Stan, Montana: Mueller spent two years investigating. Why did we need a meaningless summary filtered by Attorney General William Barr?
Given that Justice Department policy ties Mueller’s hands on charging Trump criminally, Mueller appears to refer the obstruction matter to Congress: “[w]ith respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” (Volume 2, Page 8).
This line is somewhat ambiguous. Mueller appears to refer the obstruction inquiry to Congress to consider impeachment proceedings, though he might simply be mentioning that Congress has the power to take legislative action. Either way, it is notable that Mueller invoked Congress in his analysis of the obstruction issue. Yet in his four-page summary, Barr made no mention of Mueller’s call to Congress on obstruction — which might be the single most significant line of the entire report.
Yet that quote from Barr turns out to be only the second half of a complete sentence. In the first half of that same sentence — which Barr clipped off — Mueller tells us, “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…” (Volume I, Page 1-2). This kind of intentional, selective quotation would get an ordinary lawyer torn apart by a judge.
For nearly a month since he first received Mueller’s report, Barr gave Congress and the American people an inaccurate and disingenuous account of Mueller’s findings. Now that the report has been released, we can clearly see how Barr issued a selective summary of Mueller’s findings that benefited Trump. Through his handling of the Mueller report, Barr has thrown his credibility and independence in the gutter.
Patti, Texas: Did Mueller deliberately avoid any conclusions about Trump’s legal culpability because he was following existing Justice Department precedent and knew that only Congress could take action against the president?
And then Mueller gave us a perplexing construct: “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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” In other words: if we concluded it was not a crime, we’d tell you — and we’re not telling you.
Matt, Arizona: How could the White House be given access to the report before Congress?
Barr did not need to offer any legal explanation. He was within his rights to give the report to the White House early — even though it was plainly political to do so. But rather than owning up, Barr instead offered up a flimsy legal justification for his baldly political act.
Karie, North Dakota: How can Mueller conclude there is no collusion when Donald Trump Jr. accepted a meeting with Russians to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton and hurt her election prospects?
Mueller spends 14 pages (Volume 2, Pages 110-123) in the report describing his factual findings about the Trump Tower meeting and another eight (Volume 2, Pages 183-190) discussing the potential criminal implications, noting that the meeting “could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” (Volume 2, Page 185). Ultimately, what separated Trump Jr. from an indictment, according to Mueller, was that Trump Jr. did not provably have the heightened understanding of the law required to convict a person of campaign finance crimes. (Vol. 2, Pages 187-188). In other words, if Trump Jr. had had a slightly more sophisticated understanding of campaign finance laws, he might well have found himself on the wrong end of an indictment for soliciting or receiving illegal foreign campaign contributions from Russians.
Mueller’s report dealt a death blow to the conspiracy theory that the investigation of Russian election meddling began with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant based on the controversial Steele Dossier.
Three questions to watch this week:
1. Will Congress call Barr and Mueller to testify, and will we get an answer on whether Mueller intended to refer the obstruction case to Congress?
Source : Nbcnewyork