Where's WikiLeaks when you need them?
42
Trump ordered the some documents from the investigation into the Kennedy assassination to remain secret fir at least two additional years. Disclosure is not inevitable.
4
Seems like the same logic in the article could have been used when Comey declared there was not enough to prosecute Hilary Clinton for the security violations following the FBI's initial investigation...did this columnist ask for all of the FBI's files to let allow the public to determine whether Comey reached a proper conclusion?
9
I don’t understand why DOJ policy says a sitting president isn’t indictable even if he or she was convicted of a crime. Pretty stupid policy if you ask me.
A talking head on TV, can’t remember his name, said a sitting president can’t be in jail and run the country at same time. I understand that logic, but if memory serves me, (1) President FDR died while in office and VP Harry Truman ascended to the presidency, and (2) President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while in office and VP Lyndon Johnson ascended to the presidency.
Therefore, if Trump was convicted of a crime and sent to prison while in office, wouldn’t VP Pence ascend to the presidency? Of course, he would!
President’s should not be above the law! Period! If they are, then Lady Justice Statue’s Blindfold should be removed.
16
I don’t see what so unreasonable about saying that Congress, at the least, should see this Report in its entireity.
14
And this is who the Republicans think is a credible honest potus?
Trump is now trying to tell TV shows who they can book on their shows! Trumps hubris knows no bounds. He has never understood the constitution. He thinks he can now act like Putin since he says he's exonerated. lol
March 15, 2015
WASHINGTON, DC – The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today imposed a $10 million civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort (Trump Taj Mahal), for willful and repeated violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In addition to the civil money penalty, the casino is required to conduct periodic external audits to examine its anti-money laundering (AML) BSA compliance program and provide those audit reports to FinCEN and the casino’s Board of Directors.
Trump Taj Mahal, a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, admitted to several willful BSA violations, including violations of AML program requirements, reporting obligations, and recordkeeping requirements. Trump Taj Mahal has a long history of prior, repeated BSA violations cited by examiners dating back to 2003. Additionally, in 1998, FinCEN assessed a $477,700 civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal for currency transaction reporting violations.
https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-trump-taj-mahal-casino-resort-10-million-significant-and-long
8
Sounds like Barr is set for life.
19
The same Mr. Barr was accused, in this paper, of helping to cover up George H.W. Bush's culpability in the Reagan-sponsored Iran-Contra affair. Interesting how so many Republican administrations end up in criminal investigations and how those involved are mostly allowed to slide.
28
All the Narritve fit to Print!
The goalposts are moving daily!
8
Almost 2 years of investigation.
Less than 2 days to assess it.
Yet the most surprising is: why are so many surprised?
Remember Barr's Senate confirmation, anyone? He said it all. He was named for this.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/barr-could-block-mueller-report-release-but-at-risk-of-backlash
24
GOP should agree to the Release of the Report , IF Democrats agree to a full special council investigation into the Report that started the Fake investigation..Who, When, why
1
Congress will impeach Trump, before Pence.
1
It doesn't take an Einstein to surmise that Trump's sudden bold challenge to release the Mueller report is that he KNEW beforehand that it would look favorably upon him.
Even an idiot can see that Barr is playing ball with Trump by declining to investigate the very logical suggestion that Trump has obstructed justice—and he may very well be guilty of transmitting the results of the report to Trump.
Barr needs to be on the hot seat in the halls of Congress to explain this betrayal of the American people.
9
Anyone who has a television and has been watching the goings-on in Washington for the past years cannot hear that trump isn't guilty of obstruction. We saw him ask Russia to break into an American citizen's account and find her emails. We saw the Russians in the Oval Office and trump giving them state secrets. We knew about this because the Russians published the info, our president didn't allow the American media in. We knew that trump changed the Republican Party platform in favor of the Russians. We know that many of his closest advisers were cozy with various Russians. We heard trump tell Lester Holt that he fired James Comey because of the "Russia thing". We have seen countless examples of the prlesident's lying, over 10,000 just since he took office. He has lived a life of deceit and is used to covering his tracks. However, we are not stupid.
As for calling the Congressional Committees illegal and demanding an apology, the only thing they would have needed to apologize to the American people for is if they had not investigated trump.
22
Rod Rosenstein already lied once for Trump. He signed a fraudulent letter justifying the firing of Comey as FBI head, blaming his actions on the Clinton emails. Barr already has written, before seeing the investigation, that Trump should not be prosecuted. How and why is anything these two clowns say of any value whatever?
18
This adjudication by Mr Barr is completely inadequate in utilizing due process of law as guaranteed by statute and constitutions of state and federal government
For starters Barr has no constitutional right to find facts without giving the parties a right under Due Process clauses of constitutions and laws, to question the opposing side; to input evidence and cross examine witnesses on evidence introduced by their opponent
This is a good ole fashion lashing instead of a fair and constitutional procedure of deciding legal issues
Barr has no authority to make up facts without heariing sworn testimony and offering the litigants an opportunity to present evidence under oath.
Barr has no authority to sate and hold that the facts cover all issues that must be covered in order to adjudicate this issue.
This ruling assumes the testimony of witnesses without giving all parties their constitutional right to contest testimony by cross examination.
Barr has no right to make up laws and facts to suit his desires and then fail to give the other side a right to present witness testimony by all legal methods.
Barr and Mueller had no right to act as parties' God father so as to rest facts from blue sky and empty minds
We as a country have simply not gone this far in short circuiting Constitutional rights
S Phillip Brown
5
It's time to accept the word of the experts and move on. It is pathetic to watch people look for any little shred of evidence that still might prove them right. Everyone supposedly had faith in Mueller's team. Mueller and Barr are friends, and Barr would probably not grossly misrepresent Mueller's words. Time to get over it. I have to give kudos to journalist Glenn Greenwald for stating this so clearly and for calling out the media outfits (esp MSNBC and Maddow) that sustained this delusion in the first place. This is Greenwald's finest moment (of which there are many--he broke the Snowden story):
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did
3
Which part of NO in NO collusion no obstruction no nothing don't the democrat Mob understand? This Witch Hunt is a perfect example of the deep state in action there was no evidence of collusion at the start at day 100 or at the end there was simply nothing.
3
You’re also implicating Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions in obstruction of justice.
2
I must be missing something very obvious here. If Trump did indeed go out into the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone, is Barr saying that because of DOJ policy, Trump couldn't be indicted? What if Trump didn't shoot someone but instead instructed subordinates to lie on his behalf? Again, is the issue punted to the Congress? Does Barr get to decide which laws are important and which aren't?
If Congress were full of sycophants afraid that Trump might support a primary challenger to them, then we have an individual above the law who can break it with impunity. Indeed, it looks like that is what we have today.
17
Barr is lying about a document that he knows will sooner or later become public?
More likely Neal Katyal is wrong, as he has been wrong in many other statements made during the course of Mueller's investigation. No need for chagrin. He is one of a number of legal experts who have speculated frequently and carelessly in the press over the past 22 months.
Rosenstein and Barr reached their conclusions after hours of studying the document. They had two nights to sleep on it. Katyal reached his conclusion based on what? His distress over Mueller's findings?
After the report does become public, and it will, I hope The Times invites Katyal to revisit what he wrote in this opinion piece.
4
Corruption fears daylight therefore
Trump fears exposure of the Mueller
it is elementary logic.
7
Barr's conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice is not what shocks and surprises and disgusts me. It's the fact that this entire debacle and sorted mess occurred in the first place. If there were no hints or whispered suggestions of any wrong doing in the first place, Mueller's investigation would not have occurred. Clearly, hankie pankie took place which is why so many of the president's minions have been convicted and/or are awaiting trail. How plausible is it, really, for all of those individuals to have committed various crimes and yet their boss, their leader, is rendered unscathed by the newly appointed Attorney General?
This is the kind of story line I would expect to find on "House of Cards", not in the real White House.
If anything, the actions of Barr only made the resolve by so many Democrats that much stronger and fierce and focused.
The president and the Attorney General may have won this round, but this is only the first act of many to follow. Don't get too comfortable gentlemen. The 2020 election isn't all that far off.
9
I didn't see the video of William Barr coming out of his house and getting in his car over the weekend. But of those that did, did you notice if he was giving any semaphore signals like "H E L D H O S T A G E B Y T R U M P" or anything like that?
We need to see the report ASAP. While I have great respect for Mueller I would like to see the report. While I hope for the best I think it's a big mistake to rely on an Attorney General's interpretation. Trump has told over 8,000 lies so just because he says he wants to release the report that could well be a lie. Barr is Trump's third attorney general Jeff Sessions, Whittaker and now Barr. If Mueller is so thorough why wasn't Trump, Ivanka, Jared Kushner and Don Jr and Eric put under oath?
A few questions:
- How did Mueller's investigation end? Who ended it Barr or Mueller?
- When will the Mueller report be made available.
10
In politics, perception is reality, because it drives votes, and votes are the only thing that matters in politics.
That Trump can now say "See? No collusion," means any piddling SDNY or state investigation will not prevent him from being re-elected.
And then he might one more, even two more, Supreme Court appointments.
3
Time to hear from Mueller himself.
7
If Barr is acting as per the guidelines---then Congress needs to continue to call witnesses for public testimony to determine whether DJT is beholding to a foreign power.
An interpretation from an AG whose ethics were in question from his first stint in the Bush pardons mess is not acceptable.
I can only hope that the D's grow a spine and move forward with public hearings---pols be damned. Public testimony----nothing less. Stop playing games---call the president's children and either they clear themselves of not. Same with Mueller---he needs to come down from the mount and speak.
We need to get to the bottom of this before the 2020 election so we can vote based upon facts and not spin from either side.
5
Neal provides an astute analysis as usual. However, it seems he missed one point—Barr is guilty of a serious conflict of interest--an ethical if not criminal breech in making the interpretation of Trump’s culpability in obstruction of justice. He faces the same issue in determination of follow-up actions. After all, Barr was appointed by Trump and works for him, as does Rosenstein.
Jim Key
Idaho Falls, ID
7
When my son was in grammar school, I often reminded him to not hang out with kids that got in trouble a lot.
Do not forget that many of Trump’s best friends and allies are going to PRISON.
One more thing his mother did not teach him.....
9
Barr writes a four page summary of a 22 month investigation within 48 hours and we are supposed to believe what Barr concludes?
Which is: Either the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey or the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president.
We must have the FULL Mueller report. Then we'll know what was hidden by Barr. He has been specifically chosen to summarize the best and miss the worst of the Mueller report.
11
The “48 hours” thing is not true. I’m quite sure Barr knew for weeks what the report said. The least bit of investigating by Mr. Katyal would have revealed this fact.
1
Massive cover up. The rule of law has been upended.
8
Forgive me, but I do not understand why for white collar crimes, "criminal intent" has to be demonstrated, but for other crimes, this is not a requirement. Nobody has to ever demonstrate what is inside the mind of a person who steals. All you have to prove is that the person stole, and you get a conviction. So why does the Judiciary care if DT had or didn't have the intent? Shouldn't it be enough that he committed a crime? Who cares what was inside his mind? I really don't understand this.
Even when it is proved that a person did NOT have a criminal intent, such as a death resulting from an accident, the person responsible is still accused of manslaughter. There are still legal responsibilities.
Is there some logical, objective rationale to explain this difference? It seems to me that this higher standard of having to prove "criminal intent" only applies to crimes committed by rich, privileged men.
6
I fear Barr's letter marks the beginning of the end of the American experiment in democracy. The Republician Party, long the party of dirty tricks, continues to destroy the concept of political fairness at every turn and on every level of government, as for example, in Iowa. The GOP here is busy destroying the very method by which Iowa supreme court justices are picked. Just as McConnell prevented the appointment of Merick Garland and many appellate judges by Obama.
6
I'd like to see Mueller and Barr hauled in front of congress to explain what they discussed weeks before the release of this report. How much of the overall findings did Barr disclose to the WH weeks before the disclosure? Something smells bad about all of this.
5
If what AG Barr stated is true, then why not release the full report to the Congress and the public? If he refuses to do so, the guilty cloud will always be hanging over Trump's head. Also, when the Democrats take over the White House, Barr's deliberate cover-up and the deception of the American people will be exposed. Meanwhile, the Democrats should pursue all legal avenues to obtain the full report, and force Mueller and Barr testify before the Congress.
6
As Preet Bahara stated:
Why the secret about how many pages are included in the report?
6
I always cringed when Trump called it "My Justice Department." Works out pretty well for him.
4
there are many problems with many sentaors in addition of Barr letter. why? simple. If you analyze the behaviour of Lindsay Grabham and Ted Cruz you can find hre answer. they do not have any integrity. statements they made during 2016 campaign and statements they are making now are as if they are day and night. we knew Barr's position even before he was chosen AG. he accepted this position again to exonerate mr. trump. he did not have any business to have this role inspite he served this role many hyears back.
4
It is appalling that the author makes 2 assertions that indicate that those in academia are there and not in the private sector for a reason. The headline states that Mr. Barr "unilaterally" concluded that Trump did not obstruct justice. Didn't Mr. Kaytal read Mr. Barr's letter that Mr. Barr conferred with Mr. Rosenstein at length - Mr. Barr did not make the decision unilaterally.
Second, Mr. Katyal is very concerned that this review could be conducted in 48 hours. Mr. Katyal doesn't state that Mr. Rosenstein has supervised Mr. Mueller from the beginning to the end of this investigation and likely had a complete understanding of what would be in the Report, that it would be SOP for Mr. Rosenstein to brief Mr. Barr extensively, the Barr letter references extensive internal reviews of legal issues, and Mr. Barr likely has worked extensively on the legal issues since before his formal appointment. This review was not conducted in 48 hours as Mr. Katyal asserts. Poor excuse for an article and a legal professional.
Speaking of Barr's memo on whether presidents can be indicted for a crime, Katyal says this:
"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." This makes it sound as though the Constitution countenances homicide committed by a president, with no legal action permitted to be taken in response.
Paying particular attention to that last sentence, I assume the intended wording was: "but no one thinks the president *can* commit murder." But Trump certainly believes that is what it means. He has said as much. No one that I am aware of in Republican positions of authority has made any effort to dissuade him of his beliefs. Are we to take it that Trump is a fine upstanding human being, a saint even, because he hasn't acted on his belief and just used pedestrians on 5th Avenue in New York as county carnival shooting gallery targets.
And in November, 2020, Trump win or lose, declares himself president for life and voids the election, the how is Barr gonna act? Maybe a longer, more bizarre memo? Attorney General for Life sounds good, too.
1
I wonder whether Mueller looked into Trump's tax returns and bank records. If he didn't the report is incomplete and a whitewash.
4
The republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of history in supporting trump, but they don't care as long as the continue to stay in power.
8
To say that it is "deeply concerning" that AG Barr reached his conclusions "within 48 hours of receiving" the Mueller report is really misleading. Mr. Barr has, no doubt, been receiving updates, analysis and other info from the Special Counsel since he was sworn in. The Report's facts and opinions were no news to Mr. Barr. I despise President Trump, have real questions about the wisdom of some of Mr. Barr's comments and generally feel very frustrated that the Report and Barr's summary are still a mystery. But to suggest that Mr. Barr's letter was too fast belies the facts.
4
There is no question that the Department of Justice will release the Mueller report; the question is, When will it do so?
In a vacuum of facts, ungrounded speculation fill the void, and if the Department of Justice have done nothing but raise the level of vitriol in American politics.
3
Neal appears to be most concerned about the rapid decision AG Barr made in deciding that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. First, I really think this will be revealed once the full report is made public. We know that Mr. Mueller is extremely detailed and thorough. Indeed the Barr letter states that, "The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses." This lines up with the type of thoroughness he demonstrated when he investigated the Ray Rice incident for the NFL (see VICE News summary of that report). If it turns out that level of detail was replicated in the Special Counsel's report, along with a thorough explanation of the reasons for not making a "traditional prosecutorial judgment," it is not surprising to me that Barr concludes "that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." Additionally, I don't see why, under these circumstances, he would need a lot of time to develop such a conclusion, since he had 22 months of the Special Counsel's work to draw on.
1
Personally I'm disappointed in Mueller. He can't be very good lawyer if he can't indict, try and convict Donald Trump, one of most notorious slime balls of the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries.
4
There is may be no crime of collusion or obstruction but there is certainly a crime against our democracy which appears to be dissolving before our eyes.
7
I suspect that Barr ignored most of the Mueller report and focused on the aspect where he could appear to "clear" the president, trying both to settle the political waters and tamp down any movement toward impeachment. Nice job.
People who spend their entire adult lives embracing the structure of law and its value to society as a guiding purpose tend to favor order over almost everything else. Order often means that young black men accused of crimes must to sent off to jail as quickly as possible. It means that challenges to the authority of the presidency, the Congress and the courts are turned away briskly. Important, unresolved issues about citizens rights to stand against the existing structure are almost never given a full hearing. "Move on, nothing to see here."
There is going to be a lot of screaming outrage if, as it appears, Barr brushed aside a hundred or more important issues and tried to cover up misdeeds with a short memo. While Mueller might have been tasked with looking most closely at the Russia connection, what really should have been on the table are the whole array of misdeeds by this president in seeking, gaining and conducting the presidency. It is on that basis, including his continuing profiting from the office, that final judgements must rest.
6
I’m glad to see an honest attorney, Neal Katyal, has been given some space to express his expert opinion. The people must see the Mueller Report in full. If it is not released, someone has to take one for the team and leak it.
14
Outstanding analysis from Mr. Katyal. What about Mr. Trump's own admission that he fired James Comey because of the 'Russia thing', and the email that was released by Don Jr. asking for 'dirt on Hillary' in 2016? Is that not enough evidence to at least question why would Barr decide to just drop the whole matter within two days of the release of the report? Barr, who categorically did not commit to taking any action against the president? Where does his loyalty lie? Surely, not with the country and the laws that he swore to uphold. It seems to me that the Republicans needed a 'seemingly decent' person as the AG whose persona will hide the ugly truths about trump and his administration. They are elated about this development, never mind what the actual evidence points to. There is no reason the Democrats should satisfy themselves with the letter from trump's mouthpiece, Barr. They should and must demand the full release of the Mueller report.
5
"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. "
Unless the NYT has linked, the wrong document, this memo was not written in 1995, not last year.
If Barr were a Democrat it would be a whole nother ball game. The partisan two-party system sucks as an effective political system.
there is so much more to the Trump Tower Meeting we don't know about- Manifort is not saying, Jared was never called before the special council (???), etc. Ten there were so many other Russian contacts, both the ones we know about, and the ones only DJT and Putin know about. And so on and on and on. This Report and the AJ's letter is woefully inadequate to the task. What about this family attorney Cohen mention in his testimony, or Julian Assad who should be dragged by his neck into the FBI and/or Congress
if we could only get him into custody? Why wasn't the CIA brought before the SC to give it's finding on Russian interference, and how they got specific data that could only have come from a "cooperative" source in the U.S.? FaceBook ads targeting certain people with highly effective misinformation- more evidence of a sophisticated level of coordination. What about all the mysterious inauguration (possibly illegal) funds pouring in from ?? Trump-Tower Moscow? Is this entire enterprise some sort of joke because I'm not laughing. I am so tired of the lies, the obstruction about obstruction. The White House staff worried sick about Trump's irrational behavior, trying to undermine sanctions against Russia, undermining NATO, ending defense exercises with S.Korea because Putin told him to do it. Pulling troops out of Syria, then not...! Orders from the Kremlin? Even Helen Keller would be on to the scheme, but not all of these "Boy Scouts" with
"exemplary credentials".
4
Interesting. What's the conclusion of all of this? 1. Mueller maintained the credibility of himself and his team against constant attack; 2. I believe the nation will respect his conclusions, including that Trump and his gang's collusion with the Russians did not rise to the level of a crime. 3. There were lots of other crimes, obviously; well prosecuted I'd say. 4. Congress now has been presented with a solid investigation to underpin its impeachment and other investigations; obviously; the bases for impeachment are quite different than those for a crime; good stuff. 5. In many other areas of crimes by the Trump gang, investigations continue to be carried out by Federal prosecutors; and 6. Barr's letter although accurate about the report, gives a conclusion and tone that is a whitewash.
2
So the memo reads that the Russian interfered and even knowingly approached to assist Trump.
They also realize that there is a case for possible obstruction but since they have never dealt with a social media attack to achieve it in the open they don’t know how to prosecute it.
So it’s okay to obstruct justice if you hide behind free speech to achieve it. And this is why Mueller punted? He wasn’t able to prove it but there is enough there to warrant concern.
1
To be honest, in Barr's position, I would likely go straight to releasing obstruction of justice charges too, no matter that I loathed him.
Why? Because there isn't enough evidence to easily support charges. Enough credible and neutral actors have pointed out that Comey violated Justice Department procedures and firing was reasonable. Plus legally, Trump was allowed to fire Comey. So obstruction of justice charges would become about intent. Even though I see it as almost certain that Trump fired Comey over Russia, there is enough plausible deniability to turn impeachment hearings into deadlock disrupting our country further.
This is the liberal equivalent of how conservatives see Hillary Clinton. Awful person with smoke that casts suspicion. Not enough fire to burn.
The report will be released. Everyone wants it. Barr already said he is working with Mueller and Rosenstein to go through the file and release all they legally can. I trust them to help push Barr if there are areas of disagreement. Our press will find omissions. Finally, since Trump is "exonerated," he'll want the report out there to cherrypick for 2020.
Trumpists whined about the overall liberal slant of Mueller's lawyers, but the truth is those lawyers were selected to placate liberals. It was always more likely than not that it would be difficult to find hard evidence of conspiracy. And hiring liberals worked. I trust Mueller's findings.
1
The anti-Trumpers are now racing for obstruction of justice angle. Everyone should be very wary of obstruction of justice as a tool at all times, and particularly when there is no underlying crime. It is something that should be on the books to make sure that justice is not impeded, but almost always it has been used to abuse rather than mete justice. It is something very easy to tack on and even easier to hold someone accountable for it because even if you sneeze they can call it obstruction of justice, because of its subjective nature. So, it was very surprising to hear on XM Urban Channel people going all out for it as the next issue, knowing minorities have been particular victims of this angle and should be the most vary - as it is added to practically every indictment resulting in increased or even unjustified punishments - because it's so easy to add, and so easy to convict someone on it. Which is also why I am skeptical about this potential charge for Trump - if a thorough investigation can't pin this easy one with ultra low subjective threshold on anyone, the chances are slim to none that it has merit.
1
Here's what bothers me: Barr has said in his letter that he would release as much as he is able to release. Trump too has said he is fine with the report going public. About the only things that won't be made public are the things that the law says can't be made public, like grand jury testimony and national security issues. So this whiny rant from Neal is basically saying nothing except for demanding that the law be broken because he wants to satisfy his curiosity?
1
If the Department of Justice can exonerate a President, it can also indict a President. Does this reverse previous Justice Department policy?
5
After two years of investigations, which by the way were based on faulty evidence at best, Trump AND his administration and campaign have been cleared of any collusion and/or conspiracy with Russia. Please, stop with the madness and let the country move forward.
