What kind of a Special Counsel Law would take a sensitive investigation away from the political appointees in the investigation phase, only to hand it right back to a political appointee too interpret and pronounce judgement?
11
Unless we are all living in an alternate university Mr. Barr is putting his own spin on saving Trump. After all he wrote his story last year on what he was going to do.
For us poor stupid Americans we know another old con man when we see them. We have been well trained by the White House. His hate is always on display against American’s
No one believes Barr except all the presidents men, whatever good name Barr had is gone now, hope it was well worth it. Everyone else on the inner circle is marching off to prison .
6
Every answer that Barr gave during his confirmation hearing was carefully couched in lawyer-speak for "maybe, if I decide, yes or no, will follow the law, etc." He knew what would be asked, and what he had to say to be confirmed by a GOP controlled Senate.
That was expected. I have nothing against lawyers per se. They can be very helpful when you need them!
I do not know why anyone thought that Barr would do anything other than give Trump a pathway to say he was exonerated, even if Mueller did not say that in his report.
Trump had no regard for the 2 Bush presidents, but when he was in trouble he picked Barr for AG -- who was almost begging for the job, and a Bush crony. And, oh yeah, that unsolicited memo? Great written audition.
Why is anyone surprised about the result?
Rich and powerful men protect rich and powerful men. And, yes, mostly it is rich and powerful white men. Used to matter whether it was old or new money, or dirty money. That has not mattered for probably 30 years or more.
Nobody in the white men rich guy club club cares how anyone else got rich.
Although, money does not always buy power. You can be so disgusting that you can be ostracized. But, having the dirt on people, and not being afraid to sue people....that works.
And, Trump is very good at the dirty side of just about everything.
The SDNY and the IRS did not "get him" for decades. I don't know if they even tried. Kind of crazy to think that now they will.
3
34 indictments seems like a pretty good days work
1
So the Attorney General was able to read all 2800 pages and synthesize it in just 4 pages in just under two days while at the same time drawing a more certain conclusion than the author of the report.
WHAT AN AMAZING FEAT OF LEGAL EXPEDIENCY!!!
3
@Daniel Messing
Nope. Barr had been briefed back to March 5, and probably before that -- probably back to when he was first contacted about possibly becoming the AG -- or even back to when he decided to write his unsolicited memo about whether presidents could be charged/indicted for obstruction -- which some people call his audition memo.
"...in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: "
(i) any links and/or coordination .....
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise...."
In that there were numerous indictments filed against Russians one might assume there were in fact efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
There were also a number of links established between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
The concept of collusion appears to be a red herring to distract from the actual questions being investigated.
Pyrrhic victory for Trump. If he was innocent, he should have just let Mueller investigate in peace. But since he didn’t, this victory will be about as meaningful as his tweets.
1
When Mr. Mueller could not decide one way or the other on obstruction of justice, the case must now go to Congress, as was the case in both the Jaworski and Starr investigations.
Further Mr. Barr should recuse himself based on the very biased 'job application memo' he sent to the White House that convinced Trump to hire him.
Mr. Barr's determination is straight from the Banana Republic playbook;
4
Did Barr exceed the bounds of his legal authority, when he published his own legal conclusion rather than summarizing the report?
Barr's job under the law was to summarize Mueller's report. Although we citizens who paid for the investigation have yet to see the report, it sounds like Barr's conclusion that Trump didn't obstruct justice is one that Mueller found unsupported by the facts.
If Barr exceeded the bounds of his authority, it is crucial to the future of our democracy that any unauthorized action by Barr be ruled illegal.
Where do we go from here? Do citizens have standing to challenge Barr's action in court? So-called taxpayer standing has not carried the day much at all in our Supreme Court, but this might be that novel case in which it should.
3
So are we supposed to now rest easy and believe that a brand new AG, who only weeks ago publicly criticized the validity of the Mueller Investigation, and was appointed by the very person under investigation for extremely serious crimes, read a (two year in the making) report by the Special Counsel, in less than two calendar days, and write a four page letter using very convenient up in the air language to possibly exonerate the POTUS?
The public and Congress need to see, question, and hear testimony from Barr and Mueller, and should receive a copy of the full report. Anything less is an insult to our democracy and constitution.
4
I don't see how this is anything other than a complete vindication for Trump. No collusion or conspiracy was found and the 2 year investigation wasn’t able to find enough evidence to charge obstruction. Not enough evidence means that obstruction was just speculation with no identifiable crime committed. Slam dunk.
1
Barr doesn't seem to address the issues around campaign finance, which has already sent Cohen to jail. Or is that, and the evidence around large-scale tax fraud and money laundering and... which I ASSUME Mueller had to broach, not worthy of note?
Would the NY Times please provide us with follow-on articles about those issues' place in this investigation cycle.
