Mueller Impanels a Grand Jury

My immediate reaction, when somebody said to me that Mueller's report exonerated Trump, was that we haven't seen the report, we've only heard from Barr. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. The other reaction was that, as I heard it, even Barr said that not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't equate to innocent. In New York, we're well familiar with organised crime bosses who skated by for years on "not enough evidence". Nobody ever thought they weren't guilty, though.

Yep.  That's why the financial crimes are a much bigger noose.

Richard09 wrote:

even Barr said that not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't equate to innocent.

What he said, actually, was -- quoting Mueller's own words -- "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” He then goes on to say "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."

So he is overruling Mueller's circumspection, and boldly stating "no collusion!!!" Sound familiar?

Trump called in to Hannity on-air last night, and in his typical 5th grader garbled grammar proclaimed the Mueller report totally exonerated him.

It did not.

And the Mueller report -- or at least the Barr summary of the Mueller report -- did not reinforce the rule of law.

Quote :

To Mr. Trump’s critics, however, the development represents a dangerous degradation of the rule of law, handing a president almost complete leeway to thwart any effort by federal law enforcement authorities to scrutinize his actions almost as if he were a king.

I watched a bit of Fox News last night after dinner, fell asleep to it actually, and it's astonishing to see how they're spinning this.  They're stating unequivocally that the probe was a sham, that it was politically motivated*, that no evidence of wrong-doing was found, that any attempt to continue to prosecute will be "Democrat denial" of the facts.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

37 individuals were indicted, six of Trump's closest allies have gone or are going to trial, many more crimes are in the hands of SDNY and DC and Virginia courts, Mueller's own words were he "could not exonerate" Trump on obstruction -- meaning somebody else needs to continue the investigation including compelling the president to testify under oath.

Competing realities.  Or, rather, an alt-right "reality" which is made up of whole cloth and unsupported by the facts, but parroted by all of the rightwing talking heads.

Last night on Rachel she laid into Mike Pence's press conference yesterday where he said the USA was going back to the moon by 2024.  Yet no money has been allocated for this, NASA's budget is the lowest it's been since 1960, in fact a booster rocket required for a moonshot was defunded by the Trump Administration a month ago.  In other words, these yahoos are claiming victory, claiming great accomplishments, making speeches and cutting ribbons, throwing themselves ticker tape parades without any accomplishments.

ISIS defeated?  You betcha.

Trump exonerated?  You betcha.

"Great big beautiful wall?"  You betcha.

Biggest inauguration crowds in history, largest election margin in history, biggest Electoral College win in history?  Sure, why not.

It's a reality TV show presidency.




* - I guess everyone's forgotten about the Starr investigation?

Quote :

Barr, a Trump appointee, released a summary on Sunday of special counsel Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and whether Trump obstructed justice in the 2016 presidential election. In his four-page summary, Barr wrote that the special counsel report did not find that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election, but also said the report did not exonerate Trump from possible obstruction of justice to interfere with the special counsel’s investigation. The president falsely claimed “total exoneration” after Barr’s summary became public. “If the Republican Party had done this to Democrats, if we had done this to President [Barack] Obama, you’d have 100 people in jail right now and it would be treason,” Trump said Wednesday.

Right idea, wrong president, you hockey puck.

Janet Reno was not allowed to summarize and redact the Ken Starr report before it was delivered to Congress.

The Nixon precedent is a little more convoluted*, but Leon Jaworski sent his report (the recently-unsealed Watergate "Road Map") straight to Congress in March 1974.  It was not reviewed and edited by then-Attorney General William B. Saxbe.

What makes William Barr think he has the right -- much less the OBLIGATION -- to edit the Mueller Report before delivering it to Congress?  That is not in his mandate.  It is, however, Donald Trump's entire reason for appointing William Barr.

Congress will not stand for this.  If it ends up at the Supreme Court (as seems likely), Trump is almost guaranteed to lose.





* - Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox, Nixon's special prosecutor.  The third in line, Robert Bork, only did so in January 1974 after being promised by Nixon that he would nominate him for SCOTUS.  After his firing Cox's investigation was simply continued by Leon Jaworski.  Nixon didn't get a chance to follow through on his promise, since he resigned August 9th before there was an court opening.  Ford nominated John Paul Stevens in '75, and Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and William Rehnquist & Antonin Scalia in 1986, before Bork was finally awarded his nomination in 1987, 13 years after being promised.  The Senate rejected him for all the right reasons.

Mueller's own team privately grouses about Barr's obstruction.

Quote :

Concerns were first reported in The New York Times and The Washington Post this week.

Mueller's team wrote summaries of the findings and expected more of that to be used, one of the sources said.

And in the realm of massive understatements:

Quote :

The disparity in length between Barr’s letter and Mueller’s full report, which totals nearly 400 pages, raises the likelihood of additional significant information that was put forward by the special counsel’s office but not immediately shared by the attorney general.

Under what circumstances could the AG -- the top law enforcement official in the US -- be charged with Obstruction of Justice? Who would bring the charges?