3
You didn't mention that Mr. Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. Barr did that without presenting any evidence to support his conclusion.
12
Read the letter.
Perhaps Mueller punted, laid this at the feet of Barr to reach conclusions, so the DOJ's reputation could be restored. All the McCabe/Comey "deep state" spin tainted DOJ gravitas, now Mueller and Barr restore it, while keeping Trump under the hot lights. In essence, the slate is cleared, the baton, the evidence, passed to SDNY, and the investigation continues.
2
Except that the effort seems to have backfired...DOJ appears to be covering for Trump.
Power protects power.
4
This will be Barr's legacy, although it increasingly seems that people who willingly put themselves in Trump's orbit don't seem to care much about how they fit into history...
7
Mr. Katyal wrote the special counsel regulation and obviously his work failed monumentally. No matter how much he writes about what Mr. Barr had to do and etc., it is his lack of foresight that gave us Barr's report and perhaps his successful act of burying key findings of the special counsel. I had a lot of respect for Mr. Katyal but I am really tired of him not admitting he wrote a flawed regulation. He knew better than anybody that AG is appointed by President and he intentionally left it all to him to decide what to even share with the congress. Mr. Katyal traded congress' oversight for empowering a political appointee. Hope he summons the courage to admit his failure and instead of penning useless op-eds.
Actually Mr.Katyal did talk about the flaws in the rules and his inability to forecast this type of situation.
I believe Barr is providing cover. He did the same with the Iran-Contra conspirators that Bush The First pardoned.
But this time around, Democrats have the stomach for fighting this injustice.
Release the Mueller Report, now!
11
We don’t need to see the Mueller report to know that you, Neal Katyal, will make a case for obstruction the minute the report is released. And it will be treated as an objective assessment of the evidence presented in the report because you’re Neal Katyal and you hate Trump and you served as solicitor general during the Obama administration. I think you’re integrity is unassailable, but only until it the conversation turns to Trump. And at that point you, along with millions upon millions of dyed in the wool Democrats, forego all rationality in favor of ill-conceived and ill-founded arguments and conclusory statements that no reasonable person would support.
6
Talk about an unsupported opinion!
3
The fix is on. House Democrats, you alone will be able to right the ship. Republicans are already calling for the report to be burned. Vote blue everyone in 2020.
7
Barr auditioned for his job by stating absurdly that a president can't obstruct justice, and in my opinion, Whittaker started laying off prosecutors, saying the report was "coming soon" and then Barr illegally and corruptly shut it down before any conclusions were drawn. This smells worse than the Deplorables at a Trump bigot-fest.
4
Is everyone, everywhere corrupt? Barr should be tared, feathered and run out of Washington on a rail. I'm throwing up and sick in my soul with all the corruption and demagoguing of tiny trump and his minions. No champions here for sure. No Howard Baker for the Republican side; no help from craven losers who want to make the us government weak for partisan reasons. God save all of us, because no one else can.
2
It's very discouraging to see that the Attorney General of the United States is a cheap political operative. But then John Mitchell went to jail. I guess Bill Barr isn't any better.
6
This whole "we must have the entire document - every word of it" chorus is disingenuous. Obviously, those wailing for it know that Grand Jury evidence can't be released, material that would compromise the intelligence community's work, must remain off the record, etc. No, what we are now witnessing is a feeble attempt to keep the public from recognizing this whole thing has been a lie from the beginning. In addition, the vows to keep digging at anything and everything Trump is no more than petty attempt to find something -- anything -- to condemn and remove him from office. Folks, if you want him out of office -- and that's not a bad goal -- have some policies and plans that contribute to the public VOTING him out office in 2020. And while you're at it, engage in some self-reflection on how irresponsible (including the Times) the media have been on this.
5
Actually grand jury testimony can be released with a court order. The judiciary committee has the authority to request such a court order.
1
It would be nice news sources would stop repeating the falsehood that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. There is no such clause in the constitution, and repeating the claim only gives credibility to a custom treated as law.
5
We have to accept the conclusions of the report, not the conclusions or the summary of the AG, as crucial parts of the report could be left out. If there was nothing to hide, why were so many indicted, and some found guilty? The mystery is deeper. We should also read the Special Counsel's logic in not interviewing Trump Junior, since he was at the "head of the table" at the Trump Tower meeting... and while we are there, could we also please know if someone from his team actually spoke to the British Secret Service agent who prepared the dossier in the first instance?
Dear Mr.AG, please release the complete report, the truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help you, GOD.. ( you did take a similar oath when you took up office, didn't you?)
2
President Trump seems to have played a poor hand with some skill. From the outset, he could simply have said "Neither I nor anyone on my campaign team conspired or colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election. I am confident that the investigation will exonerate me, but let's wait and see what they find".
Instead, he chose to make it the focus of hundreds of vitriolic statements, excoriating and demeaning a man with decades of honourable military and public service to his record. One of the most reprehensible things about this whole affair was the President's repeated claim that someone of the unquestioned stature of Robert Mueller was "corrupt". If nothing else, Mr. Mueller is surely entitled to an apology.
However, the President also knew that inflating the significance of this narrow and limited investigation - and then attacking it remorselessly, almost on a daily basis - would enable him to deflect attention from his other legal troubles. He will doubtless claim that this result invalidates those investigations, and justifies him withholding further information (such as his tax returns). Expect him now to turn his fire onto the SDNY.
Mr. Trump would appear to have emerged the winner on this occasion. However, his presidency marks a singularly divisive, and potentially dangerous, moment in American history. And that will come as gratifying news to your enemies: not least, of course, President Vladimir Putin himself.
6
IMO the only thing left that we need to know is who is responsible for starting this mess. Methinks the Dems protest too much.
3
Did you read the letter?
Yeah but let’s jail some liberals now shall we!
1
The public is going to have to see evidence that Trump is "exonerated" than just because a few Republican nominees say it's so.
7
Watching the left implode over the Mueller report is one of the most interesting things to have happened since...well...er...Hillary Clinton lost the election that was hers to lose.
My poor liberal and progressive friends...they have no one but themselves to blame for jumping to the conclusions that have been viewed by legal authority as not being valid.
Rave on, my friends. I've laid in a big stock of popcorn and butter for the show.
2
Time to move on. The 2020 election is NOT going to be influenced by the finer points of the statutes having to do with obstruction of justice. Those who think Trump is a crook (I'm one of them) don't need convincing. Those who don't think he's a crook are beyond convincing. It's time to focus on kitchen table issues; the horrendous policies this man and his lackey's in the Republican party have been pursuing these last two years.
5
@Eric
Those who think Trump is a crook (I'm one of them) don't need convincing.
C-O-N-V-I-N-C-I-N-G... strange way to spell evidence.
Isn't a failed attempt at conspiracy with the Russians still a criminal act just as attempted homicide is a criminal act? Manafort, Gates, Stone, Don Jr. et al were at the very least attempting to rig the election with the help of the Russians.
6
If Hillary's willful destruction of evidence--as Comey pointed out, obliquely--is not "obstruction of justice", then nothing Trump has done, willfully or not, could ever match that datum. Comey set the bar impossibly high, it seems.
2
This statement was designed by Barr to give Trump political cover. The news the American public will hear, most of whom don't follow politics closely, is that there was no collusion with Russia and not enough evidence of obstruction. It may be weeks, if ever, that the full details of the report become public. By that time, Joe and Josephine Average American will have moved on to something else.
3
Nearly 24 hours after Barr's report was released, I am taking my first look at the news coverage--not because I was hoping for a particular outcome, but because this situation and the coverage of it make me feel physically ill. The last time presidential politics affected me like this was the election of 2000. I thought I couldn't stand another minute of the stress then, and that lasted only for a few weeks. Now, over two years of interrupted sleep, knotted stomach, clenched jaw, and frequent comfort-eating (and -drinking) have taken their toll. When will this nightmare end?
6
@Greek Goddess
You're free to end the nightmare at any time. Just grow up.
In some cases connecting the dots, and finding beneficiaries of deeds, are imperative, since few transgressors confess. It seems that in the present case someone thought that this was not necessary. Perhaps the cause was too small, or the risk too great. It is impressive that what could be standard procedure in regular cases seems not too have been weighted here. Lack of clear evidence may be a case for closure, but ignoring dots and beneficiaries seem not to be grounds for exoneration.
1
No one has asked the question, “ Why from the day it was disclosed that Russia was interfering in our elections, have we heard not a peep from DJT regarding implementing safeguards to prevent it from happening again.”
And why has he refused to even suppose that that inference is a problem?
And lastly, why does he believe Putin over our own intelligence agencies.
It’s all rather baffling. Does the Mueller report include insights into his negligence? When will we find out?
10
@LJB It goes back further - Obama was President when the initial reports of Russian interference were reported. Why didn't Obama do more to prevent Russia from interfering?
2
You mean after he called in Congress and asked for a unified front, and good old Senator Mitch told him to take a flying jump?
11
I am a senior trying to adapt to a world where I never learned to speak or write prose. I speak and write in metaphors in a world without a common library. John Adams shared a common library with his fellow legal philosophers. John Adams might say the law is not an end in itself it is a vehicle to get us to justice. America is not a nation of law it has become a nation of lawyers.
The second amendment didn't need lawyers it needed English majors to say it is about the rights of those scrupulous in their belief on not taking up weapons of war.
I have been waiting for the debate that seems about to begin since Reagan declared that facts are not nearly as important as perception. Mr Trump has reintroduced the core argument of 2500 years of Western Civilization. Can law be trusted to bring about justice? I am old enough to remember the fifties and sixties when all too often law was used to ensure injustice.
Here in Canada when our Supreme Court considered Carter vs The Attorney General of Canada it was determined that it was the law that was guilty. It is our Supreme Court that determines justice. It was the law itself that attacked our social order.
4
What of the cooperating witnesses? Didn't Mueller recommend that Michael Cohen receive no jail time because of his exemplary cooperation in other investigations? And Michael Flynn as well has yet to be sentenced, also on the basis of his continuing cooperation in other investigations. Add to that the recent judicial filings with page after page of redactions, suggesting ongoing investigations. Mueller should be called to testify at a Congressional hearing and should be specifically asked under oath whether the end to his investigation was coerced.
10
So many questions. Why did the investigation end so soon after a new AG was confirmed? Why were Trump and his children (who were so involved in the campaign) not interviewed? How is it possible to know that they didn't conspire without having such conversations? How was Barr able to so quickly draw a conclusion? If Russia made several attempts to conspire with the Trump campaign, did the Trump campaign make any attempts to report it? Wouldn't knowing that this interference is occuring and an awareness of specific events being planned and not reporting it be a crime (if they had that knowledge)? What happened with the reports of someone wearing a wire when talking to Trump? If those reports were true, why would there even be discussion of that if there wasn't serious evidence already of obstruction? How were the emails stolen and did the Trump campaign know about it, even if they didn't offer anything in return for their release? If so, doesn't that pave a simple path for any other future candidate to follow in coordinating with another country, just don't offer anything specific in return? So many questions....
9
Heading for a SCOTUS chair?
Just the low bar we need.
2
This is a person who has largely worked under Democratic administrations, complaining about a Republican administration getting cleared. It's just not a credible, objective post.
4
@Fritz - Are you saying a Republican would be more objective?
4
AG's behaviour is nothing but another example of "Catch & Kill"!
14
Trump is a bad man. Trump appointed Barr. I'm sure he asked Barr if he would protect him. Probably the typical Trump nondisclosure agreement. Rosenstein works for Barr. Barr cannot be trusted just because he is the Attorney General. Previously Trump said he didn't have an Attorney General(Sessions). Now he has an Attorney General, one that works for him,not the American people. Trump is a bad man. He hires bad people. The good people leave or are forced out.
11
The fix was in the moment Barr was nominated.
Putin and his covert agent (using that agent's cult of party and person) have successfully gained control of the US government. Justice is impossible and we all know it now. No illusions that the president is subject to the law. He is a Putin on US soil.
9
Do you remember Ferris Bueller? All Ferris needed was a scintilla of anything to turn circumstances into spaghetti to create just enough confusion for him to "get out it." So it is with Trump; while WE, the People, are playing the part of the hapless, hopeless, feckless principal.
The Russians are right: Mueller's report IS a black cat in a dark room: nothing conclusive will be found. Democrats can throw red meat to their base (investigations) all they want; but, absolutely NOTHING they do will result in impeachment, jail time, or substantial loss of Trump's personal income. For me, nothing else matters. Embarrassment is not enough; or, conclusive evidence of wrongdoing once he's out of office; de facto, that's VICTORY for Trump: his family gains billions in investments made during his years in office and WE, the People, put him in jail for what, 3 years? Idiots!
We're being played! Top to bottom—Left AND Right! The corruption is systemic and neither D's or R's are exempt from its influence.
7
In this bizzarro world that is Trumpland we have to be careful about information that can get lost in translation.
1
"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. "
Link in the article goes to a 1995 document - not a memorandum written last year. If there is something more recent, I'd like to see it.
1
Politicians playing more games with themselves and the public while we suckers are paying the price. Vote, demonstrate, get that fake guy out of office.
4
Neal is pandering to the folks who don't know the law.
Thanks, Neal.
2
Two questions that members of Congress to post to Robert Mueller concerning the findings of his investigation:
#1: Did your investigation find NO EVIDENCE of cooperation or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia or would you say that while your investigation found evidence you determined that the evidence was not sufficiently air-tight to lead to a conviction?
#2: If it were not for the Department of Justice’s standing policy of not indicting sitting Presidents, would you have pushed for indicting Trump on obstruction of justice charges?
6
I don’t know if anyone mentioned, but as reported on NPR the footnote on page 2 says that for collusion to happen there must be an agreement between the two parties. So if the Trump campaign exchanged information with the Russians (with Trump’s knowledge) and they both worked to use that information to influence if the election, but they didn’t leave any evidence they had an agreement to work together, than Mueller would say it isn’t collusion. My what a happy coincidence that the Russians could get things like polling data from the Trump loyalists and use it to influence the election without any prodding from the campaign.
9
Barr’s statement crafted over the weekend for the purpose of giving Trump broad cover when the Mueller report apparently does not, brings to mind this quote from the Merchant of Venice: “In law...but being seasoned with a gracious voice obscures the show of evil” (III, 2).
8
The AG states that the issue of "coordination" was defined as "agreement" with the Russian GOVERNMENT itself. That speaks volumes.
Putin's oligarchs, private Russian front firms that received internal campaign polling data from Paul Manafort, Russian lawyers in Trump Tower meetings, etc., all do not count under that bizarrely myopic definition.
Unless Trump had a formal "agreement" with the Russian GOVERNMENT to "coordinate," there is no possibility of a finding that he and his campaign worked with Russia in the election. And that is absurd!
The AG was hand-picked by Trump for the purpose of scuttling the full report. We must have the full report.
8
The Attorney General must be called to testify under oath before Congress. His obvious partiality has led him to subvert the course of justice. There must be consequences.
6
@Gerard Deagle
You're serious, right?
Barr receives the report on Friday and immediately informs Congress (as he is required to do) that he has received it. He then files a four-page precis within forty-eight hours, quoting directly from the Mueller report as to the key findings. He concludes that precis by noting that he will now be meeting with Mueller to determine which information can be released and which information (under law) cannot be. How is that subverting the course of justice? Unless...
You seem to be arguing that Barr misrepresented (or outright lied about) Mueller's conclusions. But this fails every test of common sense. Even if Barr was amoral enough to want to do this, how would it work? If he flat-out distorted Mueller's findings, how long do you think it would take for Mueller to find a microphone at CNN or MSNBC to publicly contradict Barr's precis? Plus Barr has promised to release the underlying report once he and Mueller have reviewed its content -- and Trump himself has tweeted that the full report should be released. Your whole point makes no sense.
2
1) Let’s see the tax returns.
2) Let’s see the Report.
3) Let’s see the evidence Mueller found.
4) Then let the House now and the American People, in 2020, judge the potential crimes and the fitness of this man.
16
The most bizarre part of Barr's summary is the statement that Mueller's report "does not exonerate" Trump.
There is no such thing as "exoneration" under American law. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot be proven guilty, there is nothing to "exonerate" you of. There is simply nothing there.
In what sort of universe would it be necessary for Mueller to point out that anybody is "not exonerated"? Not exonerated means guilty. There are no in-betweens. It's a strictly binary proposition. What's even more troubling is that Barr felt the need to report this. If guilt cannot be proven, neither Mueller nor Barr should be saying anything about exoneration.
So at this point everyone's imagination is running wild. There must be some serious evidence against Trump, that in a normal legal universe would result in prosecution and conviction. Maybe things are muddied by the technicality that the Justice Dept. cannot indict a sitting president. Maybe the evidence is obviously there and cannot be used due to interference, stonewalling or the procedural and legal boundaries of the investigation.
"Not exonerated" indeed. Either it is an errant bit of nonsense from two supposed legal experts who have somehow committed a serious lapse in their duties, or there is some compelling reason to inform the public that Trump is "not guilty but maybe guilty."
10
@Ryan
As you point out in your post "There is no such thing as "exoneration" under American law. You're innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot be proven guilty, there is nothing to "exonerate" you of." But then you go on to say that "or there is some compelling reason to inform the public that Trump is "not guilty but maybe guilty." There is also no such thing under American law as "maybe guilty." As I understand it the legal verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty." And if the verdict is not guilty then that is the end of the legal proceedings.
The hyperventilating voices in the MSM have been entertaining the American people with the Russia collusion conspiracy for more than two years, all based on an expensive piece of fiction prepared by the retired British spy Mr. Steele. The Clinton campaign funneled several million dollars through a law firm and the research firm GPS , both of which presumably took a nice piece of the action, to sources in Russia for dirt on Trump. What a shock! You offer lots of money to folks in Russia for dirt, and they'll deliver, no matter how false. Corrupt officials in the Obama DoJ and national security agencies then used the Steele Memo to deprive Americans of their civil rights by lying to the FISA court for search warrants. NOW, it's time for those who have put the entire country through this insanity to pay the price for crimes involving fraud on the FISA court and conspiracy to deprive citizens such as Carter Page of their civil rights. In the meantime, we will continue to be entertained by the vain attempts of the Russia collusion tin-hat crowd in the MSM and varioius Democrats in Congress to resurrect their now dead conspiracy theory.
3
If Trump can give security clearances to anyone, and declassify anything , can't he order the Mueller report be made public?
After all, he said it should be released to the public and we all know that HE. NEVER. LIES. ;)
8
@ASU...
No, not unless he orders a restructuring of DoJ charging guidelines.
There are two elements of redaction:
1. Information important to the security of the United States; i.e. classified material.
2. Derogatory information involving parties not indicted for crimes.
Both of these principles have a broad base of support and are what keep the personnel of the DoJ from using their powers to target people for reasons not connected with the prosecution of crimes, whatever those reasons might be. To allow such action would be to weaponize the DoJ with even more power to destroy the lives of people for patently political reasons.
1
The Conservative mind never ceases to amaze me. How ridiculous to be proud that criminal activity cannot be proven against your President on a handful of accusations, while multiple other accusations of wrongdoing have yet to be resolved. So there is no evidence to support a conspiracy with Russa. That is a good thing. Evidence for and against attempts to obstruct justice do not meet the burden of possible indictment, hardly proof of innocence. Maybe just proof of luck or extreme cunning. Apparently Republicans have very low standards when it comes to personal integrity and character. None of this changes the simple fact that Trump is still unfit and unqualified for the office he now holds.
9
Whatever the truth about obstruction is, it was glossed over by Barr, and he knows it. His partisanship taken precedence over his responsibilities as attorney general and he knows it. He will be remembered poorly, and he knows it.
2
@Van Wyck Wilson
"Obstruction of justice, even absent the argument that the President is entitled to exercise the powers granted him by the Constitution, has a set of conditions that must be satisfied in order to garner a conviction. One of those conditions is to have sufficient evidence that is admissible in a court of law and able to survive cross-examination to the point where a jury can determine beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
Note, too, that "beyond reasonable doubt" has itself a list of conditions necessary to convict.
These two are ON TOP of the evidence that is needed to prove-up case.
In spite of what you might think for your television knowledge of law, "obstruction of justice" is not an easy count to prove.
1
For me, the worse of the Mueller Report as presented in the Barr summary is the Flagrant Foul Defense (my term). Mueller apparently relied at least in part on the flagrancy of Trump's obstruction to conclude that Trump did not knowingly obstruct. That might also be called the Doofus Defense. But in the NBA, for example, flagrant fouls are thought to be the most intentional. And even children aren't given the defense of ignorance in our criminal justice system.
2
Perhaps this "esteemed" lawyer can explain how, without an underlying crime, "justice" could have been obstructed?
2
@jaco- Obstruction of justice is an independent crime. It means interfering with an on-going investigation and/or legal proceeding. It is not predicated on an eventual indictment, trial and/or conviction. 18 USC 73 defines all obstruction of justice statutes.
2
Neal Katyal, an American Hero!
1
I don't understand why all of you spend so much time thinking about and hating President Trump? Trump really isn't that bad to spend day in and day out, every waking moment talking about Trump. Frankly, i think President Trump just wants the economy to go well. I don't think he has nefarious plans to turn the US into some evil place.
1
@Driven - Call me crazy but I have a problem with my air and water being poisoned, our allies being alienated, my tax dollars going to trinkets and jaunts for Trump and his children and my retirement being made less secure.
5
@DR
Your retirement is your own problem. We have paid for numerous presidents and their families to go on 'jaunts'. The air is fine. Buy a water filter if you are worried about your drinking water.
Trump's words are chillingly obvious today. Sounds like he's out for revenge against "some very evil people" (as he puts it). And, we know Trump will not let any slights go.
1
With all the individuals who’ve pled guilty - all of whom were within the immediate orbit of the Pres - it’s hard to believe there’s no there there.
4
@CESmith...
They were charged with lying to the investigators, a very different kettle of fish.
And given Mueller and his lieutenant Weissman and their known tactics, it is not unlikely that they created a perjury trap situation for those that plead guilty as a way of pressuring others to talk.
Mueller is proven snake.
I hope our country can come together.Trump is a corrupt conman.I am an Independent.I voted for her,but not a supporter of the Clintons. Justice is at stake.I will continue to be optimistic.There are many more good ,honest people in our country.Let us all get out the vote in 2020.
3
Kaytal claims that Barr "concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey."
Simply not true. Barr did not say Trump did not obstruct justice. Barr concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish ... an obstruction-of-justice offense." And it was not just Barr: Rosenstein concurred. Read Barr's letter for yourself.
1
If there is one thing we can be absolutely certain of, it is that the Republicans will fight tooth and nail to prevent the full report from being released. They will resist subpoenas and it will go to the Supreme Court. Perhaps Mueller did us a great favor by wrapping it up 18 months before the next election, so the Democrats have time for the legal fight to pry all the gory details of the report from the Trump administration.
3
Trump has stated he has no problem releasing the report. The house voted unanimously to release the full report. I know it’s fun to work yourself into a lather but the facts say otherwise with respect to the release of the report.
1
This is not the first time the US government has withheld a report from the public.
Remember the Warren Report about the assassination of President Kennedy?