2
How can you guys stand for this corrupt squelching of something so important - take to the streets and demand that the report you paid for is released immediately . You must stand together or you will fall apart.
9
"David Kris, who ran the Justice Department’s national security division and now heads the consulting firm Culper Partners, said he was struck by the fact that Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion on whether to prosecute Mr. Trump after nearly two years of work, but Mr. Barr, with Mr. Rosenstein’s help, decided in a single weekend."
WSJ is reporting AG Barr was aware three weeks ago that Mr. Mueller wouldn’t reach a conclusion on whether President Trump obstructed justice. So, he had much longer than just a single weekend to decide.
Barr should have recused himself, but did tell Congress he wasn't going to do it. He also wrote an 'audition' letter for the position stating he he believes the president can't be indicted for obstruction of justice and is above the law.. Now he has proved exactly that. Smooth!
Release the report and let's how clean Trump was on all this. We all saw him on national TV saying he fired Comey over the investigation. He lied in the cover-up letter after the Trump Tower meeting. How is this not obstruction of justice, unless you are above the law and lying to the American people is just fine?
5
Impeachment convictions are not required to be “ beyond reasonable doutbt”
2
This is not over. The full contents of Mueller’s investigations will be made public. Context is everything.
At the very least thank God the Attorney Generals of Maryland and DC issued 30 subpoenas to investigate if Trump’s greedy actions fits the prohibition of the Emoluments clause .
1
I wonder what Donald Barr, late former headmaster of the widely admired Dalton School, would think about his son William's recent actions.
1
I have to say I am utterly conflicted on understanding the results of the Mueller report, which should be made public in its entirety. If the Justice Department comes down on the side of the interpretation that a sitting President cannot be indicted for anything why was the Special Counsel authorized? My assumption is that Mueller, being an investigator of impeccable integrity, came up, ultimately against a ruthless President and his hench-persons who totally lack integrity and the bad guys won. If Trump did not obstruct justice what in world would obstruction of justice look like? He fired an FBI director, lied about the reasons, he asked for easy treatment (wink wink) of General Flynn and others, he dangled pardon possibilities repeatedly. And the lsit goes on. Now I fear that this narcissistic, perpetually lying, destructive President will be totally unhinged and without any guardrails at all. The Democratic House must continue investigations into Trump's infatuation with and relationship with Putin and Russians generally, into his tax evasions, potential money laundering, campaign finance abuses and more. The Southern District of NY, the NY Attorney General, the DC Circut Federal court, and any court with jurisdiction over this man's potentially, or proven, illegal conduct should continue investigations full bore within the rule of law. And we the people should bolt ourselves in for a wild ride. It is not going to be pretty.
5
Excellent points. Here are my three cents.
I think Mueller is it honorable man and Barr has disingenuously parsed this report. Would you expect anything else from the man that Trump hand pick to review and summarized the report.?
There's no question that Trump and his allies expired and attempted to coordinate with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary. Since collusion is not a crime per se, neither is attempted collusion a crime. So far apparently there was a lack of evidence of actual collusion by Trump and his election team and you can thank Roger Stone for that. Mueller just couldn't make the connection to the campaign without Stone Or Manafort for that matter. Mueller had to prove evidence of a fact Beyond a reasonable doubt and couldn't at this time. Thanks Yogi Berra once said: it's not over til it's over and believe me it's not over yet.
3
The Federal Government has a long history of withholding information from Congress and the public and downright lying. Trump has taken this narrative to a new nadir unsurpassed by all his predecessors. He lies all the time.
Trump takes perverse enjoyment projecting an image of a bold leader willing to do whatever is necessary to force his decisions on Congress and the governed even if violates the constitution and rule of law. Trump is a reckless defiant child who has to win all the time.
Do I trust an “executive summary” document issued by Trump's hand-picked attorney general? Should we just ignore Jeff Sessions fate as unrelated to Trump’s public complaints the he never would have appointed Sessions if Trump knew beforehand that the AG would recuse himself?
Rosenstein is a sly fox, a survivor, that does what is necessary to remain the career layer he is in the DOJ. I distrust him as well.
Is there any doubt that Trump pressured Comey to place a leash on the FBI?
No Russian Connection, just his family and all his campaign lieutenants? If Trump is aware of what his people are doing but makes no contact himself with Russian operatives and does nothing to stop it, is he guiltless?
The full report by Mueller's team needs to be made public if Trump wants to decisively break free of the dark shadow that has hovered over him from day one of his presidency.
6
What happens now is the AG's call but it would appear that Trump is off the hook. Disappointing news for the Dems but that's the way it is.
Trump has already made it clear that he is going to take revenge on those who were and are investigating him. Mueller may have been fastidious in keeping the evidence bar ridiculously high, but he has now given a demagogue permission to trumpet "vindication" and run amok.