Uncharted territory here. Never had an Administration so corrupt from top-to-bottom before.

Adam Schiff, head of the House Intel Committee, says the law couldn’t be clearer. The Mueller Report HAS to be released, unredacted, to Congress.

And Barr is breaking the law.

Fun times in the old town tonite.

Just when I thought I'd reached "outrage fatigue" once again, a new report has opened up my vitriol spigot.

William Barr let Trump see the unredacted report.

Let that sink in a minute. He's not releasing it to the public. He's not releasing it to Congress (... not even the House Intel committee). But he gave it to Trump & his attorneys.

Je-sus Fuc-king Chry-ist. Can you be any more corrupt than that?

Redacted report released 15 minutes ago.

So far, major evidence that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference and expected to gain from it, but did not help in anything they did. This does not rise to the level of a collusion charge.

But it's not exculpatory either.

Volume 1 on Russian collusion was released.

Volume 2 on obstruction of justice has not been released?

[Oh yes it was, it starts on page 208.]

Consensus: Barr horribly mischaracterized the report in his 4-page summary.

Very carefully released at the start of Congress's 2-week Easter vacation.

The report is equated to the "Watergate roadmap" which laid out evidence for Congress to impeach Richard Nixon. Mueller clearly wanted Congress to make the final decision.

Rep. Eric Swalwell is calling for Barr to step down.

Appendix C is the written questions SOC gave to Trump, and his answers. He -- or more accurately [and totally against Trump's claims to the contrary] his lawyers -- state 30 times that "he does not recall" when asked the specifics of his involvement. This is the Nixon defense. Deny, deny, deny, claim ignorance rather than lie.

And Mueller states that this written format was totally inadequate because it prevented him from asking any follow up questions. And Trump refused, both before and after the written testimony, to appear in person.

Astonishing.

And telling.

Whoa.  Rachel has pointed out a very important, uh, NUANCE in the Mueller Report.

First, the report says that the SCO is following OLC guidance that a sitting president cannot be indicted.  And because he cannot therefore defend himself in court, the SCO cannot definitively state that he committed crimes.

But...

The report further states that, if the evidence they had uncovered cleared the president of any criminal wrongdoing, they would so state.

Which they did not.

Which means, in Mueller's opinion, Trump DID commit felony crimes.  They just can't say which and what.  But they note that Congress can follow this up.

Lol

Devin Nunez has said on faux news that they need to investigate how the Mueller SCO got started, because "we should NEVER have a SCO used for political purposes again."

That might be news to Ken Starr. He-he-he.

There is a third option.

The Mueller Report clearly lays out the basis for criminal proceedings against the president, but notes that OLC guidelines (not rules) recommend that a sitting president not be indicted.  Presumably, his duties as CIC preclude his also fighting a legal battle on the side.

So Mueller SPECIFICALLY lays out the basis for charging him after he's no longer in office, either through A) impeachment or B) being voted out of office.  Presumably this will happen, in 2021 if not before (the statute of limitations runs out mid-2022).

But there is a third option.  One I think Congress should undertake, as a rebuke to the president and as a shot across his bow.  He can (and must) still be jailed after leaving office, but until then, Congress should censure him.

It's happened one time before. It would put Trump on notice that his behavior was unacceptable, and further law-breaking will not be tolerated.  It will put the 2020 elections on a stronger footing.  And it does not preclude his prosecution on the felonies Mueller laid out in his very thorough report, once Trump leaves office.

And it requires only a majority vote.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Consensus: Barr horribly mischaracterized the report in his 4-page summary.

Huh. Robert Mueller both wrote a letter to, and called William Barr, after the release of the misleading “summary” and complained it misrepresented his report.

Calls for Barr to resign or face impeachment are becoming louder.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Devin Nunez has said on faux news that they need to investigate how the Mueller SCO got started, because "we should NEVER have a SCO used for political purposes again."

Like clockwork, Trump directed Barr to open an investigation and Barr has opened an investigation.

This will blow up in his face most spectacularly.

Mueller's team have said that the Steele Dossier was NOT the impetus for the opening of a SCO, it came in after the FBI was already investigating Carter Page & George Papadapoulos & Mike Flynn for contacts with known Russian spies.  In all, something like 134 contacts betweem the Trump campaign and Russian operatives are documented in the Mueller report.  The Steele dossier is not even part of that investigation.

At all.

Although the dossier's allegations have yet to be disproved.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Calls for Barr to resign or face impeachment are becoming louder.

Or be jailed under inherent contempt by the House's sergeant-at-arms.  I say, let the fur fly.

Barr laughs at the Democrats' lack of resolve -- as well he should.  Their timidness is appalling, their refusal to use the full powers available to them ensures that they're never going to get any respect from the Trump lawbreakers.

I say, a couple weeks of sitting in the jail cell in the basement of the Capital, wearing an orange jump suit, eating K rations, and being allowed no visitors, would probably soften up Barr's tongue and put a little respect in Trump's future responses.