All of it has still not been released to the public. The government will wait until v=every citizen, alive in q963, is dead before it is all released; if ever.
There may be nothing in the Mueller Report that could end Trump's presidency. However, thanks to Barr, Trump, high levels of the GOP, who thought the Mueller Investigation was a "witch hunt", and are on record saying so, by note releasing the report they have created what could be seen as a coverup.
Barr, yesterday, in stead of putting this in the rear view mirror, has, instead, created a possible conspiracy to hide the truth, for political reasons. It doe snot help Trump, by appointing Barr, and two Supreme Court justices, who will protect Trump.
If New York State is successful in prosecuting Trump, we will not have to wait more than 50 years fro an answer. That is the only avenue left, as Congress is more concerned about 202 elections than really getting at the truth.
Of course, reporters for this newspaper can only hope that a whistle blower comes forth and hands them the report. That would be the scoop of the decade.
1
The political appointee of the President, AG Barr, now determines the propriety of pursuing prosecution against the person who appointed him, Trump.
Seems like this should be better submitted to Congress for determination.
On another score, perhaps it is best that the Dems get back to coming up with policies, rather than ranting on about Trump's improprieties!
2 questions: 1) Why was Trump not questioned in person? 2) Why are Trump's tax returns not in evidence?
3
Obstruction of Justice?
Did Trump stop/impede/obstruct the Mueller investigation? No.
Did Trump stop/impede/obstruct the House or Senate investigations?
No.
Did the Comey firing stop/impede/obstruct any ongoing investigation?
No.
Please, someone, explain what justice has been obstructed by Trump. I’m all ears.
1
Canada is a Nation of Justice so it is difficult for me to understand a Nation of Law. At 71 it is difficult to believe you can change from a nation of lawyers to a nation of truth finders.
Finding truth is as difficult as finding sophists who don't focus on their argument where winning is the only thing.
I can't understand why America is taking so long to understand that it no longer works .The truths are completely self evident but as Orwell might say "how many fingers am I holding up.
4
I was hoping that Barr would come to the conclusion he did. If he released the entire report, that means, there is nothing, and Trump would be guaranteed the re-election. Now, there must be something in the report that would implicate Trump and his campaign in collusion with Russians, but not necessarily have prosecutable evidence. But, congress could pursue to fill the gaps to prosecute the President. Now, the campaign rallying cry would be release the entire report. A Republican attorney general, nominated by a Republican President and confirmed by a Republican senate is a hard core Republican. Often, quite gentleman like Barr have hard core cognitive biases.
3
Jared and Don Jr participated in a meeting with a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary but neither were even interviewed much less subpoenaed. Then Trump writes a letter for his son saying that the meeting was about Russian adoptions. And Manafort gives secret Republican polling data to the Russians. Maybe Mueller, at the end of the day, is just a good Republican.
13
Honestly, I wanted to feel that Barr would do the right thing, despite Barr's 2018 memo audition prejudging this matter during the AG fiasco.
Barr was vying to become Trump's next Attorney General.
After all, he already had a bout in the ring with W Bush.
Barr's superficial 48 hour review, in my opinion was disingenuous and dismissive pertaining to obstruction claims.
Finally, I'm expecting another Trump tweet, to follow up with his TOTAL EXONERATION tweet, and that he will fulfill his true promise, to open Mueller's full report and give it to everyone as he promised.
And why not!
1
Let us not forget that we don't know the content of the conversations that Trump has had in his meetings with Putin because he has blocked release of the translators notes. In addition, we now know that the communications of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have been off the radar because they are using private email services. We don't know these communications might have on the Russia Investigation. It could be that there was no collusion with the Russians in their interference in the 2016 elections. But: there certainly could be evidence there that the President and his family were engaged in business transactions during his term in office that places him (and perhaps them) in violation of the emoluments clause.
There is too much that stinks here to accept Trump innocence.
12
"... , the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts …"
I'm puzzled by this statement. This is a very low bar for somebody sitting in the Oval Office, which allows for considerable malfeasance and great harm. If Barr's take is an accurate representation of the Mueller report, then Barr's write-up means two things. First, they found nothing that they could call an agreement. A conspiracy is, legally speaking, an agreement between two or more parties to commit an illegal act, and intent to achieve that agreement's aims." Second, Trump might very well have been an unwitting participant in the conspiracy to steal the election. The significant aspect of the second option is "knowingly coordinated." Could Mueller's report really have completely overlooked the limits of such notions, as Barr implies? I and other Americans like me, not Republicans, invested a generous amount of trust in Mueller and his team. That trust was not repaid, once the rabid partisan and extremist Barr interjected himself into the process.
11
There's a mistake if we confuse the Special Counsel Report with exoneration of Trump's presidency. The Justice Department standard for indictment is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a fair and just standard before embarking on criminal prosecutions and seating a jury.
But occupying the presidency is not a right similar to other rights of citizens. It's a privilege that includes faithfully executing the laws and defending the constitution. Retaining that privilege in the face of doubts is a political question only resolved by Congressional hearings into questionable actions. There the standard for impeachment is whatever congress says it is.
Trump may have skated by formal indictments, and I'm dubious Barr is anywhere close to fair minded on those issues, but the question of grossly improper behavior is far from settled. That's where congress must now take over.
We can thank the Justice Department for doing its job, but the full Mueller report and supporting documentation must be released to the relevant Congressional committees so they can do theirs.
15
He’s exonerated huh?!? Even as the story sits with the AG “clearing” him. How about the numerous people related to his campaign that have been indicted? They would have never been held accountable if it were up to the President. You built a team Mr. President and you ARE accountable to the actions they take on your behalf.
12
Barr's one chance to restore integrity back into the justice system and he failed miserably.
I believe a president tweeting "witch hunt" over a hundred times is interfering with and obstructing justice.
15
For over two years the anti-Trump establishment has been doubling down on the idiotic Russia story to explain how 10s of millions of Americans could have snubbed Hillary Clinton in the election; and to find a pretext for removing Trump from office. To keep the story going they have relied on hearsay, innuendo, and speculation.
The Mueller report, they told us, was going finish Trump off. It didn't even come close. So now the "aha" is that the report doesn't say Trump wasn't guilty of collusion. This is really childish: the legal system works on the basis of evidence. Finding someone "not guilty" does NOT mean they didn't do something. It means that there is no convincing evidence showing that they did.
With another election coming up in 2020, why don't Democrats return to politics and create a platform that can provide a rational discussion of serious issues instead? I fthey don't, they will have to spend another four years trying to prove that Trump's presidency is illegitimate.
2
In a game of Hide and Go Seek, Trump was hiding in plain sight. Barr just threw a big ol’ blanket over him.
7
I am afraid that Mr. Katyal is being quite disingenuous here. First of all Barr and Rosenstein did not "unilaterally conclude that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice" -- they simply made a judgement based on the Special Counsel's report that there was insufficient evidence to charge the President. The kind of judgement prosecutors make every day and is eerily similar to what James Comey did in the Hilary Clinton situation. The difference is that Comey had no authority to do so as he was not a prosecutor. Finally, the special counsel regulations explicitly provide for this kind of judgement by the AG as Mr. Katyal clearly knows. Note that the judgement by Barr and Rosenstein was made on the facts on the constitutionality of whether this type of charge would be allowed. An important point in and of itself.
2
Barr was appointed (IMO)for onme reason only: to shut down Mueller's investigation before it got too close to Trump.
This is the kind of perversion of justice we see in right wing
SCOTUS appointments under both Bush II and Trump.
Why the heck should we take Barr's ( a Trump creature) word for anything out of the report? But, I'll bet, his take will be all we get unless congress can somehow squeeze him for the full evidence.
This goes to a long line of special investigations which have ended in cover-ups and great damage to the American rule of law.
This also seems to only apply to republican presidents.
I, for one, don't accept it.
Excellent analysis, NYT!
9
Democrats and the media lost and cannot get over it. The Democrats can act like children for the next two years and the American people will remember their behavior when they go to the polls.
2
@Jonathan
What is childish is saying that "the Democrats lost". this is not a game, these are not sports teams. The Mueller investigation began with a Republican appointing another Republican to lead it. Enough.
2
I get it now, when Trump said he only hires the "best people" he was talking about those most loyal to him.
10
The entire report should be released publicly. Trump should welcome this if he truly did nothing wrong. Republicans' repeated obfuscations on this will continue to undermine Trump and his administration. Furthermore, Americans have a right to know exactly what Russia did to us in 2016. Has everyone forgotten about that? If we want to firewall the electorate against further tampering, let the voters read the report! This should be simple!
7
This entire episode was concocted by the Hillary Camp. What went on within our Government Agencies was nefarious at best.
Time and again the Media was caught up in their own fabrications. When Peter Strzok, a major Trump antagonist had his text revealed, "there's nothing there", that said it all. But no one paid heed.
Down the rabbit hole the country went, lead on by a corrupt media that had only one goal in mind, get Trump.
The sad part is now the precedent has been set. Will future elections get weaponized by Government Agencies and the Media?
That is the real threat to our Democracy, not the Russians.
1
Trump essentially got it right: He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it, which why we won’t see very much of the actual report, certainly nothing incriminating. Think of it as part of getting away.
Trump won, the American nation lost. Trump wanted his attorney general to represent his interests, not the nation’s, and he got that in Barr. Barr’s auditioned for the job by implicitly implying that politics would guide him — his official actions serving Trump’s personal interests. I’ve read he’s an “institutionalist”, someone who seeks to uphold a deeply flawed, dysfunctional republican system of government and elevates that aspect above all other considerations. If it means supporting an incompetent, emolument-corrupted, amoral, debauched president — if that’s the coin of the realm, the price to be paid — so be it. It will be paid, the bill sent to us.
And we’re paying each-&-every day that Trump remains in office, free to wreck havoc in countless ways — and now emboldened.
7
The sub-headline implies that, if it was the inverse (i.e. that Barr concluded Trump was guilt) then the release of the Mueller III report would be unecessary.
Whatever gravitas Mr. Barr brought to the DOJ it has
surely been lost as he blatantly becomes just another toady for Pres. Trump.
9
It is now obvious that everyone involved, from the FBI to this hack, had it out for Trump from the beginning.
Go back to the swamp.
1
CNN reports that Tyler McGaughey, the husband of Barr’s youngest daughter, has been hired as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, where he’ll “advise the president, the executive office, and White House staff on legal issues concerning the president and the presidency."
Interesting timing.
14
Well, then. If this is total vindication, how do Papadapolous, Manafort, Cohen et al feel about going to prison over nothing?
17
I'd like to read the entire report. In light of Barr's letter, I'd like to see Donald Trump's tax returns. Regardless, in no way does this justify any of the this ghastly administration's actions, words, and destructive deeds.
As CBS Sunday Morning's piece on this pointed out, Nixon didn't resign until more than a year and a half after John Dean's damning testimony.
Show all Americans the report. For that matter, show the world, if it's so crystal clear that no one did anything illegal.
In the meantime, the SDNY should keep moving forward with every single investigation it is pursuing. This isn't over by a long shot.
If there's nothing to hide, REVEAL THE ENTIRE REPORT. TO EVERYONE.
13
Mueller shmuller....time to move on. and I'm not a pro Trumper! we should take leave of Sisyphos and get ready for the next battle....presumably for the WHITE HOUSE. Where with a bit of luck (and no Russian interference) we can regain our collective soul.
1
This article is blatantly wrong. Barr did no do anything unilaterally. He had Rod Rosenstein by his side and issued his letter with his approval. This is by law. This is how the justice department works.
Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the "system is broken". Thats being juvenile and kiddish, screaming for that lollypop your mom won't buy for you because you didn't finish your homework.
There was no collusion. There is nothing that Trump could obstruct as there was no crime in the first place and Mueller clearly stated he got everything he needed. So deal with it and respect the rule of law my liberal friends.
Mr Katyal:
POTUS is awaiting your apology; will you be a decent enough person to accommodate?
1
If the president is above the law, then the Republic is effectively over.
William Barr’s interpretation of executive powers would grant the president the stature of a monarch. This is a gross violation of everything that America’s legal system stands for, and Barr’s actions leave Democrats with no choice, but to wield all of the political authority that they possess.
8
Regardless of whether the Mueller team thought there was evidence sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy, what is most important and what should be emphasized is (1) that the report did conclude that the Russian government attempted to interfere with and influence the 2016 election to favor Trump (something Trump has steadfastly denied in spite of the finding of our intelligence agencies), and (2) regardless of whether what the Trump campaign did amounted to a criminal conspiracy, the Trump campaign AND TRUMP HIMSELF encouraged the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the election by, for example, Trump personally urging the Russians to find the supposedly missing emails. What was done may not be enough to make a conspiracy case against Trump, but it is not what we want as Americans and it is certainly against our laws for a foreign government to attempt to influence our elections. Don't let Trump off the hook for his failure to insure this cannot happen in the future, for his refusal to acknowledge that it happened in the past and for his encouragement of precisely that form of action during the campaign.
8
Barr already told us the conclusion he had drawn on the obstruction investigation when he wrote the unsolicited memo. He just had to wait until the report was released to restate his conclusion.
9
Many interesting questions raised here regarding Mr. Barr's actions. It appears like this could be a rush to judgment. I wonder if the licensing authority that approved Mr. Barr's law license will look into this matter.
4
Republicans, including Trump, have never accepted Comey's findings re: Hillary Clinton's emails. Now let's imagine if Comey: 1) Had been a Democrat, not the Republican he is/was; 2) had been pointed to his position by Hillary Clinton; 3) had expressed hostility toward the investigation of Hillary Clinton prior to being appointed to his position. in that case, we are to believe that Republicans and Trumpers would have accepted his findings and told everyone to "get over it and move on", that "justice has been served, etc.? That makes no sense whatsoever. I think Trump really has pulverized good faith, integrity, and wisdom, but I don't blame Trump. I blame his enablers who allowed that pulverizing to go on purely for power or political warfare purposes. We are going to pay a big price for the Trump Era.
7
As pointed out in another comment trump himself argued for the release of the full report. Why not release it? And everyone will be able to examine it.
6
I'd like to hear Rod Rosenstein's take on the Muller report.
7
If you listened to any portion of Barr's confirmation hearings you saw a man who was polite, deferential and in the end eminently pliable to carrying the President's water. Let's not act surprised when this former Republican AG choses to look the other way on the literally hundreds of instances where the sitting President cast doubt on the validity of the Special Counsel and the investigation. Now the President is calling for investigations of the investigators and the press. We truly are moving quickly towards the Banana Republic status as a nation.
9
@Dennis W
or worse...
1
For Barr to conclude that Trump did not obstruct justice within only 48 hours of receiving Mueller's report (did he actually read the entire report?) I can't help but feel as if Barr himself is guilty of the same kind of obstruction of justice as Trump.
14
Problem #1, it did not find Trump guilty.
That’s it. Past that nothing else mattered to the Democrats and their backers.
It’s done, move on.
4
A prosecutor cannot find anybody guilty. They can only find them prosecutable, or not. And that can mean a whole range of things.
4
@AutumnLeaf. The way you all moved on from Comey's findings RE Hillary's emails? And he wasn't even a lackey of hers.
4
Professor Katyal highlights the limits of psychology and the law when he mentions “corrupt intent”. B.F. Skinner explained human motivations and intent in ways that sharply contradict the pre-scientific jurisprudence of intent. The FBI can get anyone to lie because it is literally impossible to describe ones mental intentions that never really existed in any scientific or physical sense.
Some day the law will catch up to science. Until then, I advise all of my clients not to try and describe or justify their mental states of mind. Better yet, don't speak with the "enemy" (of science) at all.
Mr. Mueller is from the old school as was evident in the guilty pleas he extracted. There is hope for Mr. Barr.
1
BF Skinner's science was to ignore intentionality and cognition entirely and focus only on behavior. In law however where there is such a thing as crime and punishment, intent will always be critical. When you met with a person and had a certain conversation and gave them something of value, what was your intent? What was your expectation? BF Skinner has absolutely zero to do with any of this.
1
@JerseyGirl
The law, civil & criminal could be easily formulated without any reference mental states. They are a fiction. What someone said, did, saw, smelled, etc. can be important. What they "intended" is not necessary to fair judicial process (or to honest news as well).
1
No, the public does not have the right to see Mueller's report. This is against all rule of law. This 2 year investigation looked into the private lives and businesses of countless, innocent people. I say 'innocent' from the perspective of committing a related crime. No one is ever innocent, and the public has no right to read who jay walked, or had an abortion, or befriended a felon. Ever. Murderers have more rights, according to the far left, and Katyal.
2
This has nothing to do with the “rule of law”.
3
Barr was hired by Trump to protect him, and that is just what he's doing. Not a surprise, but a very sad disappointment that will tar him forever as a Trump lackey. Don't forget, this is the same man who told George H.W. Bush to pardon all the Iran contra defendants when it looked like the investigation was going to implicate Bush himself, thus ending the investigation. He is a partisan hack, just like everyone else Trump has surrounded himself with.
16
I only have two words for the Democratic Party and House in Congress in response to Barr letter: voter turnout.
11
@Eric
Three more words: not the socialists.
Conspiracy: Those with the time haven't the talent; those with the talent haven't the time. Bottom line of the Muller Report: The White House is loaded with idiots incapable of conspiracy. Further evidence that now, more than ever, the voters must speak.
6
I had similar thoughts - Trump and team must be relieved that their efforts to collude failed. They can’t be charged with it because, despite some efforts, they couldn’t pull it off. There is no other explanation I can think of for Trump’s incessant shouts of “no collusion! He so transparently and frequently projects his fears and self-doubts.
4
This will give republicans the ability to win in 2020.
The coup of our government into republican hands is nearly complete. It seems the Trump voters got their beast of a messiah.
Good luck America. Our days are numbered.
3
That's right, Mr. Katyal. You want us to waste more time and taxpayer dollars investigating the POTUS until you get the result you're looking for, yes? It’s clear that you are NOT seeking the impartial, unbiased and arm's-length TRUTH on any of these allegations. You despise President Trump, plain and simple, yes? If the exact same situation were politically in reverse, such a protracted and wasteful "investigation" wouldn't have even been allowed in the first place...in the absence of any identifiable crime, which is precisely what we have in this case. After two years of "investigating", speculation, biased media hype and the POTUS having to function with virtually "one arm tied behind his back", this entire scenario is SAD...very sad, indeed!
This is not what WE THE PEOPLE elected our legislators in Congress to do. There are so many pressing & ongoing issues that Congress needs to address w/o further delay, and time is of the essence!
Please…it’s time we finally get on with the REAL business of government!
2
We’ve been waiting for over two years, as Republicans controlled the government. Still waiting. Perhaps Party over Country is the primary motivation?
2
@Ian
You said, "We’ve been waiting for over two years, as Republicans controlled the government. Still waiting. Perhaps Party over Country is the primary motivation?"
Precisely...and unambiguously...what does all that mean? Being mysteriously cryptic will get us nowhere. Curious minds need to know...and surely without any (intentional) ambiguity!
Thanks much!
The New York Times and the left will never be happy unless Trump is executed or permanently jailed and his wealth that he worked for was transferred to the Democratic party and other leftist causes. When will they "let it go"? So much hate on the left for those who disagree with them.
1
Do you mean the “wealth he worked for” given to him by his family on the basis of being born? Or do you mean the “wealth he worked for” when his father bailed him out with millions of dollars because he couldn’t even make a profit from CASINOS? Or maybe you mean the “wealth he worked for” by refusing to pay 100s of workers who ACTUALLY WORKED to build his many hideous towers?
If you count all of that as “work” or
2
Meanwhile, Barr's son-in-law is working for Trump. The fix certainly seems to be in. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/william-barr-son-in-law-white-house?fbclid=IwAR2fmTzILuKTVJ5tGkicKXng3cWtowrfJ-27yd1IvCcqNDPo1UbkZPVwBoE
9
All of this leaves us with Putin continuing to have leverage over Trump. He surely has evidence of Trump and his administration's collusion, and will continue to hold this over them to get his agenda fulfilled. The Mueller investigation also clearly sides with the intelligence community's assessment of Russian attempts to interfere in our elections in favor of Trump. Any other president would have made preventing future attempts a major initiative -- a real national emergency.
4
I’m sorry Mr Katyal that your wish did not come true. But it didn’t
1
2020. Vote the grifters out. Care more about the future than your past.
8
The author never mentions that Donald Trump himself would like to see the Report released to the public.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/20/705162788/trump-backs-public-release-of-mueller-report
All these Democratic Presidential candidates are saying they want public release as well. Why is some of the media leaving out the fact that the President himself would like public release of the Report?
Dogs get disappointed when the car they are chasing stops, and lets them catch up.
4
Does anyone know just how many pages the report consists of? Is Barr of such superior intelligence that he can conclude all that was written in a manner of hours? We need a hero, right now, to release the report to all media... and see which media scims/ignores the parts that are not in their biased favor
1
Dear Katyal — you need to give this a rest. No collusion and the president has the constitutional right to fire James Comey. Moreover, there was no crime that he was attempting to cover up. In other words — get a life!
2
Mr. Moki,
Trump admitted on national television that he fired Comey because of, "that Russia thing."
Trump admitted that he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation, which is obstruction of justice in plain sight.
5
Whitewash, plain and simple.
Plus Mueller did not say there was no conspiracy, just that the investigation did not establish one. Hardly surprising since tacit conspiracies are almost always impossible to prove if all parties deny and stonewall, as here, and are not so stupid to leave a paper trail.
7
Trump picked Barr. What did we expect?
5
It looks like Mr. Barr did what he was hired to do. The NYT had an article outlining Barr's history, but they omitted the fact that he helped G.H.W. Bush cover up Iran-Contra by recommending pardons for all involved. See NYT front page 12/25/1992.
3
The only problem with the Barr letter is that it wasn't what the angry left demanded.
So they will defame any and all who stand in their angry path.
And with their hate, give us another four years of Trump.
Please. Shut up now.
2
Reminds me of the criminal trials and acquittals of white people in the South, for killing a black man. Pick your own era. The oldest images are best.
Twelve smug white men grinning from ear to ear, issuing their verdict within seconds of the end of closing arguments and jury instructions. Then heading out back to pass around a bottle of Moonshine.
Meanwhile, the prosecutor, and the victim's families, stand by, shocked, speechless, and in tears.
I've seen this before. It doesn't end well.
8
The author of this text speculates a lot with totally obvious political slant (not to mention malevolence disguised as legal minutiae).
I imagine him being so frustrated with the report not showing with what he so badly expected to see there, that his hands shook so badly it took him very long time to type this political-cum-legal piece.
Five secret meetings with Putin.
The last presidential election was a fraud.
Stop the lying.
Don't forget 9-11.
1
Luv ya, bro, but the job you did crafting these regulations was weak. What public value informed your work? Transparency to overcome lack of special counsel impartiality or independence? Apparently not. Time to get White male Ivy League (read “Yale Law”) OLC lawyers out of the business of putting their classmate white politician bosses above the law.
The person who brought an end to Nixon's Saturday night massacre was the one who caved in to Nixon and fired Archibald Cox. That man was Robert Bork, who years later was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Bill Barr has just submitted his application for the next Supreme Court opening with his refusal to consider obstruction of justice charges.