If Americans are ignorant and mean-spirited enough to re-elect Trump, we will eventually see more than migrants in detention camps. All it will take is a national emergency for Trump to begin making mass arrests. I admire Mr. Mueller's integrity, but his ultra-safe conclusions may be a watershed in the loss of freedom in our nation.
7
ok- I am a Democrat. From Philly. I loathe Trump.
However, Mueller CLEARED him of Collusion, or more precisely of conspiracy. CLEARED him.
So, now everybody is saying that Trump should have been charged with Obstruction when there was no underlying crime.
In theory, sure. In real life. No. No prosecutor should prosecute an innocent man because he was difficult while being investigated. There has to be Intent to obstruct and that is contextual.
Moreover, Red-State-istan would never have stood for that charge being laid against the President in the absence of an underlying crime COMMITTED BY TRUMP HIMSELF.
Those guys are armed and serious. Impeaching Trump, without evidence that he conspired with Russia,. could literally have led to armed assemblies and armed men marching across the mall in DC.
Nobody should delude themselves about that.
It is time to move on and start focusing on beating Trump in 2020.
3
it's a sad day when our attorney general lies to protect a known thief and conman .... what does he have to gain by this?
3
... a nomination to the Supreme Court? God help us, clearly the legal profession and our elected officials can’t, or won’t, as they all continue to spin like tops.
2
@gc
Charges of theft and fraud were not on the table, here.
Mueller, alas, CLEARED trump of conspiracy. the question for Barr was whether Trump had Intent to Obstruct the Investigation of Conspiracy when he had not committed the underlying crime of Conspiracy.
@Lefthalfbach
Not to fight with a fellow ‘leftie’, how does Barr reach this conclusion in less than 48 hours when Mueller himself couldn’t outright ‘exonerate’ him in over 2 years?
Do ‘ethics’ and ‘objectivity’ matter in a legal context anymore? Didn’t realize this was a ‘fascist’ Russian colony, not the US of A.
Rule of law matters, otherwise invading Iraq, and Afghanistan was just paying ‘lip service’ and ‘good optics’.
But I agree with your other point. Time to focus on 2020.
The country is now run by a gang of crooks. One protecting the other. Sessions is starting to almost look better.
4
The people who wrote the rules re special counsel missed the boat. Two years for an investigation tossed out the window by a two bit AJ who takes less than two days to review and reach his own conclusion? Ridiculous.
5
Seems pretty evident to us citizens.
2
If you write rules that are wishy washy, this is what you get and worse. The framers of constitution never anticipated a Trump or a Barr. The writers of the rules for special counsel also were hopelessly naive. So here we are. No different than a banana republic.
3
The left-wing press should go back to their class of Journalism 101; if they took journalism in school. In that year, one of the first things they teach you is to get a good dictionary. Then use it. No. 1, look up the word won. And apply it to who won the election. No. 2, look up the word illegal and you will find that it means illegal not undocumented. No. 3, Look up the word news and facts and how both are applied. No. 4, look up the word “No” and apply it to No Collusion with Russia and No obstruction of justice. The left wing press still can’t get over the fact that Trump won and I didn’t think they could fall off the journalist table any further; but they did after the Mueller announcement. Instead of apologizing that they had presented incorrect facts for over two years, they doubled down. It is sad for the American people, because they can’t trust those who are supposed to present accurate news.
2
2016 election- Trump: "Every time he (Mr. Putin) sees me, he said: 'I didn't do that.' And I believe, I really believe that when he tells me that he means it," Trump told reporters in 2017 .So no e-mail hacking of DNC, no wiki-leaks. no collusion; William Barr, AG agreed in 2019. Therefore, Putin is a statesman who told the truth. Trump voters do not care about Russia, interference, or affairs of Trump. For them, serious issues are Obama, the first African American President and legal/illegal immigration from diverse part of world. Trump will use them again in 2020.
4
The result here either way does not change my view that Trump is unfit for the office of the Presidency one but.
He’s a compulsive liar (well documented), a cheat ($25 million Trump “University” settlement, hush money payments etc), a prolific philanderer, a person willfully uninformed and uninterested in the detail of policy matters, a terrible negotiator, terrible at building a consensus and a full time swamp dweller.
I wouldn’t want an uninformed incompetent of his ilk as my doctor, my dentist, my accountant or my lawyer. I wouldn’t want him around my wife or daughter. I certainly don’t want him as my President... collusion or no collusion. Where’s Scotty and the transponder when you need him.
7
Until the report is public, one can only assume that Barr is fully engaged in a cover up.
5
This has all been apparent ever since he stuck his hat in the ring.
