evidence that congress was the only body capable of holding the president accountable for his actions.
No, Barr's report on Mueller's report hasn't changed this blogger's opinion of Trump. In fact, it has only reinforced it! Trump continues to pose a serious threat to the rule of law and our democratic institutions.
Why is that a problem? Because there is abundant reason to believe that Barr has mischaracterized that report!
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: '[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
Notice how the fact of Russia's interference in our election gets sidestepped in these remarks. Sure, Barr goes on to tells us that "The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election." (Same source as above) Even here, however, Barr reiterates the fact that the Special Counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..." (Same source)
Several observations about this portion of Barr's letter seem appropriate. First, it seems highly probable that this is a very truncated summary of an important part of Mueller's Report (the story of Russia's interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Trump campaign). Second, Barr discloses the legal findings of the Special Counsel with regard to a collusion conspiracy - He does not tell us whether or not any evidence of collusion/coordination was gathered in the investigation. This is an important distinction because the legal standard for bringing formal charges against a person for this crime is beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, it does not explain the Trump Tower meeting with Russian officials, Flynn's Russian contacts or Trump's invitation to Russia to recover Hilary's deleted e-mails.
The second portion of Barr's letter addresses Mueller's findings on whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. This part of the letter is even more troubling than the other, because Barr plainly tells us that he is making his own determination on this matter.
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." (Same source as above)
In other words, Barr has decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller merely laid out the evidence, and Barr decided that it was insufficient to prove that Trump obstructed justice.
What evidence did Mueller present? Will we ever see it? What about all of the stuff that went on in plain sight with regard to obstruction of justice? What about the appointment of Bill Barr as Attorney General?
Remember, Barr had a track record on the question of obstruction of justice prior to his appointment as AG. In his nineteen page June 2018 Memo to DOJ on "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory," Barr stated that "Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5638848-June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction.html He went on to say: "As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch."
It looks to me like Trump won this one months ago when he picked Bill Barr to be his AG (after reading this unsolicited memo on "Mueller's Obstruction Theory"). Barr assures us that he made this determination in consultation with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, but Rosenstein would almost certainly have been aware of his boss' views on this aspect of Mueller's investigation. Obviously, Democrats should have pushed harder for Barr to recuse himself on this matter.
Barr also assures us that his decision in this matter was not influenced by DOJ policy on indicting and prosecuting a sitting president. However, his assurances on this point only raise other alarms. Was this assurance included to forestall congressional Democrats from insisting that they be allowed to see the evidence on obstruction of justice? After all, we know that they would argue that since DOJ policy precluded that department from acting on the evidence that congress was the only body capable of holding the president accountable for his actions.
No, Barr's report on Mueller's report hasn't changed this blogger's opinion of Trump. In fact, it has only reinforced it! Trump continues to pose a serious threat to the rule of law and our democratic institutions.