2
Trump hired Barr to be his defense attorney, not an Attorney General whose first duty is to the country and the rule of law. Trump did not get his Roy Cohn but he certainly got his Robert Bork.
4
Poor Mr. Mueller. As he discovered, there is a whole ecosystem of fraudsters, liars, 'machers', peddlers of supposed insider knowledge, connections, etc. But it's just fraudsters and hustlers. There is no substance, never was.
And pity the "Resistance" clown show.
Why don't we dispense with the absurd masquerade and you of the left just admit that there is nothing - nothing - that Mueller, Barr or the Lord Himself could ever say that could even begin to placate your hatred for this president, much less accept any two-year investigative conclusion that he didn't collude with Russia to his benefit in the 2016 election?
It's abundantly clear that that Democrats today have one - and only one - objective and that is to cast unending smoke on any and all aspects of the Trump presidency whilst simultaneously running about as so many Chicken Littles hollering fire.
I couldn't bring myself to vote for the man in 2016. But the callous, self-serving, despicably ugly political character on display from his opposition today makes it vastly more likely that I will next time.
2
Attempted collusion is treasonous enough.
7
Barr's letter put another lie on top of Trump's mountain of lies.
2
The entire nation should be the judge of Mueller's report; not
left to AG Barr who has a pre-judgment view of indicting
sitting US Presidents...
There has been no conclusion that Trump is not free from any
wrongdoing; and therefore the nation waits to make a correct and fulsome judgment based on more exposure of Trump's possible criminal acts: and Barr as well as Mueller should be further questioned under oath in Congress...
A full open Congressional hearing should take place.
However long this may take ….we the people don't know.
But this Trump fiasco is not over ...it is going to be the real
cleansing of the D.C. swamp....as the saying goes..'hold on to
your seat belts...it's going to definitely be a bumpy ride....
The draining of the 'swamp...is going to happen.. ...Yahoo !!!
The man has shamed and degraded himself irrevocably, trashing his lifetime reputation of public service in an ill-considered New York minute. He is the highest legal representative for the people of the United States, but like so many others has chosen instead to be Donald Trump’s monkey.
2
Perhaps there should be dual impeachment inquiries. One for the President and one for Attorney General Barr.
1
"The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22-month investigation, is deeply worrisome."
It's also worrisome that Barr auditioned for the AG position by sending an unsolicited 19-page memo to the DOJ which says the president csn't obstruct justice.
Barr was also interviewed by Trump to be part of his defense team.
Also, the fact that Trump complained about Comey being good friends with Mueller (he's not) and said nothing about the friendship between Barr and Mueller (they're very close) tells us that Trump had corrupt intent when he offered Barr the AG position.
Barr shouldn't be making any decisions about whether Trump obstructed justice. He has a major conflict of interest. He was obviously hired by the president to protect him from obstruction charges.
5
As Donald Trump has said, the whole system is rigged including the political and judicial systems. But in this case he is the beneficiary of both systems because he occupies the highest office in the land even though he is unworthy of that office.
4
Sour grapes!
Just saying anything to justify their attempted coup which has failed.
2
Art, the "12 angry Democrats" found no collusion. In a similar way, a jury found OJ not guilty. This is our justice system. God bless America!
1
All crybabies here. Congrats on re-electing our guy in 2020.
Please keep going with more investigations that go nowhere..
This time it will be a REAL landslide.
1
The truth according to William Barr. NO THANK YOU!
2
When is enough enough?
1
From this remove it seems that 'justice' in the US is more and more politicised from the 'hanging shads' through to the Citizens United decision and the Kavanagh confirmation and now this. ''Justice seems to be tied to money. The famous 'checks and balances' now seems a distant memory. Without an honest, reasonable, responsible and satisfied citizenry how do you keep the system afloat for everyone?
1
Every Middle Schooler in America could see there was intent to obstruct justice when Trump fired Comey.
6
Showing a 'head-shot' of Barr, Stephen Colbert referenced him as "Attorney General William Barr ... or the frog who swallowed John Goodman."
Great line … but swallowing John Goodman wouldn't have left the 'room' he needed to swallow our separation-of-powers principles (among others) and devour the turn-of-fate our Democracy deserved.
1
The biggest problem - it didn’t say what NYT readers wanted it to say.
1
Let's get real, Barr was briefed by Whitaker, who was briefed by Mueller, Barr had this summary ready before he formally received it from council. Not guilty doesn't equal innocent.
5
A recently appointed AG who believes Presidents can't obstruct justice says Trump did not commit obstruction. Gee if the shoe were on the other foot and this were a Democratic administration the Republicans would be impeaching everyone already!!!!
6
The Mueller report is in and it exonerates the President. He did not collude. End of story. The Democrats and our new media outlets, specifically the NYTs, WP, CNN and MSNBC owe the president an apology. Pretty simple.
1
@Mark V
We don't know what the Mueller report said; all we have is Barr's snippets. Waiting for the full report to be released to know what the Mueller group found.
5
Thank you. Along with millions of others, I hope it happens.Still, why do I have this gut feeling that the report won't be released and all this gnashing of teeth and breathless anticipation will come to naught? If they ask Mr Mueller under oath: "Whaddya think Bob? Did Barr tell us the truth? " and he coughs twice, then shrugs... what then? The Special Council's work will go down in history as the longest running serial farce in American history. Wo(MEN)... the United States of America better get this one right...
@mike
You are forgetting the marathon of Kenneth Starr.
1
Even Barr, trump's hand-picked AG, in a summary no doubt framed to cast him in the best light, said there was no exoneration.
So trump seizes on it and claims total exponentiation, which gets repeated and repeated by the media.
OK, people, let's beware of propaganda.
07:55 EDT, 3/25
2
This is just a Bush vs Gore redo — Republican hacks stepping in to stop the truth from coming out and to protect their stooges from accountability
4
James Comey's bloodless assassination of Hillary Clinton with Anthony Weiner's computer elected Trump. This is the fire where all the smoke is coming from.
3
This report must be released to Congress and the American people. The absolute gall of the president and his aides complain of others who have lied and should be investigated when they lie on a daily basis, especially POTUS. Sad day for America when The Russians get away with their meddling in our democracy. It will occur again thanks to the puppet Donald J. Trump and the GOP who have done absolutely nothing to protect our country from our enemies with this cyber war. Cowards! Greed is the root of all evil. Sold us out!
2
Bill Clinton did nothing but try to have sex with an intern.
Trump, however flaunts his crimes every single day of the past almost 2 years.
He has turned our government into a big payout to his family and cronies...not one of which is benefiting our citizens.
Clean water and air, banking, healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid.....gutted and buried. The economy, a gift to the 1%, and debt for the rest of us. If it was on the right path otherwise, it's Barack Obama who set us on it. Recession, brought on by Bush, Cheney, Greenspan....ALL Republicans!! The next one will carry the name of Trump,
4
I’d say Clinton did a little more than “try”.....
1
My mom used to say, Americans get what they deserve when we elect people. We elected this thoroughly inhumane, lawless, amoral crook, and people were too stupid to vote for Democrats for the Senate, twice, to have some ability to control his cabinet and judicial appointments. Maybe it's good this is done. Too many people I know or have heard have been waiting for Mueller to wave his magic wand and Trump would disappear. Now we have to do it the old-fashioned way, at the ballot box. God help us if we don't.
3
Imagine this scenario: at report card time, one of your child's best friends tells you "Trust me, Mrs. Smith, Johnny did OK on his report card." This friend, by the way, has previously excused earlier episodes of your child's misbehavior. Are you going to accept his description of your child's report card, or are you going to demand to see it? Duh!
2
Bill Barr is the leader in the race for the coveted Trump Toady of the Year competition. Lindsay, I used to love John McCain, Graham is a close second, followed by Jacketless Jim Jordan in third place.
3
Mr. Barr is simply whimping out and throwing a bone to Trump’ base. Anyone with basic cognitive ability knows that Mr. Mueller has demonstrated that the Trump Administration is corrupt to the core, even without the report. As to Rosenstein, he showed early on that he can be manipulated. As to active conspiracy with Russia, Trump is too dumb. Of course he knew that the Russians had the emails and was datamining (along with the Mercer’s/Cambridge Analytica and Manafort/Gates, etc. etc) and eagerly embraced it because he is a rich, spoiled brat in an old man’s body. But he brought his house of cards down accepting the Presidency. He isn’t smart but he is a crook and will get his due.
3
Know toxic narcissists as I do, Mr. Trump will see this report as further proof that no matter what he does, he can do it with absolutely impunity. Therefore, I have every reason to expect that his behavior will only get worse.
7
Release the report. Barr is tainted. He came to the conclusion presented in his summary when he submitted the memo asking to be hired for the job as AG. Yes, I wrote job because Barr is a hack so being AG is a job. Think this guy is working because he needs the money?
2
Here are the “new norms” presidents may use now and in the future:
1. Work hand in glove with a foreign power to win the presidency.
2. Be beholden to that foreign power throughout his or her time in office.
3. Hold secret meetings with adversarial foreign heads with impunity.
4. Purge our Justice Department of all perceived “enemies” (I.e. those looking out for the welfare of the American people).
5. Perform the equivalent of putting Justice Department officials’ heads on spikes by publicly trashing their so-called “enemies” and families day by day.
6. Appoint attorneys general who are loyal mainly to the president and not the rule of law and fire at whim anyone who does not pledge fealty above all else to the president.
7. Refuse to testify before a special counsel because he is a liar and have that refusal work to his advantage.
8. Form a phalanx of attorneys and other spokespeople to daily lie and trash our system of justice.
9. Threaten that his followers will rise up if a special counsel’s report does not go his way.
10. Hold out the pardon power to charged or convicted partners-in-crime to win their silence.
This may be read as an indictment against the Electoral College, those Trump-enabler Americans who do not see what Trump has done as “important,” and, of course, the Republican Party. It’s simply up to the rest of us to take America back.
3
In politics, nothing is ever final. The upside to this event is that the Democrats are freed to pursue 2020 on political merits, and the Republicans (especially Trump) are freed to go and do something really, really stupid. Maybe some triumphalist proclamation that whites are the only REAL Americans and that all must prostrate at the feet of any and all of Trump's edicts. Maybe launch treason trials against those who criticize or even question the president.
I so look forward to this monkey show.
1
The way our country works is that the Justice Dept. decides whether to prosecute or decline to prosecute an individual. That has happened now in Trump's case. Failure to abide by that decision is an attack upon our country and should be viewed as such.
1
"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."
Consider:
1. The President and his close aides made every effort to obstruct the investigation into collusion.
2. They were likely successful. Collusion could not be sufficiently determined.
3. Because there was "no collusion" proved, therefore there could have been no obstruction.
Huh?
3
The column states"...the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder."
Trump thinks he could get away with it. Remember his comments?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/14/if-trump-shot-someone-dead-fifth-avenue-many-supporters-would-call-his-murder-trial-biased/?utm_term=.3d1f75211457
Barr is Roy Cohn that Donald Trump was lamenting he did not have. He unilaterally, without interviewing Trump, gave him a clean chit on obstruction. Did he use the reasoning that he gave in an unsolicited 2018 memo, which is highly flawed? Beautifully articulated in this article.
3
So what we learned from Attorney General Barr is that when a President commits a crime, he is above the law especially if he is a Republican. If he is a Democrat, then he must be impeached.
5
How can a rogues gallery of offenders of the law wreath trump, and not one connection of collusion against the laws of the United States be made? How can those around him be indicted and convicted and not one thread lead to the boss the capo de capo. How could he have five undocumented meetings with Putin and no one demanded answers. It’s all very strange. It might require others to investigate. What did Flynn say? What did Manafort say? What did the other political lieutenants say to Mueller? Welcome to wonderland.
1
The US is no longer under Abe Lincoln's view .... "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
We are now under a new political model ... "Government of the Corrupt people, by the Powerful people, (working) for Rich people, shall see itself perish from the world stage."
2
Imagine Bill or Hillary Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat for that matter doing 1/100 of what Trump has done in broad daylight.
This is terrible. I remember Iran/Contra, again starring Barr of course. I remember The Starr Inquisition in which a young woman was tormented, threatened, her private life exposed for all to see; a president humiliated and impeached over an affair.
Then of course we had BENGHAZI! x 9, a deliberate and effective attempt per no less than Kevin McCarthy to smear Hillary Clinton. We then had HER EMAILS ad infinitum capped by Comey's appalling bloviating and his dropping of the Anthony Weiner bomb just before the election, which proved to be a big nothing of course but it was too late.
Of course McConnell and Comey said nothing about Trump/Russia. Not a word.
Tell me there isn't a vast right wing conspiracy.
7
If Donald Trump publicly saying ....on an NBC interview....that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation is not evidence of obstruction of justice.... what is?
3
Fake everything at this point. Three ring circus ran up $21 trillion in debt and the American electorate squabbles like hens because everyone gets their thoughts from corporate news.
It's time Canada invade. We are too busy acting like spoiled children.
1
What a slick piece of writing! Mueller found some 37 people guilty of criminal activity of which hald a dozen have been convicted. That's not nothing. If we are known by those who are your friends, what does this say about Trump?
Mueller didn't find anything that was actionable or chargeable to Trump as an act of collusion or conspiracy. But did Trump work with the Russians? Darn right he did. Add up all the little things from his calling for them to find Clinton's emails, to his lying about the Trump Tower meeting in July, to his admission on TV yet that he fired Comey with the idea that it would eliminate his Russia problem, to his chumminess with the Russians in the Oval office right after firing Comey, to his two hour meeting with Putin and all his other actions that support Russia . . .
Trump is what he has always been: a conman, a liar, a narcissist, a man totally out of his depth who basically does what the money men and the Evangelicals in the Republican Party want him to do. What a loser he is and was and will always be. What person in their right mind continues to trash a guy who's been dead for six months?!
Time will show just how bad he and the Republican Party are for average Americans and that is true no matter how many times he says, "No collusion."
3
@B.
The problem is - when Trump is gone from the oval office (if he ever does) how do we restore respect to the presidency?
1
Unfortunately, any complaints about Barr's verdict on Mueller's report are relegated to the sour grapes pile.
I'm guessing Trump's approval will shoot up to the mid-40s and complicate what had looked like a promising 2020 election.
We've got to save the world from Trump's racist-fascist leadership and concentrate on undoing his horrifying damage.
Climate change, anyone?
1
Manafort is innocent, the inauguration was beyond our comprehension, I just found Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, what a beautiful wall that is sir, a sight to behold!
Your hair is perfect, just perfect. And there’s no such thing as an old boys club.
2
Barr just tossed a grenade into the national debate.
Trump is declaring victory, another grenade.
Mueller deferred, and Barr followed his declaration that presidents have immunity.
The networks are the only winners here.....so why can't we look away.... because the president is still a dangerous, self interested, imposter.
Mr. Katyal provides a great civic service by making a logical case demanding that the full Mueller report be released. Two years of speculation about the conduct of Mr. Trump and his lackeys is enough. Mr. Barr's arrogant assertion that he is the judge and jury on the question of obstruction is the anti-thesis of our system of justice. Perhaps all of Mr. Trump and his coterie's lies reflect the low standards to which they hold themselves. But if it walks like a duck...
2
When Trump was asked before the election whether he would honor the results, he equivocated and the left went ballistic. What an outrage!! How could he even consider such a thing? Then Trump won and guess what? The left deemed his election to be illegitimate and have worked nonstop to try to make that a reality (who cares about those millions of voters anyway- they are all deplorable). During this investigation, the left fell over themselves to declare Mueller to be an honest cop. They were sure the investigation would be Trump's undoing. His report was going to finish Trump. Every little development was the proverbial straw that would break the camel's back (I'm looking at you Jeffrey Toobin- you hack). But it didn't. Now the Dems are talking cover-up. They want to subpoena Mueller and Barr. They want to investigate Barron Trump's mouthwash. They are tearing their hair out. Trump is the President. Live with it. Oh and by the way, it will be a long time before any Democrat president gets an ounce of respect. What goes around comes around.
@Tim Lewis
Before the results of the election were in Trump claimed that the whole system was rigged.I guess you forgot about that.
This was total whitewash by Trump's toady Barr.Mueller
did not exonerate Trump on obstruction , Barr did
Obscene. Well Barr has now inducted himself into the
Toady Hall of Fame. He was hired to do what he just
did.
The stench is overwhelming
3
Even the great and righteous Robert Mueller cowered to this man with the stupid hair when the chips were down.
I expected something more definitive after hearing the non stop, glowing plaudits about this man from "insiders" who even struck fear into his superiors with his legendary, steely eyed determination and fierce intellect.
I should have known better.
Yes Bobby Mueller`s two years report ended .
Still two years of investigation does not justify Bill Barr`s four page report.
Why was not trump interviewed personally ?
Why Mueller never investigated or interviewed Jared and Ivanka who are running loose in the White House with no credentials and do not have a clean record ?
1
I am deeply concerned that since Trump has been vindicated, he will be energized to stretch even further into his already autocratic tendencies. He already has tossed the “investigate the other side” out as red meat for his base.
Calling the investigation illegal, saying he is now totally cleared, and even after stating the 12 angry Democrats were out to get him, they still didn’t find collusion, I think this can only go further downhill. Even if voted out, I don’t think he will leave.
2
If and when this is all the public gets, regardless of what the House pushes for, and when the Senate denies transparency, truth, and justice, I pray that we learn something about the importance of motivating people to inform themselves and to vote in 2020. And not just for President, but for both houses of Congress.
I fear that despite all that has happened in the last couple years, despite all that has happened over decades, we as the citizenry are way too apathetic and complacent about allowing corruption to infiltrate and grow within our government.
The Consititution, its amendments, and the electoral process were all formed with the assumption that the citizens would be actively involved. Yet we act as though the government should run on its own without accountability. Would we run a business that way?
In the last Presidential election, about 30% sided with responsibility and decency, about 30% sided with narcissism, corruption, and greed, and about 40% DID NOTHING. In the last midterm election, which had a record breaking turnout, still more than half of the voting eligible population DID NOT VOTE.
The largest problem is that the amount of people who do not vote is larger than either party. How can we expect a system designed for us to work without us?
If we cannot motivate people to vote, the swamp will continue to spread until it takes over all of America and the world. It's not the 1% and their greed, it's the 99% who do little to hold them accountable.
2
Look throughout the comments. Everyone has now lost faith in our justice system. The damage is done and can't be undone by the sitting President. It's optimistic to think this can be fixed by one 2020 election. The next generation will be cleaning up this mess. Doesn't matter who is elected next.
We now live in a country of conspiracy theory and hatred.
6
I agree. This country has passed the tipping point.
2
It sounds to me like Mueller wasn’t finished with his investigation. If this is true then this begs the question as to why?
Was Mueller pressured to end the investigation once Barr was sworn in?
1
Oh what tangled web we weave ,when first we practice to deceive!
Walter Scott
Barr's involvement in the Iran Contra ,Elliot Richardson situation leaves a ton of doubt in those of us with historical memory.
Intelligence agencies worldwide found evidence of Russia's meddling in our 2016 presidential election.
If all are so innocent release the Mueller investigative report to the American people.
1
Neither the Mueller report nor the Attorney General's four-page summary of it provide me with even an ounce relief. In fact, there seems to have been little need for a Mueller report at all.
In the months since the presidential campaign opened, time and time again evidence has presented itself pointing to campaign collusion with Russia.
Trump's behavior in the debates against Hillary Clinton offer one example. His behavior on the podium in Helsinki with President Putin provide another.
The change in the GOP platform regarding Ukraine leading up to the election is a third. The blatant lies about negotiations with Russia about the construction of Trump Tower Moscow is yet another.
Then there was Roger Cohen's spot-on prediction about the imminent release of John Podesta's DNC emails and Don Junior's prevarication about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016.
Any one of these incidents might be written off as concidence, but all of them in-tandem? No collusion? Who is kidding whom? Deep collusion is as plain as the nose on our face.
And we haven't even gotten to obstruction of justice yet.
4
Good outline of the situation. Thank you!
It's Barr's deliberate calculation to side with trump -- His position was clearly stated in his AG audition letter. That's what he was hired to do.
3
Let's be honest. The REAL problem with the Barr letter is that, like Mueller, he does not conclude that the President committed a crime.
If Mueller had concluded that Trump was as rotten, treasonous, and the such as many have already concluded, many folks would be happy. Of course, THEY already know that Trump is guilty, despite not investigating a single person, but relying instead on media that, despite many, many bright points, has become tarnished by their joint hatred of Trump and family.
Nothing will appease those who had already concluded that Trump was guilty as sin and were just waiting on Mueller to confirm legally what they knew all along by their intense dislike of Trump.
I smirk at hearing of the "Trump Derangement Syndrome," but methinks they may have a point now....
I respectfully ask my brothers and sisters of a different political flavor to allow the nation to move on. If Trump's as bad as you think he is, then he'll likely do something else to warrant an investigation. Don't let your disappointment turn into a form of poor sportsmanship.
Just as I (a conservative) don't want Hillary investigated (since it smacks of revenge politics more than anything else), I hope you, my liberal friends, will simply accept that, in this case, Trump was not found indictable.
Remember, this president never had a "honeymoon." He protested from the night he won the election. A little more sweetness on both sides might benefit us all. Please...and thank you.
1
I think we are past the point of bipartisanship in this country.
@Mathias, is sure seems that way, friend. I enjoy talking things over with those of a different persuasion. They may be wrong. I may be wrong. But when we talk, I either start seeing that my position isn't quite as well-founded as I would hope...or I starts seeing that it does indeed hold water. And that helps all of us...if we will play fairly and civilly.
I suppose we'd have to go back to the 60s--or maybe even just before the Civil War--to find a time when animosity was so high between Americans. Maybe we do need a space invasion, since stuff like that makes us all come together.
My dad, a preacher, tells the story of a missing child that people were searching for. Finally, they decided to hold hands and walk through the field (so they could ensure they were covering every inch of ground). The found the missing child...but too late. Someone lamented, "Oh, if only we had taken each other's hand earlier."
Another reason to vote ALL Republicans out of office.
They are more concerned with saving the party then saving the country.
5
People who don't know when they have lost inevitably become an embarrassment.
1
Trump has definitely won: there is no "smoking gun." From this point on, it's all noise and feathers flying in the air. I imagine the report in some way concludes that Trump is a person of low character. Trump can live with that; indeed, he told us as much before getting elected. So, yes, I agree with Trump: he's won.
When a people are weak, it makes men in power want to burn them like fire logs, not provide them shelter. Americans might as well begin to "concentrate" themselves into cords.
1
It seems that Bill Barr is Trump’s new “fixer”. Will he be handling hush-money pay-offs as well now?
5
America paid for and now wants the full Mueller Report.
3
Get over it. The Mueller report was not the magic weapon that those with Trump Derangement Syndrome had hoped it would be, so now the witch hunt will continue through different means. Seriously, the Democrats today may the Republicans during the Clinton and Obama Presidencies look like choirboys.
1
Should trump win a second term, when he leaves office he will in all likelihood be insulated from any criminal prosecution because the statutes of limitations will have run out.
