The Many Problems With the Barr Letter

[_Kevin Graham]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opin ... --bYh0oiS4

On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.

First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.

But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.

Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.

The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?

Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.

His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.

On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?

What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? Particularly in light of Mr. Mueller’s pointed statement that his report does not “exonerate” Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller didn’t have to say anything like that. He did so for a reason. And that reason may well be that there is troubling evidence in the substantial record that he compiled.

Furthermore, we do not know why Mr. Mueller did not try to force an interview with the president. The reason matters greatly. Mr. Mueller could have concluded that interviews of sitting presidents for obstruction matters are better done within the context of a congressional impeachment investigation (perhaps because a sitting president cannot be indicted, the Barr letter says this legal argument didn’t influence Mr. Barr’s conclusion but again is pointedly silent as to Mr. Mueller).

Or Mr. Barr could have concluded that the attorney general, not a special counsel, should carry out such an interview. The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22-month investigation, is deeply worrisome.

The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.

On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.

No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mueller wasn't even consulted on Barr's letter, as we'd been promised he would.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/f ... ors/16938/

Anyone with a basic familiarity with Robert Mueller’s investigation knows that “no more indictments from Mueller” doesn’t mean “no more indictments.” For instance we’ve already seen him hand off the Michael Cohen case to the U.S. Attorneys’ office for the SDNY, which sent Cohen to prison. With his own investigation ending, it turns out Mueller has farmed out investigations to at least seven federal prosecutorial entities in total.

Robert Mueller has farmed things out to 1) the SDNY, which handles federal cases in Manhattan, 2) the EDNY, which handles federal cases in Brooklyn, 3) the EDVA in Virginia, 4) the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, 5) the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington DC, 6) the DOJ National Security Division, and 7) the DOJ Criminal Division. This is all according to a new report today from the New York Times. So what does this tell us?

Some of these are outright referrals for criminal prosecution, while others are referrals of evidence and witnesses. But these are all instances of Robert Mueller giving these seven federal prosecutorial entities the tools they need to investigate and indict. Because Mueller’s investigation was into Donald Trump and his campaign, it’s a given that all of these investigations are Trump-related. But how many of them are directly focused on Trump and his people?

This sentence from the New York Times would seem to sum it up rather succinctly: “Most of the investigations focus on President Trump or his family business or a cadre of his advisers and associates.”

So now we know Mueller has equipped seven different federal prosecutorial bodies to carry out investigations and indictments, and “most” of those investigations focused specifically on Donald Trump, his family, and his people. In other words, the people on Team Trump who are celebrating right now are merely suffering from a lack of understanding about how prosecutions work.

[_Dr Exiled]

Let's see the report. It won't do anyone any good to have certain parts of the report hidden from public view under the nebulous guise of "national security." That will only belabor the issue that has already gone on too long. Each side will then endlessly argue that the hidden parts bolster their side and it will turn into some religious exercise. Unless this morphs into collusion with any foreign power, then it ought to be put to rest after full and complete disclosure. I think it is fair to say that Saudi Arabia and Israel might have too much influence over our foreign policy but no one ever talks about that, lest they get labeled as racist.

How about we move on to attack Trump on his policies? His support of the war in Yemen and efforts to overthrow the government in Venezuela should get him tried as a war criminal in a perfect world. Also, what is up with the recognition of the Golan Heights? It looks like Trump might be caving to a foreign power to help someone get elected? Also, his wall is idiotic. Let's reform health care. Let's start prosecuting corporate america under the sherman anti-trust act. How about we lower the barriers to entry and force competition? We've had 40 years of falling wages and rising costs while a military budget further bloats. I know some aren't ready to elect a progressive, but we need a change from corporate right v. corporate left.

[_Kevin Graham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... _XY62Pws-Y

BREAKING: Fox News Legal Analyst Says "If There Were No Evidence of a [Trump-Russia] Conspiracy, the AG Would've Told Us So, But He Didn't; There Is Something in the 700-Page Mueller Report Opponents [of Trump] Want to See, and They'll Make Hay Out of It"

[_subgenius]

now that the hair-fire smoke has cleared, it reeks of DNC/liberal desperation in here....jus sayin

[_Chap]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=191&v=p_XY62Pws-Y

BREAKING: Fox News Legal Analyst Says "If There Were No Evidence of a [Trump-Russia] Conspiracy, the AG Would've Told Us So, But He Didn't; There Is Something in the 700-Page Mueller Report Opponents [of Trump] Want to See, and They'll Make Hay Out of It"

Watched that bit of the video. Napolitano describes the situation quite neatly, does he not?

