Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

highplainsdem

(48,917 posts)
Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:34 PM Mar 2019

Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare: Very Quick Thoughts on the End of the Mueller Investigation

https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation


The president should wait before popping the champagne corks over this and tweeting in triumph. Yes, in the best-case scenario for the president, Mueller is not proceeding further because he lacks the evidence to do so. But even this possibility contains multitudes: everything from what the president calls “NO COLLUSION!” to evidence that falls just short of adequate to prove criminal conduct to a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt—evidence that could still prove devastating if the conduct at issue becomes public.

There are other possibilities as well. It’s possible, for example, that Mueller is not proceeding against certain defendants other than the president because he has referred them to other prosecutorial offices; some of these referrals are already public, and it’s reasonable to expect there may be other referrals too. In this iteration, what is ending here is not the investigation, merely the portion of the investigation Mueller chose to retain for himself. It’s possible also that Mueller is finished because he has determined that while the evidence would support a prosecution of the president, he is bound by the Justice Department’s long-standing position that the president is not amenable to criminal process. On the obstruction front, he may well have concluded that, while the president acted to obstruct the investigation, he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president’s obstructive acts were not exercises of Trump’s Article II powers. It’s also possible that Mueller has strong prudential reasons for not proceeding with otherwise viable cases.

My gut instinct is that it is some combination of these factors that explains the end of the probe. Without knowing the reasons the investigation is finished, it is impossible to know how to assess its end—and nobody should try.

Finally, we also know other one big thing: There is a report—some kind of, as Barr describes it, quoting the relevant regulation, “‘confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions’ he has reached.” About this document we admittedly know little. Barr said in his letter that he is reviewing the document and “may be in a position to advise [Congress] of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.” How capacious this initial accounting will be is known only to Barr himself. But Barr has also promised to make as much of Mueller’s findings public as he can consistent with the law—a promise he reiterated in his letter Friday evening. So it’s reasonable to expect, though not to be complacent in the expectation, that over time, the underlying factual findings and legal analysis will emerge.

All of which, as I say, shifts the conversation from what Mueller will do to what he has written in explaining what he has done—and what he has not done. Vindication for the president will take place only when we learn that the facts contained in the report exculpate him. The end of the Mueller probe could well prove tomorrow to be merely the creation of a factual record for the next act of this drama.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare: Very Quick Thoughts on the End of the Mueller Investigation (Original Post) highplainsdem Mar 2019 OP
So....you mean....wait and see? Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2019 #1
What about his children and Jerod Kushner? AJT Mar 2019 #2
Weisselberg has been cooperating with SDNY. Qutzupalotl Mar 2019 #3
Wittes is no big liberal- dawg day Mar 2019 #4
boom? bigtree Mar 2019 #5

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,155 posts)
1. So....you mean....wait and see?
Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:40 PM
Mar 2019

How dare he!

Clearly Trump has fully escape the brunt of the law and we all are doomed!

Qutzupalotl

(14,289 posts)
3. Weisselberg has been cooperating with SDNY.
Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:21 PM
Mar 2019

That case is ongoing. Materials were organized by Mueller and handed off to SDNY. Weisselberg has testified before the grand jury. Stuff is happening that (IMO) will indict all principals in the Trump Organization.

dawg day

(7,947 posts)
4. Wittes is no big liberal-
Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:28 PM
Mar 2019

So I don't think this is wishful thinking.

Nonetheless, Trump will be claiming victory any minute now. So let's hope one of the other prosecutors indict someone Monday.

bigtree

(85,977 posts)
5. boom?
Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:15 PM
Mar 2019

...Watergate took off when Dean testified before Congress.

It was after the FBI concluded their investigation, burglars were already in court.

Didn't want to rely on the political arena at this stage, but we're really not going to get a shortcut to doing what our Constitution provides for, in voting, and in Congress providing the necessary check on the Executive.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare:...