Given his “total exoneration” lie tweet, he may be laying the foundation for one or more pardons-Manafort, Flynn, Gates, his adult children and son in law as victims of the “deep state” should the latter group be indicted.
Mr Barr should have place trump above the law on April Fools day not on March 24th.
Will the good guys ever win?
2
I never really thought Trump coordinated with Russia's campaign to influence the election.
What I do believe is that Trump and his team were made aware of the Clinton emails prior to them being dumped. And I believe that Trump, Kushner, etc have favored Putin and Russian oligarchs due to the common interests on both sides. None of that is within the scope of the SC guidelines from what I understand.
"You've got the emails and are releasing them? Great! I think our country has acted terribly toward Russia, Mr Putin. We look forward to having a better relationship, if you know what I mean".
2
"The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22-month investigation, is deeply worrisome."
Did Barr "rush to judgment"? Rosenstein, who concurred with Barr, had been supervising the Mueller inquiry and probably knew the direction it was taking. Besides, Barr himself likely had been giving a lot of thought to most or all of the publicly known arguments discussed by experts in the media (cable and print). So it's highly unlikely Barr made a snap decision from a tabula rasa.
1
If we have learned anything from this grueling 2 years with this administration, it is that the "checks and balances" in place to address Executive power over reach and abuse are completely inadequate. One could argue the entire period has been an exercise in "constitutional crisis." The handling of this report is raising serious questions that continue to polarize public opinion and challenge the integrity of the judicial system. We can no longer rely on the "professionalism" of any appointed (let alone hand-picked AG who essentially auditioned for the job by advertising his objection to the work of the special counsel) to adhere strictly to the rule of law. It must be clearly codified. Why didn't the leadership of the Congressional branch have this report before the "summary" was done? The AG was always compromised and we knew it and allowed it by not placing more pressure on the appointment process. Let's rewrite these rules (and many others) starting with the legal requirement that any person (including a president) must be sworn in and interviewed in person, This report must be in the hands of Congress and in the public view now.
5
One thing that strikes me about the way the body politic is responding to this crisis--a president who is manifestly unfit for office and a danger to the republic is the ahistoricism with which we are viewing something that was very much on the minds of the Founders and built into the original constitutional system.
It's abundantly clear that Trump could never have been elected in the original system, with indirect election of Senators and state legislatures picking their electors. That system was designed, in part, to prevent a populist demagogue such as Trump from ever being elected.
And, as Madison makes clear in the Federalist papers, the idea of party rule is anathema to the conception of the constitutional republic the founders created.
Senators were not supposed to be "partisan" they were elected by their state legislatures to serve the State within the Union, not have loyalty to any political party.
The crucial point being in the original formulation, they could be impartial jurors, in the current system, they are partisan and won't put their duty to the republic above their factional interests.
"conservatives" conveniently overlook this part of our system while calling themselves originalists.
The founders were terrified that a corrupt, venal, man like trump would become president. The indirect election process was designed to stop it. Impeachment to correct it.
We removed the obstacles and eschew the remedy on partisan grounds.
Not what the founders wanted
2
It makes me wonder if there is a GOP policy document written sometime after Nixon resigned under threats of impeachment from Republicans and Democrats, that says: There shall never be another Republican Presidential ever impeached or threatened to be impeached while in office.
This is what appears that Attorney General William Barr, an expert on Nixon, is doing.
1
"By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report."
This statement is a lie.
The decision was made jointly with Rod Rosenstein after consultation with Rosenstein and other DOJ officials- as stated clearly in Mr. Barr's letter.
This author is a law professor.
One has to wonder what kind of ethics are instilled in law students at Georgetown, these days.
2
@Objectivist Do you really think Rod Rosenstein has a saying on it? Barr used Rod Rosenstein as a shield. Just read Barr's AG audition letter. It is funny to hear those who do not care about trump's daily lies talk about ethics.
2
Well, objectively, we have only Barr’s letter and word that he consulted with Rosenstein and other DOJ officials prior to his rush to judgement Cliff’s Notes interpretation of what must be a voluminous and exactingly detailed document. Don’t they teach Dunning Kruger to Republicans?
3
The long history of American perversion of the nation of laws.
If you actually enforced the laws half the 1% would be in jail. They have these courtiers called lawyers who make a choice to bend, slash and cut through or adhere to the law.
Mostly what we see is sedition, lying, prevarication with no attempt at truth only advantage.
Everything Trump touches (your country) turns to rot.
5
I am going to have to accept this view from the Attorney General, but His son in law being hired by Pres Trump at the same time Barr is sitting before the Senate commiteee mandates that he need be completely transparent before the American people, of which i am one of. In addition his positions on executive power to me means he his predisposed to rule that way again I want to see the evidence he he and Pres trump wants this
American to exonerate him. Lying every step along this was gives Pres Trump a low level of credibility in my view.
2
Just because you are able to evade the law doesn't mean you aren't guilty.
Al Capone was ultimately jailed for tax evasion.
He died as a result of advanced syphilis, with the mentality of a twelve year old.
Karma.
1
Donald Trump just escaped a 'close call'. Eventually, he'll be found guilty of being blackmailed by Putin for having laundered Russian money to finance his casinos and towers.
4
I remember exactly where I was when I read Trump had fired Comey, it was so outrageous and shocking. Of all the lurid, bullying, bigoted, inane, and impenetrable cofveve coming from this poor excuse of a president, firing Comey rang in my head like a bell. It was one Trumpian act of crystal clear and ominous intention.
4
Barr wrote a letter designed to rip the country apart.
4
That was an awfully quick read and response by Barr - did he have this letter pre-written?
3
Dear NYT:
Mr. Katyal just won't let it go, will he?
This sort of lawyerly, issue-spotting approach is fine for a law school exam, but in the real world, President Trump was cleared of collusion, and the special counsel found there was insufficient evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction.
Given our presumption of innocence, this is a total vindication.
Moreover, AG Barr did not usurp the prerogatives of a wholly independent counsel -- but instead appropriately made the call at the conclusion of a standard process of review.
Mueller reported to Barr.
Nor was Barr's decision "unilateral." His chief deputy -- Rosenstein, who wrote the scope points for this inquiry, and oversaw the entire special counsel investigation -- explicitly concurred with him.
Moreover, Barr's judgment was not at all the product of spinning out a fringe, "unitary executive" constitutional theory. Barr's earlier memo is wholly irrelevant.
As Barr expressly explained, this determination was made on the facts presented by the special counsel, and resulted from the application of the standard-issue elements of obstruction law to those facts.
Under that standard legal test, there was no showing of corrupt intent, or that the acts set forth constituted obstruction. This investigation spanned almost two years, relied upon 40 prosecutors, who issued thousands of subpoenas and had access to intercepts and classified evidence.
President Obama's ex-lawyer should go back to school.
1
@Jorge
Given that Mr. Katyal WROTE the Special Counsel regulations, I would defer to his knowledge and experience. He was the US's lawyer, not "Obama"'s. You only contribute to the problem by labeling him that way.
3
It would be a grave mistake to take Mr. Barr at his word with respect to the contents of the report. He is a partisan hack and an experienced lawyer. As the latter, he is likely capable of looking at a green light and coming up with a minimally plausible argument as to why it could, and should, be construed as a red light. As the former, he has every incentive to do so. The report needs to be released as fully as the law permits.
2
As Sessions was initially selected by the Fake President to personally protect him, until he relieved himself of that role with his recusal to Trump’s unending fury, Barr was Trump’s “backstop” to the Mueller Investigation and has performed that function well! His notorious, precursor 19 page memo certainly did the trick: Protect the Don. This is really disgusting, improper, and will be most damaging to the reputation of the sycophantic Barr in addition to the rule of law. A sad day for the country.
2
What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him?
The kind that was chosen explicitly for his personal loyalty to that someone.
5
After two years of meticulous work by Mueller, Barr is mighty quick to sum it all up. So what faith do we have in Barr’s speed reading? None. Show the report!
5
"What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? "
Yet that was the basis that the FBI/DOJ used, according to Comey, for not charging Hillary Clinton re the server mess.
I don't recall anything in the NYT that challenged this.
The rest of the column is silly. Barr has already said that his letter is not the final word and that the Mueller report will be forthcoming, once he and Mueller and, presumably, Rosenstein and other officials have determined which parts of it (e.g., grand jury testimony) cannot, under the law, be released. Nobody is expecting this letter to be the final word, so this is a lot of huffing and puffing about nothing.
The blunt truth is that the Russian conspiracy theory, hyped by the media for two years (and nowhere more enthusiastically than by the NYT) is a dud. The media's credibility, already not exactly robust, takes a new hit. Trump remains one of the luckiest presidents of all time, as his opponents continue to give him one undeserved free gift after another.
What a joke. The facts establish Russian treachery and Trump et al’s complicity in it.
The list shouldn’t have to be recited every time. It’s to long for the average person to memorize!
2
It's impossible to assume a fair hand is possible when the deck has been stacked long before the cellophane has even been removed.
3
Thank goodness for the midterms. Let the House investigate every aspect of this evolving coverup. If you live in a sorry state like Florida, contact your Republican congressmen and congresswomen. Express your outrage. Hold them accountable for this monstrous presidency.
2
All the President's men - and women - must share adjoining jail cells for their own obstruction.
1
@bnc
I agree Hillary should have gone to jail for her obstruction of Ken Starr’s investigation.
Everything that bothered me about Barr's letter, and more, is clearly brought out by Neal Katyal's brilliant deconstruction of it, poking more holes in it than a tennis racket has.
The silence of the President and the warp-speed that Barr reached major conclusions that affect the nation to its core should raise the antennae of every rational American.
The whole thing reeks of a white-wash.
2
OK, my fellow Democrats, feel free to start our 5 Stages of Grief ... Let me run those down for you:
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
After that, please go to Stage 6 - VOTE!!!! Feel free to grind your teeth that your favorite Bernie did not get the nomination again, but PLEASE VOTE FOR BIDEN regardless. Your tantrums at the last election got us Trump :-(((
1
So sad.
I'll be honest. I'm glad they found 45 had nothing with the Russians rising to criminal. Because if they had that would mean he was smart and cunning rather than the stupid, self-absorbed, selfish child he appears to be.
The real problem here is we have a fool and child in the drivers seat. That is what we need to address.
Nixon, Casper Weinberger (indicted, convicted and pardoned by Bush Sr.) all walked. Yet, the public and legislators all knew they were guilty. Orin Hatch said it, "I don't care if he broke the law." So, that's America. Lawless.
1
Disgusting. No surprise.
Errr, didn't we know this was going to happen? Isn't this why Barr was appointed. After all, can't have the repubs losing power, no-sireeee-bob!
2
I think there may be a typo in the paragraph about the argument that the president can’t obstruct justice. I think you may have meant to write “no one believes the president *can’t* commit murder.”
Enough, already!
This is the only decent analysis I've read so far. Everyone else is kowtowing to Republicans Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein.
1
If it’s a “nothing burger”, show us the burger MrBarr.
3
Barr earned his retirement pay from the Trump Organization.
3
VOTE! It’s time to move on let the southern district strip him of his money and name. Our job is to make sure he serves just one term....come on ladies
2
Why is everyone so surprised? (Barr pushed Bush 41 to pardon six who were involved in Iran/Contra, including Charles Weisberger.) We knew this was gonna
happen. So did Mueller. That is why he outsourced so many pieces of his investigation to other venues.
I can't wait to hear the Michael Cohen tapes! Audrey Strauss who bested Roy Cohn is now serving on the prosecution team pursuing Michale Cohen in SDNY.
Barr was hired to do just what he's doing now...damage control.
He "applied" for the job of A.G. in 2018 with his 19-page discourse about how sitting Presidents were, essentially, above the law. This set of values must have been music to Trump's ears, the very man who said he could go out in front of Trump Tower and shoot someone and not be prosecuted.
Barr agrees with him. The Constitution does not Each article devotes sections to obeying the law.
Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions, states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to obtain witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
It doesn't say, "Except the President".
3
Your last paragraph really drove home how ridiculous and what nonsense this piece is. Bereft of collusion with Russia — a critical element of any obstruction charge in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances — you lead with and state one thing while it is quite and painfully clear that you mean another. The New York Times long ago abandoned the objectivity that is critical for credibility for the media and, in doing so, become part of and so contributed to the current sordid state of affairs in America. All of you should be ashamed.
People, really, did you ever think that Mueller would catch Putin? Putin is way too smart for that.
We don't call them Russians for nothing: they are some of the best chess players the world has ever known, and Putin was very careful to protect his Queen!
For a related metaphor, consider that the joke all along is that the Mueller team was investigating the puppet and not the man pulling on the strings. Of course one cannot indict a puppet!
I read a very charitable dance review years ago that spoke of the performers' movements being so incomprehensible that not even they could have known what they were doing, and that only the universe could possibly know the great mystery of their choreography. This is the same charitable interpretation Trump's base ascribes to their dear leader, however a much larger majority of U.S. citizens (and even more people world wide) see the same man as a near equal mix of incompetence and negligence.
Judge Sol Wachtler said: “If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.” Clearly Donald Trump is not even on par with a ham sandwich.
However you want to look at it, Trump is Putin's Queen, puppet or lunch.
1
Neal Katyal is absolutely right.
If the attorney general was going make such a brief statement, he owed us a full disclosure of everything else in the report regarding all the Russian activities during the GOP Primary and beyond.
Muller's mandate was to investigate Russian interference on our elections and their American collaborators. I want to know what the report says in regards to it.
The narrative that William Barr has now created is that the President has been correct in his denials of any cooperation or collaboration with the Russian.
We know very well that the President doesn't differentiate between the Russian attacks on the 2016 elections and his own conduct during the election and the investigation that followed.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As if, William Barr learnt his lesson from the Nixon's Watergate scandal, and he now knows how not to make the same mistakes Republicans made during Watergate. Example: Republicans siding with Democrats and the Rule of law was the only reason Nixon resigned.
I see this letter from William Bar as the refinement of their Watergate Defence Strategy with the proper outcome, and the correct behavior for them.
There will never be another Republican President ever indicted or impeached.
AG Barr's words are of dubious value given his
criticism of Muller's investigation before he
was appointed or the reason he was appointed
as AG. There must be evidence of obstruction
of justice otherwise Muller would have definitely
exonerated him as he did with regard to collusion.
AG's conclusion of "insufficent" evidence is
subjective. Congress and the public should get
the full report.Congress is likely to call Muller
to testify and ask why didn't exonerate the president. This is not over yet.
Of course we all, partisans on both sides of the divide and “neutrals” as well, were hoping Mueller’s report would deliver a clear resolution regarding Trump’s guilt or innocence. It clearly hasn’t. The fight goes on. In some ways, the most significant words in Mr. Katyal’s opinion were its closing - “...we live in such times.” And that’s the scary part. The phenomena of Trump and his ilk are just symptoms of the larger, global challenge: the resurgence of fascistic nationalism. And once again, this will be a fight that hangs on much more than the fate of one American president.
1
Neal Katyal should be Attorney General as soon as we elect the next Democrat as president. 2020 Vote!
3
Trump chose Barr to shield him and his hire has done just that. I no longer have any faith whatsoever in our justice system, the rule of law, democracy. Next up: Trump pardons Manafort and Stone.
3
Regardless of what the report says, Trump remains Trump: a horrible, person, a horrible president. As was pointed out in a letter to the paper over the weekend, from a reader in South Africa, Trump is a pathological liar. But that’s not the worst of it. He has no conscience. That should worry everyone, even, and especially his supporters, who one would presume wish he will do the best for the country. Having a leader with no conscience will not make America great, now or ever.
“Indeed, why would America, a country that regards itself as the greatest on earth, allow a pathological liar to be its leader?
Perhaps the people of America have yet to understand what most in the third world know well. The problem with a pathological liar is not so much the lies and deception; the problem is that a pathological liar has no conscience.
And power without conscience is a very scary thing.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/opinion/letters/trump-america.html
2
@Nikre Dems haven't been building 2020 on theme of collusion. The "theme"has always been & remains that this sham president has never been worthy of this office & his policies of destruction & greed need to be reversed. Collusion may not have been proved but nobody in their right mind would argue he hasn't been obstructive & undermined our systems of govt. Regarding other sleazy deals & corruption - there has never been a doubt. 2020 is still about restoring the office, cleaning out his swamp & doing what we need to do for the ecology, middle America & restoring the rule of law. Collusion proved or not, government corruption has never been worse. Couldn't care less about collusion etc as long as we have him & more spineless unethical GOP senators gone.
2
I'm no lawyer but my impressions from reading the Barr letter are similar. There is a lot left unsaid and a lot of misleading. Congress, and hopefully, the public must be given access to the full report. Otherwise, the matter will never be put to sleep. Trump says he's exonerated. But remember his ratio of lies to truth.
2
Barr's 48-hour Cliff Note 'press release' of Mueller's report is not a serious legal review of an extensive, detailed report that was 22 months in the making.
2
Let’s be realistic. Barr will only release elements of the report which do not conflict with his conclusions. He is the judge and jury. Sounds like Mitch MCConnell. Barr is also resembling John Mitchell. Remember him?
2
Where are our highly trained, Democratic leaning hackers when we need them?
The appearance of skilled, foreign hackers supporting Russia and destabilizing the US democracy has me seriously wondering how we don't have an offensive strategy here to protect our system and prevent any further damage.
How did Julian Assange/Wikileaks get away with his crimes? How can we allow a foreign actor to interfere with our elections? How can we allow the emoluments clause to remain in it's current unenforceable constitutional language?
The one thing I will agree with James Comey about is "so many questions," to which I respond where is the entire report and let us decide how to interpret the findings.
Trump picked William Barr because he was told Barr would have a little more credibility than Devin Nunes when he whitewashed the Mueller report on Donald's behalf.
3
It took Mueller two years to gather evidence and conclude that, on the issue of obstruction of justice, the jury was still out. Within one day the AG, a Trump appointee, concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to indict.
I am less than convinced!
4
Neil, you’re brilliant. Thank you. I just hope...
Mueller left charges & indictments in the Attorney Generals hands, esp on obstruction but also questions of collusion's, enhancing the obvious that the report has to be released publicly & with very clear reasons on any redaction's made!!
1
The question I hoped would be answered by the Mueller report is not addressed in Barr’s summary: why did everyone who had interactions with Russians LIE ABOUT IT??? Flynn, Manafort, Gates,Sessions, Trump Jr. and on and on.
4
As always, Trump gets off and people close to him go to jail. Trump Country. Aren't you tired yet?
2
This whole thing reminds me of the one time I lost in small claims court. The judge looked at me in the end and told me he believed every word I said was true. He said he believed the other party was guilty of stiffing me. He said the other side was obviously not telling the truth...BUT!...without a contract there was no way to find in my favor. He said it was the one piece of evidence missing to lock a judgement in my favor. In the case of the president there is plenty of things to point to that make it appear he is lying and tied to Russia but they couldn't find the contract between Trump and Russia that would have made it an open and shut case. It matters very little to me that they didn't find the one piece of evidence that would have sealed the deal. This president is a liar, cheat, and con-man and at least two thirds of Americans who vote know it.
5
While the intricacies of this essay certainly contain a reasoned response as to why President Trump might still be guilty of obstruction of justice, it's sort of strange to insist on potential guilt about obstructing an investigation into crime that never happened.
2
Which begs the question: why did they all lie about it to the point of the president personally crafting a fake news release on AF1?
2
Trump and Barr claim total exoneration in the Mueller report.
Great.
Release it.
If the exoneration is so total, you should want -- nay, INSIST -- that it be released in full immediately.
I wait, unironically, for full, unhypocritical agreement. *sarcasm*
4
There was a time I recall when we were warned not to “normalize” Mr. Trump’s behavior. Now, I’m afraid we’ve allowed that behavior to be enshrined as normal in the law.
2
As an historian I can only say that there can be no legitimate analysis without the use of primary documents. Third party interpretation is meaningless. Either bring the report to the public forum or admit that the Administration's ongoing intent is to obstruct justice. Admit that - and prepare for the consequences.
5
Neal should accept the report and AG's conclusion. AG had enough time to read and make the decision. Let's put all this behind and move on.
2
Sickened by Barr's actions but hardly surprising since this is not the first time Barr has buried a report to protect a President (Bush Sr.) He auditioned for his job with a 19-page memo affirming an imperial presidency, a president who doesn't have to answer to the law.
As for Barr, to paraphrase A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (Robert Bolt): "It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for (Trump)?" Trump will sell out Barr too just like he does everybody else (except, possibly, Ivanka.)
Release the whole report. It's taxpayer paid. The country needs to know what it says.
4
Neal, I deeply respect the work you’ve done drafting the Special Counsel regulations. Thank you. Unfortunately, here we are testing the limits of the guidelines. What you have called, in effect, a “nightmare scenario.” If AG Barr — who appears to be an executive loyalist (in a world where said executive is a lawless, power-grabbing, fake news demagogue) — can make a brief public statement and even appear to put to whole rest a 2 year special investigation, we have breached a point where it’s time to revise the regulations. This is not a process of democratic, objective law and order. All we have now is to cross our fingers and hope congress can pull off their end of the bargain, with a severe messaging handicap and a heavy risk of looking like buffoons. Imagine if the house was still controlled by the party loyal to the president. We’d have a real possibility that the executive has a route to conceal evidence lingering from a SC investigation. It looks like it’s already time to consider re-writing the regulations. Hope you, or a team of legal minds seriously interested in the democracy and justice of the republic, will be up to the task.
393
@John F. Thurn We must have the full rep[ort. Ray Sipe
24
@John F. Thurn
Its funny, but reading comments like these really open my eyes to how little respect a lot of 'elites' give the publicare.
I mean, you do realize that, its is 100% legal for the people to elect Ted Kasczinsky 2020 right if that is what they wanted?
So if Congress and the Senate are loyal to a lawfully elected president, it sounds to me like the people have spoken, and unelected bureaucrats need to just deal with it, regardless of how ethical that executive is.
@John F. Thurn
So far this feels authoritarian. It feels like what happens in Venezuela or in Russia itself. It does not feel democratic. It does not feel American. Only the release of the full report will change that.
42
Other open questions: Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos et.al. got lighter sentences for being ‘co-operative’ witnesses usually providing dirt on bigger fish(es). Who? The letter does not shed any light on it. Perhaps the fuller Mueller report will shed some light on it. If not it should be investigated in the House and the Senate.
3
If Trump did not obstruct the investigation and he has nothing to hide, why did he refuse to be interviewed by the Special Counsel under oath?
If Trump attained the White House without committing crimes, why have so many connected with his campaign lied to the FBI, the Special Counsel and the American people? Why have so many been proved to have had hundreds of contacts with Russians connected to Putin, leading up to the election?
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Unless you are a Republican who would prefer lies to truth and alternatives to facts.
5
The single greatest problem with the letter concerns the one who wrote it. We all know that Trump’s #1 criterion for attorney general was absolute fealty to the president—not the Constitution, mind you, but the megalomaniac-in-chief himself. Thus, for those of us who care about the rule of law and the foundations de rigueur of democracy, we can not accept the glaringly partisan judgement of Attorney General Barr. The full Mueller report must be brought to light.