[_Kevin Graham]

now that the hair-fire smoke has cleared, it reeks of DNC/liberal desperation in here....jus sayin'

Ya, Democrats are the ones going completely ape-shit calling for resignations of folks like Adam Schiff who simply did their job. Democrats are going nuts over a summary by a guy who was hired simply because we already knew what his summary would look like. Democrats are the ones making up ridiculous crap like saying it is treasonous to provide oversight on the President. That's the Democrats, right?

After all this supposed WIN for Trump, isn't it curious the polls haven't really moved in his favor.

[_Some Schmo]

The Trumpian base is satisfied with a 4 page (partisan) synopsis of a 700 page report. That's some hardcore critical thinking there... especially when you consider how many are also ignoring parts of the summary itself (not to mention all the publicly available evidence).

I suppose more than that is too much for them to handle. Poor snowflakes.

[_Kevin Graham]

Intelligence Operations are Designed to be Impossible to Prove: Why the Mueller Report Failed to Find Collusion

For the second time this week, the leader of the Republican majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, blocked the resolution which called for the publication of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s intervention in the 2016 presidential election. As of now, all we know about the content of the report is what’s in the short summary by the Attorney General William Barr, who said that the Special Counsel “…did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Mr. Barr also noted Mr. Mueller, after completing a “thorough factual investigation” into the possibility President Donald Trump‘s actions during the investigation amounted to obstruction of justice “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” pointing out the special counsel made special effort to note that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

This news galvanized the Kremlin’s enthusiasm and hopes for a “reset” of relations with the United States, as expressed by Russia’s foreign ministry on March 25th. “We hope that Washington will in the course of time pluck up its courage and officially confess that not only was there no ‘conspiracy’ but that all insinuations about Russia’s interference into the US presidential elections are a groundless vicious defamation created to be used in the internal political struggle in the US,” stated the ministry in a release issued to the press from Moscow

Russian television experts went even further and discussed on air all the concessions that Pres. Trump could now make to Russian President Vladimir Putin, without fear of being accused of working for the Kremlin. For example, one of the co-hosts of the Big Game on Channel One, the chairman of the board of the Russian World Foundation, Vyacheslav Nikonov, reacted to the news from the United States with cautious optimism, saying that “Trump won the battle, but he by no means won the war.”

“He did not drain the “Washington swamp”, it is still there and can suck Trump in, although the swamp’s chances are much lower,” warned Mr. Nikonov.

Another participant in the program, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) Professor Andranik Migranian, was less optimistic in his expectations of Mr. Trump’s actions following the release of the Mueller report. According to Prof. Migranian, “constructive dialogue” between Washington and Moscow cannot be expected in the foreseeable future, since “spiteful” American lawmakers are doing everything possible to prevent Trump from fulfilling the wishes of the Russian leader.

“Though Trump promised to recognize Crimea as Russian, he cannot do this because Congress passed a special law on this matter. Although he was against the sanctions and could have canceled them, the Congress passed a special law,” complained Mr. Migranyan, referring to H.R. 463, the Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act, which passed the House on a 427-1 vote on March 12, 2019.

Expanded U.S. Presidential Powers, Hopes Russia

Nevertheless, Prof. Migranian called the results of the investigation “an event that should not be underestimated,” expressing the hope that Pres. Trump would be able to take advantage of the situation and in the next congressional election help elect “loyal” legislators who would be able to meet Moscow’s hopes for warmer relations with the United States.

“In the new presidential and congressional elections, Trump will be able to use the new situation to help elect legislators loyal personally to him, and it is possible that in the next Congress, especially in the House of Representatives, he will have sufficient support to expand the powers of the executive branch through Congress, since his hands are tied by the current Congress. He still has this opportunity, and now he no longer needs to be afraid to act, since Mueller exonerated him,” said Prof. Migranyan.

