General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPJMcK
(21,995 posts)Barr misrepresented the reports findings?
How weird is that?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Thanks for the snort, sport. Now if I can just get this keyboard dried out ...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Barr's summary 3/24/2019, page 4:
"The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a thorough factual investigation into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. [Paragraph bread added for clarity]
"The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets 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.
"The Special Counsel states that while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
What amazes me, is that everything Mueller said Wednesday was in his 400+ page report, and pretty much in Barr's summary including the Russians attempted to influence the election on social media and even used computer hacking to gather information to use in these efforts. Yet, people are suddenly going "Wow."
BTW: I think Barr did err in stating his OPINION that the DOJ could not charge trump with Obstruction.
". . . . . .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. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
kentuck
(111,052 posts)(With commas added) They are not in the above conclusion.
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent, presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved, if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
ScratchCat
(1,977 posts)1 - It means the OLC memo is standing in the way
2- Probably means he believes there is still a legal grey area pertaining to the ability of a POTUS to fire anyone he wants regardless of the intent(i.e, can firing Comey constitutionally be seen as criminal obstruction if the constitution gives potus that power?)..
3 - Impeach the mofo; there's no "difficult legal issue" there.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)And how would they be resolved?
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Mueller didn't just lay out a dozen or so instances that might be obstruction... he also identified reasons why they might not constitute obstruction. Plus there are the normal prosecutorial issues like "can we prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt?"... and "even if we think he was outside the law... should it be prosecuted?" (as with the Clinton emails).
They don't attempt to resolve those issues because doing so would necessarily result in a thumbs up/down on indictment (at least in Mueller's estimation).
Barr/Rosenstein disagreed with Mueller on whether or not the OLC memo foreclosed the "traditional prosecutorial judgment" and then "resolved" those issues in the president's favor.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)got that?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)While we are not allowed to say hes guilty, we will not say hes not guilty.
My interpretation of what Mueller meant includes the fact that he has said that a president cannot be indicted while in office so therefore he, Mueller, cant say the President is guilty. In other words he cant say the words, even though the evidence shows guilt.
BigmanPigman
(51,565 posts)He can't say he is guilty, but if he could he would. Is that right?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Mueller explained that if he said Trump was guilty it would be basically unethical because Trump is in office and could do nothing about the accusation while he is in office. When someone is accused of a crime the Constitution says that person has the right to a SPEEDY trial and that his guilt must be proved and that until it is proved he is assumed innocent.
The process of being accused of a crime is quite complex so I included this link which explains it well:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/charged-with-crime-how-29677.html