4
Bill " Bias" Barr lobbied to become Attorney General of the United States in order to clear Donald Trump of any obstruction of justice charges or claims. And Trump accepted his offer.
Barr opined on his support for the unitary executive notion that the President of the United States is the single embodiment of the Article II executive branch office. And thus based upon this theory any President has unfettered and unhinged power to act with immunity and impunity without any fear from any obstruction of justice claims.
Because Bob Mueller did not reach any conclusion on obstruction of justice the biased conflicted political partisan Bill Barr should have stayed away from it. Based upon the minimum ethical legal professional obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Moreover, Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo supporting the firing of James Comey based upon his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton non-indictment. Rosenstein thus had an actual conflict of interest and should have recused or remained silent on the obstruction issue.
The ultimate question is the President of the United States above the law that applies to any American citizen. And the answer has to be no.
Every branch of our constitutional republic is beholden and subordinate to the American people. They are all our elected and selected hired help.
4
Attorney General Barr's 4 page 'summary' was clearly designed to be a whitewash of Donald Trump. It raises more questions than it answered. The full Mueller report needs to be released, along with the supporting documents.
Until the full report is released and we have a chance to see exactly what the Mueller team found, a cloud of suspicion will continue to hang over the Trump administration.
If Attorney General Barr refuses to release the full report, then the House Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena him to testify, along with Robert Mueller and senior members of his investigative team.
If Mr. Trump is innocent of all the charges of collusion and obstruction, then he should have no objection to releasing the full report. If Barr continues to refuse to release it, then he's as good as admitting that there's questionable activities, if not outright crimes, that the administration doesn't want the public to see.
3
If this stands, then what Nixon said is true: When the president does it, that means that it's not a crime. That would make this not the nation of laws our founders constructed, but a nation of men, some of whom are able to get away with what they like, even if it includes rigging a presidential election.
But if Mueller didn't follow the money-- if he respected trump's "red line"-- that, along with not subpoenaing him to testify, means he didn't do his job.
First, let's get to the bottom of what the report really says. Let's see it. Second, if it turns out that Mueller didn't look at Deutche Bank's and trump's corporate and personal financial records, then it will be up to the southern district's prosecutors and congressional investigators to do the job Mueller should have done.
2
Barr, having been appointed to the office of Attorney General by Trump after Barr wrote a memo stating that he saw no issue with Trump, has done exactly what we should have expected.
It's not clear why Mueller did not make a recommendation regarding obstruction of justice. Nonetheless, it is not true that Barr's conclusion means there was none. It is not unusual for a prosecutor at any level not to move forward if he does not think he can win a case. Here we have the added issue of Barr's appointment by Trump, as stated above.
Meanwhile, investigations into Trump's finances continue at the federal and state levels. Trump is not off the hook. Any of those matters could constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. However, with Republicans controlling the Senate, there is no point to impeachment unless enough Republicans come to see Trump as the criminal he appears to be.
3
"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."
At best, this is a sloppy summary of Barr's memo. At worst, it's a blatant straw man argument. The "clear statement" argument is one among many independent arguments enlisted by Barr, not least of which is the "removal authority and prosecutorial discretion" argument (see section II). The idea, as I understand it, is that charging a sitting president with obstruction of justice for facially lawful acts, based largely on an application of a mens rea criterion, directly bears on, and directly infringes, the president's free exercise of discretionary powers. The same cannot be said for a murder charge; such a charge would not constitute a direct infringement on discretionary power. The author's redutio ad absurdum argument is specious.
None of this is a defense of Barr's legal reasoning. Perhaps he's wrong about the scope of prosecutorial discretion. (His view seems awfully broad to me.) My point is that this author, and op ed writers in general, should exercise greater caution when summarizing (or summarily dismissing) technical legal memos. Misrepresenting their contents, either deliberately or unwittingly, undermines the public's trust in journalistic reporting---even when the reporting in question is "just" an op ed. In the age of Trump, distrust of journalism is the last thing we need.
@Sam Perhaps, in calling Neal Katyal an "op ed writer[]," you failed to read his identification at the bottom of the column:
"Neal K. Katyal (@neal_katyal) was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama and is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed."
To repeat: Mr. Katyal drafted the special counsel regulations. He knows what he's writing about.
This author wrote the special counsel regulations. Respectfully, I will take his word over yours.
Bar was appointed to do one thing: protect Trump. Barr is Trump's John Mitchell.
5
I still want to know why everybody in the Trump sphere who met with Russians lied about it. Many Trump people had more than 100 Russian contacts, including at least two independent efforts to set up clandestine back channels between Trump and Putin. What were they trying to hide?
It isn't likely that each Trump operative decided to lie individually, so it's worth investigating whether they conspired to deceive Congress, the FBI and the public.
If there was no collusion, why did they all lie?
8
Some things remain unexplained and I need answers before I can agree that there was no collusion/conspiracy: what about the internal polling data that was provided to a Russian associated with Russian intelligence? How is that possibly innocent? We know how Russia used social media to manipulate American voters; how isn't it conspiracy (really, treason) to give them micro-data that assists them?
How about the back channels to the Kremlin that multiple Trump officials tried to establish during the transition? These include the squeaky-clean Jared hoping to go through the Russian embassy (even the mental picture is fraught with treason) and the ever-noble Erik Prince with his meeting the the Seychelles (it was just a random meeting over beer). There are more, but these are the ones that scream treachery to me; help Russia at any cost. I need some very specific answers and explanations for me to let go of the notion that the Trump transition team was up to something VERY illegal. And why did all of them, including the new Attorney General, LIE?
2
Barr's 2018 memo is absurd on its face.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KPyQWwWfxLZ8dppih88G3yDRvJfAirrG/view
If you accept his argument that no POTUS can ever be constrained as regards the ability of the POTUS to terminate an investigation of himself (or taken to its logical extreme, to PARDON himself), we have to ask "why was that NOT the law with regard to Nixon"?
Nixon was demonstrated to be a criminal by his own words recorded on tape. He tried to prevent those tapes from being heard by Congress (and ultimately by the whole world). If Barr were correct, the Supreme Court should have ruled 9-0 in favor of Nixon, rather than what they did, which was to rule 9-0 AGAINST Nixon's position.
To hear Barr tell it, Nixon should just have said "I am innocent. I say so. I am the chief law enforcement officer, so everyone, including the DOJ, the Congress, and the Courts can all go pound sand, because I have decided that nobody will investigate me. And none of you can do anything about it."
If you buy that logic, then a POTUS is above the law, and Trump can obstruct justice with impunity. He could even commit a murder covered under federal law, and then turn off all the FEDERAL investigations of that murder. (State law and state investigations are another matter.)
5
Barr's letter to the WH was him telling them, that if he is appointed AG, he would be on their side. Is anyone surprised that Barr exonerated Trump of obstruction without a comprehensive understand of the tens of thousands in pages of evidence? His excuse, and it was an excuse, is lame.
Also, to say that Trump didn't obstruct because it was done "in public," is even more suspect. How dumb do you have to be?
1
I've seen no explanation for why this factual report about our government should not be available to the citizenry. If it contains sensitive details that would harm national security, they can be redacted. If it causes embarrassment to individuals who are not charged with crimes, it could hardly be worse than the public humiliation of Monica Lewinsky.
We paid for the report. We own the government. This is a democracy. We have a right to know what they're doing.
5
For now, the Mueller Report's sum of the parts looms much larger than the whole...
CONSIDER only early trump collusion. His net worth included Russian oligarch money and very likely money laundering. He was negotiating the Moscow hotel during and after the election. He demanded arming Ukraine be dropped from the GoP platform -he denied this until Cohen's testimony. His son-in-law and nominated top officials lied about Russian contacts and knowing about the Wikileaks dump. Indictments. The president fired Comey and did everything he could to denigrate and limit the investigation. He lied and dissembled repeatedly (lies now exceed 9,000). Does this rise to collusion?
If we evaluate these instances separately we have a compelling narrative of egregious wrong-doing. But no single event rises to the level of collusion. And if criminal collusion=conspiracy requires a well coordinated RICO (racketeering) type operation then Mueller apparently believed his writ and findings did not allow such a conclusion. So the sum of the parts, for now, is greater than the whole...
CONSIDER obstruction. There is so much here. But Mueller left us with a question mark. So for now, the sum of the parts is also greater than the whole.
CONSIDER that Mueller has gifted us a treasure trove of findings, a road map and challenged us to right the paradigm, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts!
Thank you Robert Mueller!
1
Many thanks to Robert Mueller. The guilty pleas and convictions thus far must not be overlooked. Nor are all the unanswered questions doomed to remain unanswered. Investigations will continue.
Barr's summary letter is profoundly disappointing, but not surprising given that Trump appointed him.
I look forward to seeing the full report. I am particularly interested in the shared polling data, and in Cambridge Analytica's role.
1
The AG's expansive view of the Executive given in his unsolicited letter/resume were well know and likely decisive in the final determination of the obstruction charge.
The report and evidence leading to its findings are essential to validating the AG's, not Mueller's conclusions. The testimony of both Barr and Mueller are essential for clarification of many issues.
• Repeated meetings with Russians connected to/but not officially of the government
• Attempts to use Russian government secure communication channels
• Non-disclosure of multiple attempted Russian intelligence advances
• the Manafort election related disclosures to Russians
Are these surreptitious activities merely questionable, but not prosecutable? Should they not be at least laid bare to the public for examination? Should the principals involved not be publicly questioned as to the reasoning behind their activity?
These questionable activities by Americans have seemingly circumvented legal consequence through chasms within U.S. jurisprudence, and have allowed cozy relationships with foreign adversaries to our existential peril.
While the Chief Executive has become increasingly omnipotent, until now we have had Presidents who's belief in the Constitution and limitations of the office have been, in the main, respected. With Trump in the Oval Office, we are at the whim of a man whose principle is lacking and greed is unquenchable.
Our weakness has been exposed and Republicans don't seem to care.
3
Barr must be a speed reader to release his condensed edition of Mueller's report in just one day. The investigation took 2 years! We need to see the full thing, not just Barr's opinion of it. I have to be optimistic though. Maybe the drip-drip-drip of obstruction details would do more to sink Trump's re-election than a flood of collusion details - and an impeachment attempt without Senate Republican support - 2 years before the actual election.
3
When will the report be unsealed if they keep it under wraps now?
The determination of whether or not the president obstructed justice is not up to the Special Counsel or to the AG. It is up to Congress to determine if what the president did rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. When Congress gets a full view of the evidence collected by the Special Counsel, then and only then will the fate of the president be determined.
1
Release the entire special council report without redactions. The redactions are fair game for manipulation by political actors like the attorney generals. I trust the facts. We need to see the lies and the obstruction administered by the executive branch of our country. There is too much evidence of election manipulation by the Russians and the Republican Party. Mr Trump can wait til we vote in 2020.
How could Barr possibly expect that the American public would simply take his word for it that there was no indictable obstruction - without the public seeing the report and only 48 hours from the moment when he received the report? He’s either a fool or a partisan. Isn’t there anyone standing up for America in Washington?
4
He obstructed in plain sight with every “witch hunt” tweet. He’s getting a pass bc he’s president and a republican. Seems he very much is above the law.
3
It is impossible that the president could be exonerated by this report in light of the guilty pleas and indictments of his lawyers and other operatives. The president was conducting business with the Russians right up to the election and afterward by proxy with his children. There is no way the president would make a decision that is detrimental to his organization. Perhaps there is no direct written evidence of collusion but there is definitely evidence that by inference both he and the Russians benefited by coordinating activities.
How is it not obstruction when he fired as many people as he could who were investigating him and his organization? What gymnastics did Mueller have to perform to not be sure that Trump did everything in his power to obstruct justice? I hope NY state does a better job at bringing the corrupt president and his children to justice.
5
The real lesson for me is that the framers and subsequent interpretations may have made a monumental error in structuring the U.S. government. How can DOJ, as part of the executive branch, possibly be a fair arbiter of executive actions? DOJ rules set down in 2000 say its boss, the chief executive, can't be indicted in office. That's nothing more than the executive branch asserting power and sustaining power when its assertion remains untested in the courts, effectively permitting the executive to make its own laws.
1
The"law" is vast and imperfect. I'm sure that if there were such a thing as paper, you could stack law books as high as any gothic cathedral.
Humans are vast and imperfect.
The "truth" is rarely black and white but comes in all sorts of different shades of gray.
If I were given the assistance of scores of bright lawyers and Federal agents, given unlimited amounts of time and unlimited amounts of money and was told to go investigate all that I needed to investigate to determine if a crime had been committed and I came back determining one hadn't, then, absent corrupt intent, I'd hope that determination would be accepted.
Now, though, we're obsessing about whether there was a coverup of a non-existent crime. Well, this is where a recognition of all that grayness, all that vastness, all that imperfection should cause us to step back and wonder what we ourselves would have done when confronted with those bright lawyers and federal agents who had all the time and money they needed should they come to interview me. As a matter of pure Darwinian survival or confusion or misrecollection or self-puffery or ignorance or ..., might what we have told those agents be one of those shades of gray "truth"?
Oh-oh, COVERUP!
Really? This is going to lead to a never-ending divisive debate where "truth" is in the eye of the beholder.
1
Not a criminal (yet). Still a horrible human being.
5
@Steve, it will take us a lot to accept not looking at the messenger but look at his performance if that is helping the country and humanity as a whole. Most of us get stuck at the messenger level..
1
@petey tonei
Oh, the Autobahn argument.
1
"no one thinks the president can’t commit murder" -- a telling typo...
1
Barr's letter comes as no surprise. But it has certainly fanned the flames of further inquiry.
Republicans have made it clear that under no circumstances would they vote for impeachment of one of their own so the Mueller report was destined to be a dud regardless of outcome. But as numerous investigations now kick into high gear it is likely that Trump will spend the rest of his life in legal jeopardy.
Am I missing something here? Mr. Barr treats the only goal in making the report available to be making it publicly available. Indeed, his letter makes exactly zero references to the needs or the authority of Congress in the matter whatsoever. Whether or not there is "6(e)" material that cannot be released to the public, such material is something that Congress is entitled to see under the circumstances, since if the President was found by the House of Representatives to have obstructed justice to their standards, not to Mr. Barr's, they are the body, not Mr. Barr, that will conduct impeachment hearings.
This whole re-rigging of the Attorney General's office ever since Jeff Sessions was fired has been nothing that the American public should ever trust, there have been too many slick moves with Matthew Wittaker, Barr's confirmation railroaded by Mitch McConnell, and unrelated though thoroughly damning, the intervening 41 senators' vote to cede the power of the purse to the President.
Mr. Barr is as suspect as when he recommended pardoning the Iran-Contra conspirators, to a President who had been a co-conspirator from the office of the Vice-President. He may be thought of as a "lawyer's lawyer" by some, but to me he is more Robert Bork than Elliot Richardson.
It's over, let it go. Enough energy paper and ink has been wasted on this vindictive boondoggle. Get back to journalism and report stories that are important to our lives.
2
Now that we know that Trump and Putin did not meet somewhere and sign an agreement whereby they agreed to conduct a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 elections with the further agreement that upon election Trump would lift sanctions on Russia and Putin would approve Trump Tower Moscow, can we please be told if Trump is a threat to national security? A conspiracy to interfere in an election may be a crime but selling out your country out of fear or greed, though it may not involve a crime, is far worse. The American people deserve to know what Putin’s hold on Trump is. Having secret tete a tetes and being unnecessarily deferential to a corrupt dictator who DID interfere in our election are not the actions of a president who can be trusted to serve our country’s national interests. The whole collusion issue was a red herring that diverted attention from the real issue, which is Trump’s disloyalty.
2
Somehow I predicted that Mueller would not find "collusion".
This is because Trump did not expect to, nor want to serve as president. He only ran to highlight his brand. He did everything he could to loose the election. By speaking the vilest words and by inciting hatred and violence he tried his best to turn off any respectable voter and this proves he did not actually want to serve.
Trump is Putin's patsy.
3
Quite a caustic pickle jar Barr's fell into...
It's a HUUUGE ethics lapse for the man who was appointed by a president under serious criminal investigations, to claim that that president did not collude with Russia/Putin. We expect more from our government officials.
In the name of transparency, Congress must obtain and release the entire Mueller report -- to expose this Den Of Thieves trump administration.
This is a nice exercise in mental gymanastics but how do you remove the President of the United States for obstructing justice wherein there is no base crime, no original crime committed? How do you remove the President of the United States for firing Comey when that firing was recommended by Rosenstein? How are you going to sell that to the people? Much less gain a conviction in either a court or in Congress?
Mr. Katyal doesn’t really have an answer for the reality of removing a sitting President given the current circumstances. Maybe the four million members of the Times’ echo chamber would go along - but the average American is going to want to see an actual crime. As it stands, it’s doubtful that more than a third of Americans are going to want to continue with this witch-hunt. Your egos are not worth the damage that will result. Why don’t you just leave this country alone and let us get back to work. Haven’t you done enough already?
1
Mr. Trump is the crude leader of a dangerous criminal ring. Mr. Barr is yet another agent paid off to turn a blind eye to cover it up. No report. No surprise. Let the Democratic house do its job. The courts can do their’s. Maybe. Without massive resistance and an electoral sweep in 2020 we can kiss this country good bye.
1
Excellent essay Mr. Katyal!
Most likely the Barr letter was drafted well before the Mueller report was tendered to the Justice Department.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
As an aside now we have Trump's hand-picked Attorney General, saying Trump is wrong when he says that the Russians didn't attack our election, his very own hand-picked flunky!
1
Much of Trump’s cabinet is corrupt. Given Barr’s weasly letter about sitting presidents, he probably is too.
3
Unless he is the fool he appears to be Barr has raised far more questions than he has answered w this action
It is now time for the House to demand answers
Indeed this apparnt whitewash will backfire for the GOP
1
This is a coverup, plain and simple. The entire report must be released to Congress and the American people.
3
Ridiculous debate everyone’s mind is made up. The continuation of this debate is a waste of time and resources. If there was no collusion the question of obstructing an investigation into the collusion is academic at best. Mueller investigated he found no collusion move on or become a minority’s party again.
1
As reported in the NY Times on January 8, 2019, " As a top official in President Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence, according to a court filing unsealed on Tuesday. "
I'm confused. Wasn't Paul Manafort campaign chief, and isn't that by definition "collusion"?
5
@DLNYC
And reread the Stone indictment regarding the Wikileaks connection.
Barr’s memo and the considerable info in Mueller’s indictments are not adding up.
Some people will always think that JFK was shot by space aliens, and some people will apparently always believe Trump was working for the Russians.
1
Trumpism won. Better times for America may lie ahead. But for now, those of us who are not demagogues and trolls, should simply accept this and move on. Because to continue to hope for a hook on which to hang impeachment only serves the MAGA movement. Be strong, carry on. And govern.
1
Barr is merely continuing the ongoing campaign of obstruction of justice.
1
So, now Dems should just say that Trump met the minimum requirement of a President, I.e.; he’s not a traitor.
Mueller actually put Trump in the position that Democrats should take advantage of immediately. Nancy Pelosi should give a figurative pat on Donald Trumps’s head and say “oh, Mueller credit’s you for telling the truth about, well, something, finally, good President- for now”.
Mueller has given the media the opportunity to silence Trump. To make it so that he gets no attention. Like Trump’s administration is a normal Presidency. That’s what Dems need to win the WH.
The information available was, and continues to be enough.
This destroys my last shred of hope...
1
Hiring Barr was a genius move. Who better to be the ultimate obstructer of justice but the Attorney General. When he does it, it's not only "not a crime", it's the official stamp of approval on a criminal President.
1
I am not a conspiracist when it comes to Bob Mueller. I think that he crafted his report to give Mr Barr and anyone else the rope they need to you-know-what also. Not that he’ll be “around” as special counsel anymore to do anything about it. But at least in the court of public opinion and in full view of congress.
Kind of daring them to act honorably or show their true colors.
Trump is the only one who is a victim when he is successful.
1
"Man appointed by President to clear President clears President," ought to have been the headline everywhere.
The uncritical repetition of AG Barr's assertions regarding the content of Mueller's report was clearly pre-planned with no regard for the actual content of the report. That so much of the media was ready to amplify this propaganda suggests that much of the media is itself involved in supporting the Trump administration, well beyond the Fox News network.
As it looks increasingly likely that Trump will finish out at least his first term, it becomes increasingly critical that everyone to the left of Mussolini must vow to support whatever candidate is fronted by the Democratic party. With all the gaming, gerrymandering, and foreign influencing of the electoral process it's going to take an overwhelming electoral defeat to ensure that the ongoing erosion of American democracy ends with a single Trump term.
1
Mueller and his report are not omniscient. I hope we get to see the entire report sooner rather than later so it can be evaluated. Lets hope he did a good job.
2
How does one get exonerated from a crime that didn't happen?
1
This is not up to Barr to decide, if the Justice Department maintains the position that a sitting President may not be indicted.
We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of why the Trump organization was so keen to help lift the sanctions of the Magnitsky act. It wasn’t about their desire to help Russian orphans.
Can someone — anyone? — please follow the money of the Trump Organization and their laundering of money for the Russian oligarchy. The Trump children even admitted to it.
4
The notion that incriminating evidence should not be revealed regarding an individual who is not indicted should not apply to the President of the United States. The policy of the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be indicted is partly based on the impeachment remedy. If Mueller had significant incriminating evidence on Trump, he (or Barr) should refer it to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. Instead, Barr is sweeping it under the rug, saying in effect that it's nobody's business.
This is not an investigation of Joe Schmoe's, where evidence is not disclosed without charges being filed. Citizens have a right to know about a president's conduct during his campaign and surely in office, whether a prosecutor can prove intent to conspire or intent to obstruct beyond a reasonable doubt or not. The public interest supersedes the accused's privacy rights in this case.
Trump has made many public statements regarding the investigation, including false denials. He has waived any protection of evidence against him. When he publicly denied knowing anything about the Trump Tower meeting or having anything to do with Don Jr.'s response, that was false. He cannot now claim that contrary FBI evidence is secret.
The report must be released in full and Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller should have to defend their prosecutorial decisions. Comey did regarding HRC, and revealed the Wiener matter one week before the election. Protecting Trump now is outrageous.
4
The Mueller report declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction after considering whether Trump acted "with corrupt intent." In the Passover Haggadah, a story is told about four children: the wise child, the wicked child, the simple child, and the one who does not know how to ask. It seems that the Special Counsel found ambiguities as to whether Trump was a wicked child or merely simple -- not appreciating the proper role and place of his office. Either way, not a flattering conclusion.
A major factor in Mueller not being able to follow this matter to its proper conclusion due to Department of Justice regulations, not laws. Since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that a President can not be called to testify before Congress under oath or that a President can not be indicted, Congress should enact such legislation and/or when the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate appoint an Attorney General to rescind existing understandings with respect to indictment and giving testimony to Congress under oath. Otherwise, the President is in fact above the law. I'm sure when all of these issue were considered in the past no one dream someone like Trump would be elected President. Also, a more specific description of what constitutes executive privilege is in order and long over due.