Inability to Establish Something Doesn’t Mean it Didn’t Happen
Meanwhile, US security experts are not inclined to view the available information as “exoneration” of the American president.

“The US Justice system sets a high bar for a prosecutor to prove guilt. We should respect that the investigators were not able to establish guilt and therefore treat the previously accused as innocent. However, the political expectations for a President of the United States should be higher than simply not being found guilty of treason. There remain a series of troubling actions by the President and those around him that need to be explained. Why did so many people around the President engage with Russians? Why have they never tried to explain the rationale? Why did they consistently lie about their activities? Why did they consistently attack those investigating them?” asked a former senior CIA officer with nearly 30 years of experience in intelligence, John Sipher, in an interview with our site.

“So, I still have a lot of questions about the President’s actions, and the actions of those around him – many of whom are now convicted criminals. Being feted by intelligence officers of a hostile state seeking to suborn you for espionage purposes is not a crime but it is nonetheless dangerous and unwise and hints at ill intent,” pointed out Mr. Sipher.

“On the Russian side, we know they were pursuing sources and interfering in our process. On the Trump side, we have seen a clear willingness to collude. We have also seen patterns that suggest collusion was possible. There are clear indications, areas of concern, troubling patterns, and questionable activity. We have a clear opportunity, intent and indications of wrongdoing but nothing that can stand up in a court of law. Without the smoking gun, it is impossible to establish collusion or criminality. That is as it should be. However, as we know, of course, inability to establish something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Rather than attack those who were concerned about their activity, the Trump Administration should now seek to answer the basic questions,” continued Mr. Sipher.

At the same time, the American expert admits that Donald Trump can really use the results of the investigation in future elections.

“He will benefit from this ruling. He will use it to attack his enemies. Those people in his base will continue to support and defend him. In some ways, however, it may help Democrats. They no longer can sit back and count on a savior. Instead, they need to find a candidate and policies that can beat Trump,” concluded the former intelligence officer.

Glenn Carle, who served in the CIA for 23 years as a deputy officer in charge of transnational threats, also stressed that the lack of evidence of a crime doesn’t mean the absence of a crime.

“The fundamental problem with the entire “Mueller probe” is that intelligence operations are always designed to be essentially impossible to prove in a court of law. This is one reason why spies are usually convicted – if they are convicted – of tertiary crimes: perjury, tax evasion, and so on. Espionage – treason – is exceptionally hard to prove. One can commit espionage in the open, visible to anyone who cares to look, and still not be convicted. Which means, literally, one can get away with treason in plain sight. I know: espionage – getting people to commit treason – is what I did with my colleagues for decades. So, Barr’s statement is some combination of naïve, disingenuous, corrupt, incompetent, misleading, and wrong” assures the expert.

Mr. Carle believes that, despite Mr. Barr’s statements, the collusion took place, if not in the legal, then in the actual sense of the word.

“Literally hundreds of facts concerning Trump’s having been approached by Russian intelligence for decades, concerning Trump, his family, his entourage and, yes, his campaign, have been established – proven – each of which indicates Russian intelligence activities, and Trump collusion. I will be clear: for a CIA officer, all these instances of “collusion” are instances of treason. Perhaps not according to the legal definition of treason; but treason in the eyes of every intelligence and counter-intelligence service in the world,” he said.

According to him, the Russians are laughing, and have naïve, easily manipulated, fools as their US rivals.

“American democracy and the international system that defends freedom and democracy is crumbling – in significant part because of the actions of someone in the Oval Office manipulated by and beholden to Russian intelligence, and who himself has literally no values beyond narcissism,” concluded the former CIA officer.

Moreover, not all American experts are ready to trust the conclusion of the attorney-general without seeing the full text of the Mueller report. Thus, according to a veteran of the FBI with 31-years experience, an organized crime specialist, Myron Fuller, Mr. Trump’s entourage continues to cover his many wrongdoings and mistakes.

“No attorney-general has ever acted as judge and jury to opine on a criminal matter. This is corruption at the highest level of our Democracy. I don’t doubt that the release of Mueller’s report will be redacted by Barr to hide evidence of Trump’s possible crimes and political embarrassments. The Democrats will fight for full disclosure and the matter could wind up in Supreme Court. Our best hope in the meantime is to have Mueller testify in public,” said Mr. Fuller.