2
At his Congressional hearings William Barr claimed he did not want, or covet, the AG's job. Fair enough.
Now the world will wait and see whether Barr wanted the job of Trump "fixer", now that Cohen is locked up.
3
We are now going to entire into investigations of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Of course the legal standards in these investigations will be totally different then in this "investigation". We are not a Constitutional Republic, we are not a nation of laws, we are an authoritarian ethno-state ruled by an all powerful minority. Those of us who don't side with Trump are second class citizens and if we did exactly what he has done we are would be imprisoned. There is nothing in regard to this country to be proud of anymore. And if we stand up he has the police and the military to run us into the ground. What a shameful betrayal of what this nation aspired to.
1
I couldn't agree more. The sheer speed with which the conclusion was made was breathtaking. Maybe the Attorney General and his team had recently completed a speed reading class. Surely they hadn't already come to a conclusion prior to reading the report. That would be potty. Or suspicious. Or suspiciously potty. I still don't understand how the Special Counsel can write that the President is not exonerated, yet the latter says that he is totally exonerated. Am I missing something? And I thought that the Brexit saga was bonkers.
2
Neal Katyal joins the league of anti-Trump pundits who have based their careers on promoting fictitious charges against the President. He has parlayed his so called expertise into a role as a TV pundit. Now they all find their TV money in jeopardy as the 2 year, 24/7 cable news coverage will likely downshift. The networks may not need a fleet of Trump bashers anymore. Cuts are likely to be made, and Neal's cash flow might get cut. The best thing he can do now is use his NY Times soapbox to ignore the outcome of the investigation and keep the charade going. They are upset Barr didn't charge the President with obstruction, when Mueller himself couldn't get to a charge. As Mueller stated two days earlier, he was not denied anything he requested by the DoJ. Former Obama officials would do best to keep their heads down. It is very likely several will be under investigation shortly.
Barr didn't have to read the report that's if he did. He knew what the Trump script was and he read it. In fact everyone knew he was another Trump stooge that would undermine the law if possible.
Mr. Katyal - there was no collusion. Period. For two years you've tried to bring us your expertise, which is turning out to be anything but.
It's time you apologized to your readers. We deserve nothing better.
1
just because there's no smoking gun or blue dress doesn't mean jno irregularities or illegalities. What about illegal foreign donorsto Trump 2016 such as Trump best buddy MBS and what was promised in return. the arms sale stinks of corruption at highest level.
2
China, if your listening, please send us the Mueller report. Where are you Wikileaks when we need you? Glad to know these statements aren’t collusion.
Let’s get on with it and vote Trump out of office.
1
Trump said to release the entire report. Barr should do his master's bidding and do so.
1
Not charged, but not exonerated...makes scents. Not good ones.
6
Hello Mr. Katyal. I have seen you many times as a commentator on TV news, and I generally agree with you.
I was rather appalled that Mr. Barr released only a four-page summary; on the other hand, I was not expecting much more.
We all know that Trump is in the pocket of the Russians, and that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has rather publicly said that Kushner is in his.
Let the investigations continue. I truly want to see these corrupt people buried in the sand. Just to be nice about it.
2
The report concluded by stating that although Lady Macbeth did not conspire to murder King Duncan, she is certainly not exonerated.
Your say, "Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder."
I disagree, I think the man in the white house thinks he can commit murder.
So Atty. General Barr, who “auditioned” for his job with an unsolicited 19-page memo essentially arguing for an imperial presidency, has declared there is no conspiracy or obstruction.
Yet the world has witnessed Trump openly colluding with Russians (and Saudis, but that’s another matter). It’s as if we have all been told (as Trump instructs his flock) not to believe our own eyes and ears.
But we saw Trump host the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in his office. We saw Trump kiss up to Putin and the Saudis. We heard Trump on live TV invite Russia to find/steal Hillary Clinton’s emails. We heard Trump’s interview with Lester Holt in which he said he fired James Comey because of the “Russia thing.”
And now we have Trump’s handpicked Attorney General telling us to believe him. Seriously? I will believe my own eyes and ears before I believe anyone associated with Trump and his pathological lying and long history of “corrupt intent.”
1
The Democrats' long, slow, coup-by-witch-hunt failed--get over it. Your candidate, Hillary, failed on her own (lack of) merits and not by any "collusion" with the Russians. Trump didn't "obstruct" anything, he let Mueller grind slowly to what Trump knew all along would be today's result.
Law is guided by precedence. Let's count what is legal from here onwards. AG Barr just made all intervention in DOJ activities by all future presidents legal. President can fire anyone if they don't like the law or how DOJ is treating their friends. Also, foreign powers can now send their intelligence agents with offer for stolen emails on any opponent and organize meetings with all their advisors. This is legal since we cannot prove that you had the intent to have this meeting. Making your daughter and son-in-law run foreign policy to cut deals in exchange for softer stance by the US is just fine. I can go on and on. I think we just witnessed a transition from a system of governance to another. President declared that he'll now go after his enemies. Nancy Pelosi - are you still so in love with being the speaker that you think impeachment is not worth it?
1
Attorney General Barr could have written a much shorter letter.
"To whom it may concern,
Robert Mueller could exonerate Donald Trump of obstruction of justice. I can.
Sincerely,
William Barr"
1
Since when is evidence of an underlying crime necessary to convict on obstruction? Since never...just ask Martha Stewart.
3
Mr. Barr had mr. trump (or his team) write the report.
1
Why is there such a perception that Barr wrote his report before Mueller handed in his findings?
1
Full credit to Ari Melber and his team. For two hours numerous prosecutors went through highlighting the staggering number of inconsistencies and linguistic clues that all is not as it seems.
Let's start with that telltale [T] that precedes the claims that there was no collusion. You don't have to be a grammarian to realize an entire introductory phrase, one that almost certainly posited a negative, preceded the claim that there was not enough evidence to bring charges on collusion (note, NOT, that he is innocent, but merely that there is not enough evidence).
When you couple that clue by omission with the overt assertion that he CANNOT be exonerated (I mean, how hard it is to grasp the meaning there?!) we have a clear case for the burning necessity of having the entire report made public. We paid for it.
I have consistently said that nothing should hang on the Mueller report and have been doing so for two years precisely because I knew we would be in this quagmire. The salient point is that we do not need and have never needed the report to oust him.
The Russian piece is just one of many. We have had DJT on breaking the Emoluments Clause-- the most serious issue because he has sold access to this country, not just to the Russians but to any bidder who goes high enough, including the Saudis--from the day he stepped into office.
The founders made the E.C. an impeachable offense for a reason. DJT remains a threat to this democracy. We needed no report to tell us that.
8
A clear, well written OP-ED which raises a range of critically important questions about laws and regulations, their dimensions, implications, meanings, and outcomes, in a democracy, tainted by a powerful WE-THEY culture which is enabled to violate, daily, in which a range of agendaed individual and systemic stakeholders have rights, without anchored personal accountabilities. Thank you! I fear that the possible answers and explanations which you seek will not be forthcoming in an "alt-fact" reality which enables wilful deafness. Wilful blindness. Wilful ignorance. Acculturated Silence, when outrage is called for. Toxic complacency as well as infectious complicity by many.
1
While I certainly understand the reasoning behind commentary saying in effect, this is "what it is" and we must put it behind us, work on defeating trump and the GOP in 2020.
However, what we've all seen and heard with our own eyes and ears, can not be disputed. If, we are to simply follow trump's request to Comey regarding Flynn and just "let this thing go", what's next?
If a president, backed up by a compliant Senate, Justice and SCOTUS can brazenly break laws with an assist from a foreign adversay, and get away with it, what makes anyone so sure that 1) there will be an election and 2) that the outcome will be legitimate either way?
If there is no check on this lawless administration and its enablers, we are completely and totally circling the drain as a democracy and a nation where laws are upheld, where no one is above the law. The president took an oath - he is the chief enforcer of our laws. If he can break them with impunity, there is no law.
13
Let's not forget:
Trump is already Individual-1 even without the Mueller report!
Let's be clear:
There is NO exoneration in obstruction of justice and NO CHARGEABLE collusion for Trump per AG Barr letter.
What is not clear and seems unethical:
Why is Barr not recused? Unsolicited memo against Mueller got him appointed as AG because Sessions will not play Roy Cohn for Trump AND now Barr's son-in-law is Trump’s legal adviser! Conflicts of interest?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-william-barr-attorney-general-tyler-mcgaughey-justice-department-legal-a8785036.html
What seems to be happening:
Grabbing Power is a trickle down effect...Trump grabs power from Congress and declares fake national emergency to fund his mnemonic wall while Barr grabs power from Congress by unilaterally concluding that Trump did not obstruct justice!
What needs to happen:
Of all the underlying evidences that the Congressional committees have to find and present to American voters, it is Trump's written answers that would be telling i.e. how it stacks up against other evidences since Trump was not interviewed and no subpoena was issued by Mueller despite the 2800 subpoenas that'd been issued.
8
Beyond the legal questions, this all necessarily becomes a larger political question. Since Mr. Trump will certainly be weaving Mr. Barr's sparse memo into a self-serving narrative, the American people deserve to know the full facts so that we can form our own narrative and render our collective verdict in 2020.
9
Thanks for thinking so logically and deeply about the implications of what Barr did and the big wrench he threw into the fragile legal workings of our Republic. I hope Congress does call both Mueller and Barr onto the floor of the House of the People to account for themselves.
9
You need to realize that once Robert Mueller's report is made public there is a 99% chance the AG will be shown to be telling the truth and, once again, the democrats will be made to look like fools. We're getting close to another Sen. Joe McCarthy moment in history.
As I recall, the obstruction claim came from a dinner with Comey and Trump. Trump asked Comey if he could go light on Flynn who Trump called a "good guy." Nothing came of it and Flynn was convicted of lying. Not everyone thought he should have been charge. There were FBI agents at the questioning that. What were these conversations about with the Russian Ambassador? First, Flynn called him and asked if he could persuade Putin to not over respond to some sanctions. Second, he asked him to not vote against Israel in an upcoming resolution in the U.N. He was taking care of our country's business. There was no conspiracy concerning the election. The two people who questioned Flynn were subsequently fired. So, Comey ignored the suggestion and Flynn was convicted. But then maybe Comey had something else on his mind. He was busy creating a bunch of memos to leak to the NYT. The latest report is that prosecutors will recommend no jail time. The declaration that there was no evidence of obstruction was not just from Barr but also Rod Rosenstein. The Democrats have had some real disappointments the last two years. First a reality show host defeated their anointed Queen President and now Mueller says no collusion and sites no evidence of criminal intent to obstruct. justice. So, all the Trump haters have left is a compulsion to wreak revenge on him for winning. Who needs justice when you are driven by revenge?
1
I’d like to read all about that in the full report, and I’m sure you’d like to, as well!
@Dawn Gondoli Not really. One report I read said that Mueller interviewed 1500 people. That seems possible since he has been at it for almost two years. I don't know of any document ever written that someone can't find a different interpretation of certain parts. Even the Bible. This should end and let us move on. Do we really want two more years of this? But need for revenge will probably persist, as will
also the worry he might win again and the lust for power will slip through their hands again.
@Ron, no worries. I’m up to the task of reading the report and making my own conclusions. And, I would very much like to hear what our best legal minds think. What are you afraid of?
Trump was not exonerated for obstruction of justice, therefore, continue with the investigation...and the others...to bag this low-life.
11
That Carter Page was not publicly exonerated is shameful. He has been railroaded, worse than Steven Hatfill. Incredibly, he was used by the FBI and DOJ to predicate a series of FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. We need another special prosecutor to look into these abuses.
Lest make him a one term president so vote.....re-electing this president will be like robo calls for the next 6 years, or getting a root canal think of how many times we heard about his election, crowd size, and the electoral votes. Another term will not heal America only further divide and all the fears he has stroked around the world....god help us.
4
I can’t stress enough how important it is that the Democratic Party nominate someone who can beat Trump.
3
If there was no conspiracy and no obstruction of justice, why did Trump and his entire crew lie repeatedly about the contacts each and every one of them had with the Russians? It doesn't make sense.
13
We can boil the Russia scandal down to this: To advance his family's business interests, a presidential candidate and his variously compromised underlings encouraged a hostile foreign power to interfere with a national election, in exchange for sanctions, (money laundering and seizure), relief and the promise of a free hand in Ukraine.
That explains most of the variation in behavior of every bonehead in Trump's orbit, from Roger Stone and Paul Manafort to Michael Flynn, the president himself, and his useless adult children. In the end the lot of them will have achieved nothing other than a small and temporary boost in the fortunes of Fox News. Trump will leave office at the hands of the voters with what remains of his global racketeering and money laundering business in tatters and the Republican Party reeling from its decision to trade the future of conservatism to a loathsome, lifelong con man in obvious cognitive decline.
9
Mr. Barr was handpicked by Trump and rubber stamped by Republicans in the Senate to do just what he did: hide the facts and provide spin, if not pure propaganda, in support of Trump.
We can only hope Democrats in the House, journalists with The New York Times and/or states attorney's general will force out the Special Counsel's full report and ferret out the full truth of just who and what Donald Trump is.
A failure to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will fester in our nation, and foster and further the collapse of our democratic republic.
6
I can't be the only liberal here who is embarrassed by the overwhelming amount of sore losers here. We can't keep moving goalposts. It's really scary how some people refuse to accept defeat.
I want to read the report. Then I can move on.
1
Let’s move on. This one is finished and done. The House needs to begin addressing an immigration bill in full cooperation with the Senate. The citizens of our Country are sick and tired of this bickering. Congress has a job do which they have seriously neglected for at least 20 years. Passing good laws is difficult-bickering is easy!!!
Based on the temperature of a significant portion of NYT readers (and a significant portion of the electorate) investigations should begin immediately and impeachment proceedings as soon as possible. Let the chips fall where they may.
1
Trump claims his invite to the Russians to get involved in the campaign and "find" Hillary's emails was a joke. Apparently Mueller and the rest of the GOP thinks so too. And they think sharing polling data with the Russians was a joke, and meeting and then lying about the meeting in trump tower was a joke, and licking Putin's boots in Helsinki was a joke, and in general Russian interference in US elections and policy was/is a joke. All I need to know.
5
This is the end of the begging as the House investigations take hold. There its already far more evidence to warrant impeachment than was the case with Nixon during Watergate. It will continue to pile up, but with the certainty that the Republican Senate will never vote to convict, the 2020 election will be the only way to remove this cancer from the body politic. If that election is close, don't expect this miscreant to emulate Gore in 2000. The racial hatred that is at the core of this presidency will remain long after he is gone.
2
Lefties never give up or give in -- not because they're tough, but they can't think clearly on topics related to Trump (or any other partisan topic).
Just leave it. There was no obstruction. There was no crime. Trump can tweet and he can fire Comey.
I'm not too disappointed. I'll just help vote out the criminal in 2020 and watch the state of New York put him in prison when he is a private citizen again.
4
Whitewash.
Coverup.
Not since Tom Sawyer whitewashed Aunt Polly's picket fence has an issue been whitewashed so thoroughly.
The Justice Department needs to be dis-"Barr"ed.
I'm hoping that the final backstop to the Justice Dept., the American people, won't take this laying down. That enough of the report will be read by enough voting Americans, who will feel enough revulsion, to boot Trump out of office in 2020.
2
Trump did his best to obstruct the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election, fearing that his ties to the Russians would be found to be provably criminal. To ensure that he would not be prosecuted for treason or other federal crimes he selected Barr for AG, knowing that Barr was outspokenly opposed to the idea that a sitting president can be prosecuted for anything. Barr has behaved just as Trump wished. No surprises here.
3
Collusion prior may be hard to prove, but what the heck is it when the president does NOTHING to protect our 2020 elections from the Russians - if that ain’t the definition of collusion, nothing is!
Collusion in plain sight is still collusion.
And did we get an answer as to what those “pings” from the Trump Tower servers to the Russian bank were all about in the Mueller report?
3
Nothing was said about his tax returns?
3
@Most, SDNY is very busy these days..
To coin a phrase, "the whole world is watching." They are watching the justice system fail Americans. We are watching a corrupt President get away with high crimes and misdemeanors.
4
Barr’s conclusion is the reason why Trump picked him.
5
Barr is the AG because he made a promise to trump. His decision is tainted. His reputation is tainted. He has tainted the office of the AG and the stench is overwhelming. Congress needs to step up now and begin hearings just as they did in Watergate. This is the beginning, not the end, and resolve is critical to see this through to the end. Our media must not replete trump’s claim of exoneration. THAT is a lie.
2
Barr said that he and Rod Rosenstein made the decision on obstruction. Rosenstein supervised Mueller’s investigation. Rosenstein would be privy to the evidence. Mr. Katyal, you didn’t to mention that. You are too good a lawyer to have done that by mistake. Don’t try to mislead people by convenient omission—it tends to tarnish a fine and well earned reputation and respect of the bar and the American people.
The question is, if you obstruct your exoneration, is it still illegal?
That was a point made by Barr.
Why wasn't Rosenstein a signatory on the letter? Is Barr faithfully representing his thoughts, or just alluding to a fraction of them, in the same way he quotes fragments of sentences from the Mueller report?
1
Add William Barr to the long list of people discarding their “reputation” on the trash heap of the the Trump administration. People of conscience don’t work for a crime syndicate.
And now Frump is going after the people responsible for the Mueller investigation into how Russia sought influence in our electoral process. This is how democracy ends, folks.
2
Just give us the full report and we will make up our own minds. Trump was never going to be indicted and never impeached, because according to the justice department a president can't be indicted and Senate would not convict. So let's see the report and find out how "innocent" Trump is. He certainly surrounded himself with a bunch of corrupt thieves many going to prison and many convicted of lying about Russian contacts.
4
There's another problem that no one seems to be talking about. Many Americans, I would argue, conflated the collusion issue with whether or not Russians interfered, and will take away from this that there is no threat for 2020. Even I thought the Mueller investigation was going to be covering Russian interference. I did not think it was just limited to collusion. And I've been paying attention.
2
I still find it so interesting that soon after Barr was appointed Attorney General that the rumors started that Mueller's was ready to finish up his report. Barr's 19-page job application makes the case that a sitting President is above the law. Was his mission to shut down the Mueller investigation? I don't know, but I'm really uncomfortable with the whole situation. In any event, my tax dollars paid for that report, and I want a copy.
4
William Barr is the best attorney general that money can buy.
I originally thought his unsolicited opinion piece a few months ago was just a job application but it was probably a notice of "soul for sale."
3
Gee, a right-wing Republican let another right-wing Republican off the hook. Who would have thunk it? Other than those who have read Barr's June 2018 memorandum in which he openly interprets Article II as saying presidents - at least GOP presidents - are above the law.
Yes, the letter was issued very quickly. An obvious reason for that is because it was formulated, if not written, a year ago.
The most disgusting part of the Barr letter concerns obstruction. The report creates an extensive record on the issue of obstruction. Yet Barr and Mueller opt no to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” on the matter.
Barr most definitely should be called before Congress as he has now shown himself to be an active participant in the obstruction process.
6
Mr. Mueller handed off several investigations that remain on-going. One key actor—Roger Stone—has yet to stand trial. How can this be a complete report when these investigations have not been completed? Doesn't that make Mueller's report a "status" report?
Further, why did William Barr make the determination on Obstruction of Justice, given that his job application hinged on the notion that a president CANNOT be charged with Obstruction?
Could it be that Barr rushed his "summary" to taint the House Judiciary Committee's responsible and appropriate request to review Mueller's report and underlying evidence?
Bottom line: Barr's move was a political hit job. Americans still do not know what to think about Mueller's report. And we may never know the truth.
4
After watching Trump lie about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians, Trump telling Lester Holt that "this Russia thing" is why he fired Comey, Trump telling the Russians in the May 2017 White House visit that firing Comey "relieved great pressure" on him and the photos of that visit are released by the "Russian Foreign Ministry", his daily ranting about how Mueller "never got a single vote" and "It's a Witch Hunt!", and many more public examples of Trump's fear of this investigation, I have to see some reason why Trump and so many involved in his campaign and his advisors constantly lie about anything to do with having had contact with Russians? If it's all so innocent why do they all lie?
4
Trump is guilty of aiding and abetting the Russian attempt to influence the election and in the public eye of obstructing justice from firing Comey and threatening Mueller. He had corrupt intent to protect his commercial interests and his Russian money laundering contacts and to save his Presidency and hide the truth. The Mueller Report must be opened to the American people to look at the facts not the confusing and likely politically influenced conclusion.
Barr’s letter and his bizarre legal views on obstruction disqualifies him from being the legal arbiter in this decision, He is a very partisan and non objective Trump appointment!
4
Trump is the best evidence I have ever seen of the truism that it’s better to be lucky than good: an incompetent and corrupt businessman gets elected president on the basis of his business acumen (and his all-around nastiness, racism and sexism).
Next, that same nakedly corrupt and compromised President gets a clean bill of health from an employee of his who is in charge of a report that the employee is free to characterize in the way most favorable to said corrupt and compromised leader: finally, said compromised leader faces an opposition that has played its cards so badly that it is left demanding that the leader’s employee release the report he has just finished using to give the leader a clean bill of health. Trumpism Is scary. But it might continue until 2024 if the Democrats do not figure out a strategy for dealing with Trump than is better than Hillary’s strategy was.
4
let's move on
two years of extremely thorough investigation
now some want further, more more more
and can't admit reality
it's over
let's move on
where are the mea culpa from the politicians who stated publicly they had sure evidence? shame on them. perhaps their lies will come back to haunt them, in reputation or within laws regarding slander.
let's not forget the whole thing started with a dossier planted by the Clinton team. that we sat obsessed for two years, letting FBI investigate the fiction...shame on us
1
@Joe Yoh. Exactly. Release the report, let us read it, then we can all move on.
Let me get this right. Barr takes a report that contains evidence of obstruction of justice gathered over a two-year period and without any kind of deliberation, during less than two days at Mar-A-Lago, finds that no further charges are warranted? that's a joke.
3
@Paul, Barr wasn’t at Mar-a-Lago.
Why go after all the underlings and leave Trump's family and Trump alone? The prosecutors were trying to squeeze people. Why stop? Why keep saying Flynn and Gates are helping the investigation (for month upon month) as well as Cohen for hour upon hour of testimony, and after all that say there is and was nothing illegal going on? Why hand off investigations to other districts, if this is all innocent of wrong doing?
This all makes no sense at all.
The reasoning of Barr is that there can be no obstruction if there is no crime, it seems to me. But if there was nothing there at all, why the months of drama, why the indictments of Trump cronies?
This, Barr's actions and statement, smells like a cover-up.
3
Observing behavior and proving it illegal seem to be two different things. Almost half our prison population is there because they were observed committing low level trafficking of drugs and it could be proved. In 2008, we observed leaders of our financial institution practice malfeasance to the point that the tax payers picked up a tab of billions of dollars at the same time we saw personal wealth that we had worked for (homes and 401k's) drop significantly in value. Nothing was proved illegal. Now we observe behavior on the part of the president that puts obstruction right out in the front of us; but, we are told, nothing can be done. Nothing was illegal. Because I have these questions, the President and others say unbelievable nasty things me because I am a Democrat and part of what created this horrible persecution. Why do I have to pay taxes for this?
2
Barr said what he was hired to say: "Trump totally innocent!!!"
And he is doing what he was hired to do: Bury the Mueller report for as long as possible, while Trump and his media allies establish the narrative that there was no collusion and Trump is an innocent victim of Democratic hate.
It was always going to be the same thing, no matter what the report actually said. When and if the actual report ever sees the light of day, the media and most Americans will be convinced that they already know what it says ("Trump totally innocent!") The truth won't make a dent.
This was always the plan, and the people who've been loudly counting on the Mueller report to save our democracy just make me sad. Honeys, our democracy's already gone.
Good luck with that.
The congressional democrats have shown no interest in it ability to do a focused inquiry.
Remember the recent show with Nadler and the acting AG before the clean up AG arrived to rush out this, the fix is in letter, on the weekend after a Friday report?
Prepare for more shameful embarrassments. And far far worse.
The contempt for America all around by all involved is near complete.
Knowing Barr's feelings about the issue, I could have written his letter for him a month ago. There was no doubt what Barr would say. He made that clear when he auditioned for the job.
3
Just what our American democracy needed: another partisan, very divisive, and highly biased interpretation of facts.
2
Barr quotes Mueller: As the report states: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
But that is not the same as saying "The investigation has established that members of the Trump Campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If Muller had reached the definitive conclusion that there was no collusion, Barr would certainly have made a stronger statement. Given that Barr would spin this in favor of Trump, I am not surprised that he posted such a misleading and equivocating statement.
So Mueller has collected many facts, but may have stopped short of stating a conclusion on the Russia collusion, and may have left it to Congress (or AG, or others) to make their own conclusion.
Sounds like the legal definition of a crime was not not found to be committed by the trump gang, so justice couldn't be obstructed, even though they tried mightily to remove people who were threats to trump and worked hard to discredit the investigation. Trump snidely dangled pardons for some of his pals.
Now trump threatens to persecute the people seeking justice.
Mueller focused on the black and white of statutes and rules of evidence.
Trump rides on the gray insinuations and borderline activities of an entitled white collar crook.
1
Barr is Trump's hand-picked attorney general to lead the justice department following the summary forced resignation of his hated former AG, Jeff Sessions.
I will not take one letter of one word from Barr's mouth, pen or keyboard, nor will I listen to one of his underlings, on the matter concerning Barr's interpretation of the special prosecutor's investigation on Trump.
Barr is prejudiced by virtue of his recent past bias and by the fact he was Trump's pick during the height of speculation about where the special prosecutor's investigation was leading.
2
And immediately after Barr's confirmation, his daughter and son-in-law were given jobs by the White House, the latter within the office of the general counsel. Quid pro quo all the way down to petty nepotism.
2
Perspective:
Bill Clinton speaks to the Attorney General in the airport for 20 minutes at the time of his wife being investigated by the FBI regarding emails.
Obstruction! Lock her up!
Trump, under investigation, fires the head of the of the FBI and every other high ranking person involved in the investigation, then hand picks an AG, who applies for the job by writing an unsolicited statement on presidential immunity, and who receives and filters how much of that report reaches Congress.
Trump is innocent and anyone who says different, it’s just sour grapes.
2
Because of Trump's many lies, bizarre attacks on his opponents or anyone who disagrees with him, shady business dealings, support of dictators including Putin who clearly helped him in the election ("Russia, if you're listening find Hillary's emails"), total hypocrisy (hiring illegal immigrants for his golf clubs) while pandering to his racist base, nominating an attorney general who pandered for his position, firing Comey and Sessions when they recused themselves or refused to whitewash his Russia connection, telling the Russian consul that he had fired Comey and would have no more problems about Russia, among many other crimes, lies, and inconsistencies, why would anyone accept the conclusions of a Trump Justice Department? I certainly don't. At this point, I do want investigations to continue. I don't want Trump impeached; I want him criminally charged again and again for not upholding the American Constitution, for corruption according to the Emoluments clause, for cruel acts towards immigrant children and families, for tax evasion. I sincerely hope the Democrats will come together beyond one candidate and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our country can not survive four more years of this disemboweling of laws, courts, democratic norms, environmental and consumer protections, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, with added open permission for the rich to rob the 99% with impunity.
4
There was no conspiracy. No collusion. Period.
Democrats, the media, and the good professor do not seem to be particularly happy, not to mention rejoicing, that contrary to endless reports their very own country is not run by an ex KGB officer through his agent in the Oval Office.
Maybe we were all wrong. Maybe Trump is above the law. It sure looks that way.
We need either a deep throat style insider to report the behind the scenes J.D. activity and conversation over the last two years, or we need a patriot with a thumb drive to publish the full report.
1
I remember when President Nixon fired AG Elliot Richardson over the Watergate coverup and there was a huge public uproar the next day.
I'm expecting the same uproar tomorrow--and I'll be out with the crowd protesting this obscene decision! If Trump and Barr, a lackey who wrote a 20-page letter to Trump asking for this job, I predict there will be rioting in the streets.
Does the Freedom of Information Act have any teeth?
The citizens of the US paid for the employ of those putting together this report - are they not entitled to see the result? Or will they cowardly toss it in the bottomless pit of 'Nation Security'
A dark weekend.
3
"Corrupt intent" must be shown legally for Obstruction.
Giuliani and Barr stonewalled Mueller on Obstruction.
Barr wrote his June 2018 memo (unsolicited) arguing that Obstruction of Justice could not be charged.
Giuliani refused to allow Trump in August, 2018 to answer any written questions pertaining to Obstruction of Justice. John Dowd knew Trump would lie repeatedly if interviewed in person. No wonder Mueller could not make any judgment on Obstruciton of Justice.
2
It wasn’t unilateral.
Mr Iran Contra makes a partisan decision in favor of Trump. Why should anyone be surprised?
1
Please see Mark Johnson’s excellent cmment below.
Barr’s letter reminds me of the line from Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”: Political speech, he said, "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
3
The Barr letter is akin to the Comey announcement that HRC would not be charged. It’s not his call. In Comey’s case, the decision rested with Main Justice. With Barr, the weighing of the evidence against the sitting president is the responsibility of the House. Beyond giving Trumpnation some fleeting tweeting points, Barr has resolved nothing.
1
AG Barr made his decision on the obstruction question more than a year ago when he campaigned for the AG job by sending that ludicrous 19-page memo to Trump, explaining why a president couldn't obstruct justice. Barr is now part of the Trump corruption. It's as if Eliot Richardson had followed Nixon's orders during Watergate instead of standing up to Nixon and getting fired. Barr is now the Robert Bork of the Trump corruption scandal.
1
After three yeas of endless articles of blaming Trump of being a "Russian tool", a "spy", "Putin's stooge" etc. based only on rumors and innuendos generated by interested party, when all the stories were found to have no factual foundation, one would expect at least an apology from the media. However, instead of exhibiting some decency, the media immediately started to spin the story to defend the bias which was behind the "collusion" conspiracy theory in the first place.
No mention about “collusion” with Wikileaks (which definitely was in cahoots with Russian entities.) Why did so many of Trump’s minions lie?
1
This purports to be a four-page summary of Mueller's report. Has anyone said, and will the Congress or the public ever know how many pages is the original report let alone its contents?
Very hard to tell if this is the work of a toady who said what he would do before Trump appointed him. Or, maybe there really isn't a good prosecutable case of obstruction. Poor conduct and even verbal abuse of officials by Trump would be hard to prove in court as clear obstruction, even if odious. My gut tells me that Congress should think long and hard on whether to pursue this further for fear of poisoning politics even farther, if that is possible. Lets toss the bum out in 2020 and work on that rather than waste more energy in committee.
Barr's summary was probably written before the report was even submitted. He is just putting an anchor out that will influence everyone's reading of the document. Best to get Barr in front of Congress. He is way out there in his legal views. Also, get a copy of the report out. If Barr doesn't release it, then congress should subpoena it.
Richard Nixon was not punished for his (far more mild) crimes. Ronald Reagan was not punished for his crimes of using taxpayer money to fund, without congressional authorization, the brutal massacres on their own people perpetrated by the governments of Central America, Now Trump will not be punished for what he has already admitted publicly. He has gotten away with it. Every crime, starting with Nixon has been more serious. What will be next? This precedent has to be overturned, because after this, there is no worse step other than dictatorship.
1
Two things are very simple:
1) DOJ rules prevent indicting a sitting president, and Mueller was guided by those rules. The absence of an indictment (or even the recommendation of an indictment) is not determinative of anything.
2) AG Barr pitched his candidacy with a fairly outlying theory on why the president should not be investigated for obstruction, and in fact could not be found to have obstructed. He laid out an equally marginal corollary to that theory in yesterday's summary letter. Barr did what he was appointed to do.
Notwithstanding, it was not his place to draw conclusions on either of these issues. It was Mueller's job to lay out the issues, as Jaworsky did during Watergate. It is Congress' job to determine whether there are grounds for investigating the president further, since they are the only ones, per DOJ rules, with the authority to hold him to account.
3
I wholeheartedly agree with Neal Katyal. We the people should see the Mueller report. On its face, if there was nothing nefarious going on, why did so many people lie about it. Barr's "summary" just seems like another cover up.
1
The conclusions here are wrong. First, a decision to prosecute or not belongs to the AG alone. If the AG chooses to prosecute, then the evidence will appear in court, a process that should not be interfered with by Congress. If the AG chooses not to prosecute, then no evidence should be released - even to Congress. Congress' prerogatives are limited to impeaching the AG or the president. There is no general right of the people to know the details of any investigation. Congress has overall supervision of executive branch departments and can pass legislation, but it cannot micro-manage details. Do not think for one second that Congress will get Trump's tax returns - or anyone else. By law they are private, as the IRS knows very well.
In fact, given the hyper media environment we have, authorities need to do their job and not release information, which will inevitably be distorted and needlessly harm reputations.
2
@Tim Kulhanek. You write, " The President is not a good guy. That’s clear but he won fair and square." But did Trump really win "fair and square"? Just because Trump didn't collude with the Russians doesn't mean that they didn't steal the 2016 election on his behalf.
4
My biggest problem with the Barr letter is that it took him a part of a day to read and summarize 2 years of intensive investigation. Further, Barr drew the conclusions that we should have expected from someone who was a proven partisan.
So what can we conclude? Mainly, the President’s claim that he can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would care.
The Congress of the United States was ELECTED by us. The Attorney General was appointed by the President. So what should we expect? Our Congress is made of adults, not children. They are ENTITLED to read in its entirety the Mueller Report for examination. The President who is the focus here and his Attorney General are NOT entitled to withhold this report.
It’s hard for me to forget how the nominee for President, Donald Trump, stood on the podium and asked Russia to release the Hillary Clinton emails, which was immediately followed by their Russian release. I see conspiracy there, not just collusion. What do you see?
I do not believe justice is served by this travesty.
6
We need to have an appreciation for the unsolicited memo's influence on Barr's interpretation of the accountability of Trump. I don't understand how this unsolicited memo did not disqualify him from being AG, particularly during the time of a sensitive investigation into presidential behavior, but the Senate didn't seem to care. Barr's conclusion about collusion and obstruction seems tainted by his belief that no sitting president can be held responsible for a crime. If Trump is not exonerated, then what is the basis for the lack of exoneration?
4
It is understandable that the focus of the public and the media has been on what the Mueller report had to say about Trump. As we watch the president do his 'no collusion' dance, we must remember that the other part of the report clearly delineates the Russian attack on the American election in 2016 which evidently aided Trump and hurt Clinton.
What will the President of the United States do about this direct attack on our American election system? Will he introduce more powerful sanctions against Putin? Will he send the best of our intelligence teams to find out more and perhaps even to take countermeasures? Will he listen to those telling him that Putin is not our friend and is not to be trusted? Or will he be too busy doing his happy dance? As he so often does, will he attempt to shift our focus to other things, not the report's findings about Russia, while he blames the Democrats? Is our election system not worth defending if it elects Democrats?
4
If there was no obstruction, what was all the lying about? I'd like to see the court and investigation records in the Michael Flynn case. When a judge rages against a prosecution sentencing recommendation and characterizes Flynn's conduct as treasonous, I think it is important to see the full record. It may shed light on the motive for obstruction and challenge Barr's dismissal of that allegation.
5
Republicans do not believe in providing important information to the public because Republicans are terrified of an informed electorate.
Indeed, Republicans firmly oppose American constitutional democracy.
7
Attorney General William Barr did not make the decision to exonerate the president of obstruction of justice "unilaterally," as the column’s headline asserts. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concurred. If Barr had been Rosenstein’s deputy, the decision would have been the same.
Rosenstein’s concurrence is highly significant because it was Rosenstein who launched the Muller investigation. In May 2017, he called a press conference to declare, “In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel.”
If Rosenstein were motivated by partisanship or fealty to the president, there would have been no special counsel investigation.
1
Both sides in a trial present their case, not just the defense, not just the prosecution. Mr. Barr is on it’s face, presenting only one theory of a potential crime. We the jury must hear all the evidence. Simple as that.
7
Professor Katyal clearly has never practiced criminal defense. I do. No competent criminal defense attorney would allow their client to be interviewed by the prosecution in a case like this, unless it was part of a cooperation agreement. Line prosecutors have to decide how they can prove a suspect's intent without the suspect's statements all the time. Further, prosecutors have no means of forcing a suspect to talk, and if they somehow do force such a conversation, it likely wouldn't be admissible in court. There are many problems with the Mueller report. Failing to interview 45 is not one of them.
4
@rebecca
Rebecca: thanks. There is no way regular citizens can possibly evaluate all this data. And, skilled lawyers can interpret any and all details in a myriad of ways - depends who your client is. This could go on for decades, long after 45 has exited. So much of democracy is built on pure trust - something that Americans have not recognized . . . perhaps until now. I'd say the framers knew knew this (Ben Franklin, for one) and signed their names with their "fingers crossed." No democracy has ever survived. We are seeing why.
1
I am following with interests these developments, and I have to conclude that the country is highly divided and the facts will never be known.
Mr. Rosenstein has not talked publicly about this conclusion and neither has Muller communicated his report publicly to Congress or the public. In every corrupt system , the purpose of these types of special investigations are intended to cover up,make a public appearance of a legitimate investigation based on the rule of law, and provide enough ambiguity to render a verdict of no conclusion of a crime being committed.
The rule of law exists to punish poor people and set free the powerful, Mr. Trump and company are receiving the benefits of power and privilege, all the poor people should be content with the outcome that was expected from Mr. Barr.
2
We WILL SEE the complete, unadulterated report. We taxpayers financed it and we demand to see it. It may take time, but the truth will eventually be revealed in full.
2
@J Sutton
And when WE SEE the full report and Trump is vindicated will WE SEE the Democrats held responsible for this attack on our institution of govt held accountable?
We need the report to be released so that everyone who reads it can appropriately cherrypick the facts that support their biased personal view. We need more people who believe that there was no obstruction to quote such evidence out of context, and we need more people who believe there was clear obstruction to quote their opposing evidence similarly out of context. Only then can we all be satisfied.
3
The weakness of the Special Counsel Act is that the report has only one outlet and that is to the Attorney General, in this case a partisan appointee who in an earlier letter effectively lobbied for appointment as Attorney General, and not the public. We are apparently not entitled. If you don't know what's in it you can't really judge it, you have to take the governments word for it. Unless the public goes wild, not likely, they are tired of it, the Attorney General will only release those parts which are really not contentious.
In fact if you view this accurately then everyone involved in the investigation are Republicans. Mueller is certainly a Republican. Comey was a Republican. So it shouldn't be a real surprise here. Most people will either disagree or agree with the report as their political persuasion goes.
Few will take the time to observe that our leaders Trump, his family and the Clintons in their turn have escaped punishment for what obviously the rest of us minions would not have. Most will take sides and that is where they want you to be.
The report is in and there’s no smoking gun. That is all that matters. The gray areas won’t change any opinions. The optics and perception is that Trump’s rantings of “witch hunt” were mostly right.
From now on, Russiagate will be the same punchline as Hillary’s emails.
There is nothing to be found in the report that will damage him in any way. The best thing Democrat can do for themselves is move on.
2
No the report is not “in”.
What was released was an “Executive Summary”.
I have seen enough Executive Summaries to know that issues can be omitted or stressed in no relation to what was in the full original report.
An Executive Summary reflects what the Executive wanted to highlight.
Let’s look at the original report for ourselves and form our own Summaries.
4
This is an immensely useful article. And it indicates that we need to keep our heads here.
Barr is Trump's creature, clearly; and his hasty (or prearranged) 'letter', which he is likely to have shared with Trump or his minions given the Twitter silence earlier, is designed to obfuscate and twist discourse. Which it has done. Now Conway is calling for Schiff's head and the Trump circus is turning on its axis.
But we need to recall that even Barr's letter speaks of no collusion with 'the Russian government'. That, of course, leaves the door open to Russians not in the government - the bad actors, agents and oligarchs who lurk in Trumpworld.
Moreover, it expresses this: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
When the Mueller report - if not egregiously redacted - is made public and the Senate and the people are able to understand the details and the implications, we will have what's necessary to counter the endless spin authored by Conway, Trump, Miller and the rest. There was Russian involvement: this we know. And as importantly, Trump's record is overall so appallingly damaging domestically and internationally that this will have to be addressed in some way. His tutelage by Cohn and his background have made him a kind of human dodgem car. But it cannot go on forever.
We need to take heart, regird, go on. Truth is the daughter of time. However difficult that can feel, this is not the end of days. Yet.
8
I agree 100% with Mr. Katyal. However, Mr. Katyal is not without fault as he wrote the rules for the Special Counsel's conduct. He was shortsighted to allow the Attorney General appointed by the president who was under investigation to make the determination of what was to be released and what conclusions should be drawn. The rules should have been clear that the Mueller report would be released to Congress and then to the public minus any sensitive top secret information that might expose some source or method. Now it's up to the House Democrats and the public to clean up the mess that Mr. Barr and Mr. Katyal created.
4
Barr had already concluded, before the report, that it was not possible for a president to obstruct justice, since the president is the arbiter of justice. He said as much in his confirmation. He is not going to release the report itself. He also said that.
4
Two things I haven't seen much, if any, discussion about:
1) Why didn't A.G. Barr have Mr. Mueller sign off on Barr's summary to Congress? Certainly, that would have bolstered its credibility.
2) In his report to congress A.G. Barr writes: "During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action." How many matters? To which offices? We know of the referral to the SDNY concerning the campaign finance scheme, but in his testimony to Congress Michael Cohen mentioned other investigations currently underway by that office.
A.G. Barr's report tells us little, other than Robert Mueller did not find evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' necessary for a criminal conviction.
Mueller's report, in full, needs to be available, in closed session if necessary, to the relevant Congressional committees.
3
We are at a point where it is not Donald Trump who is under scrutiny but the American democracy. It is imperative that the questions surrounding the Trump group behavior be brought to daylight not to punish him but to save the system. The door of American democracy is coming off its hinges. If not tended to, we may face far bigger consequences than Trump being able to claim vindication, albeit with no basis.
The Congress is at crossroads, it will either be filled with men and women worried about their seats or worried about the state of the nation which is perilously close to facing systemic failure.
Members of the Congress, this is the most important call to rise to the occasion you have ever received and will ever receive. The future of this country and its democracy depends on you. Rise!
14
Convincing argument.
But if these arguments are correct, what next?
what is the likelihood of an impeachment and removal from office? How long would that take?
What would the AG's role be in attempts, say to require testimony from Mueller a or any of his team; or on questioning the President under oath? Would this all be blocked?
Then- what effect does that process have on the next elections ( not just the 2020 one)?
It isn't only a matter of proving your opinion is right but about how to gain control, and set the government on a better path.
2
We can suspect Mueller wrote a carefully considered, complete and balanced summary of his findings to inform a country eager for the truth and confident in the rule of law.
We don’t have that report. We have the Barr Report.
And we don’t have that country. This time, we all heard the snap.
5
Any other president would have been removed from office by now if he/she had done a fraction of what Trump has, both before and since taking office. I take that back, if our president was a woman she would have had to do a lot less to be impeached.
We have become inured to the evidence of everyday misconduct by Trump, and now are expected to take on faith the most vague and presumptuous conclusions offered by AG Barr.
All the secret meetings with Russian officials, especially between Trump and Putin, the Trump Tower server that was communicating directly with a Russian bank, the lies that were told about having no business with Russia, and the president's public statements taking Putin's word over our own intelligence agencies show in plain sight where his loyalties lie.
We may very well look back on these events and wonder how we allowed this whitewash to take place. I for one will hold out faith for new incontrovertible evidence concerning conspiracy between the Trump administration and Russia to sway the 2016 election in favor of Trump. Logic dictates that there is enough already, which for political reasons has been suppressed.
The full Mueller report may or may not reveal what is known thus far, but as long as proven facts are portrayed as debatable, I'll reserve a healthy amount of skepticism concerning "official" reports, and will continue to place my faith in the vigilance of robust investigative reporting from proven sources like the NYT and the Washington Post.
12
Please think mathematically. Say the report is 2000 pages, with 4 pages per subtopic. That's 500 subtopics. Barr's is 4 pages. That's an extremely small sample. Can we assume that those 500 subtopics sort into Barr's conclusions? The possibility that, even if he and those reviewing were doing a fair, honest job, they may have misinterpreted, overlooked, subtopics? At least a 25% chance. What's the chance that Barr deliberately misrepresented data? A bit higher, say 30%. There's at least a 50% chance the report and Barr's version differ significantly.
7
All this hatred thinly disguised as legal analysis seems very corrosive. According to Mueller, there was no collusion, and no crime—so can there be an obstruction of justice? Maybe it’s time now to put this episode behind us and try to work together for the good of the country.
3
@J Galbraith
Mueller did NOT say “there was no crime.”
Just, apparently, that deeds could not be proven to a degree enough to convict.
He was NOT EXONERATED!
1
On the contrary, I do want this president to be found guilty of obstruction of justice because all roads seem to lead there. Trump is unfit for office, and has made a mockery of the presidency. The complete report must be released so the American public can learn why Trump wasn’t “exonerated.”
7
Just get Congress to release Trump’s tax return. Follow the money folks.
7
@Boarat of NYCf
Or each state can pass a law stating that no candidate can be on the ballot unless they release taxes.
9
Like so many of Trump's spineless and sycophantic appointees, Mr. Barr has no doubt concluded it is more prudent for his current job security and both his mental and physical health to stroke the ego of his boss, Trump than to even hint publicly that Donald Trump might have obstructed justice, an impeachable offense.
The full report must be made public or the cloud over Donald Trump will continue to rain on his illegitimate presidency.
5
@Jeff
“stroke the ego of his boss” - like he did last week, when sycophantly praising trump’s “emergency” at the border.
The problem is once you acknowledge there was no collusion with Russia, you must ask who is responsible for promoting this lie and how do you hold them accountable. Obstruction becomes a mute point in light of the truth.
3