3
As the citizens of the United States paid for the investigation through our tax dollars, it would seem, save grand jury information and anything currently classified that there is an obligation to share the report in its' entirety. Barr, who is convinced in his mind, despite there being no such clause in the Constitution, that a President cannot be indicted whilst in office. That leaves one option and that's to share the information with Congress so they can decide if he went far enough to impeach. We have never had such a weasel in the White House since Nixon and the Supremes let his tapes see the light of day and he was soon out the door. Something smells fishy here, my "slimedar" is working overtime.
5
Why is no one talking about the longstanding friendship between Mueller and Barr (or am I missing something)? Maybe we need to investigate Mueller.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/15/trump-russia-mueller-barr-friends-1102244
1
Summing up.
Barr is called " a lawyer's lawyer" Must be right, surely. This paper reported as much, rather breathlessly.
Mueller is called by Ty Cobb " an American Hero". Must be right, surely. Ditto as to the venue of this fatuous reporting.
Where are all the good men/women dead, in the heart or in the head. Or both. Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, we know that Ty Cobb is a spinner.
Instead of a firewall between Trump and Barr, we have this:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/william-barr-son-in-law-white-house?fbclid=IwAR3cnlXAlVuCbV8_wAJN8B25sk5Gex7rWPIyu1vKAwWDhnA9jbkhuqy5JOA
It is imperative that Mueller's complete report be made public, so that the public and Congress can have an informed basis of understanding why Mueller could not reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice issue. I suspect part of the problem is that Mueller's investigation was truncated and he was precluded from taking it to its logical conclusion, not least by the refusal of the president to be interviewed. And, it is important to note, the issue of impeachable offenses is separate from the issue of indictable offenses. Trump waged a very public war against the investigation, very publicly issued not so subtle threats against former associates who were being interviewed by the investigation, mused openly about firing the investigator and repeatedly impugned the integrity of Mueller's legal team. Failing to reach a conclusion about at least an attempt by the president to impede the investigation is puzzling.
4
Many Democrats, myself included, wondered why Barr would take the AG position in the twilight of his career, in a chaotic administration. Now we know; the fix was in.
Barr, a political partisan, auditioned for the job with his 19 page ‘opinion’ supporting controversial presidential powers. We need to see the full Mueller report & we need have Mueller testify in the House in an open setting. I suspect we’ll find out Mueller’s intention was to have Congress decide this, not a Trump appointee. Otherwise the President is above the law. That will not stand, the whole reason for a SC is to make these decisions, not a partisan.
2
Why are Dems so quick to make the secondary or tertiary argument for release of the report to the public? For instance, by arguing that it is in the "public interest" to release it.
The primary argument by Dems should be that, less than a week ago, Trump himself stated: ""Let it come out. Let people see it."
Thus, there is no dispute -- Dems want it, and Trump has said he wants the "people [to] see it." Let him refuse to do what he said before going to the next level.
And, yes, while Trump did also say "it's up to the Attorney General," when has being a Cabinet official ever stopped Trump from doing what he wants? Trump can order his AG to release the report, he can countermand any Justice Department regs against releasing it, and he can de-classify information contained in the report and the underlying evidence.
After all, this is a President who is not shy about "de-regulation" in other contexts, and declassifying secret information in front of Chinese President Xi over dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
1
It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Mr. Barr has not made a partisan interpretation of the Mueller report, given his recent appointment by Mr. Trump and his unsolicited memo in support of not indicting sitting presidents.
I hope we will see the entire report and draw our own conclusions.
Mueller report can’t be just gathering information. Even if he did not make conclusions, there should be reasons for the type of information he collected. We won’t know unless we see the full report. We also should know what made him to bring an end to the investigation. We need answers to all of them. Barr’s weekend charade is an insult to Mueller’s two year effort.
1
It’s now perfectly legal to ask a foreign nation to assist in an election to hack and disseminate info on ones enemies. And all you have to do is stand in a rally and ask for that assistance.
Just because they want you elected and seem to assist you doesn’t mean anything. It’s perfectly legal.
1
Justice barred is justice obfuscated.
2
Mueller’s big mistake is that he did not get Trump’s in person testimony under oath. And why he did not, is beyond me. Every set of jury instructions contains the instruction that the credibility of the witness is at issue. One of the elemental factors of credibility is assessing the demeanor of the witness while the witness is testifying. And that demeanor is evidence the finder of fact can consider. Without in person testimony Mueller did not get the demeanor of the witness as a factor in assessing whether Trump obstructed the investigation. Given Trump’s well established propensity to prefabricate, I suspect he would not have decided to ‘punt’ the decision about criminal obstruction to Trump’s political appointee Barr. If Trump had testified it would undoubtedly have been video-recorded and we would all eventually have seen it. And wouldn’t that have been a sight to see?
All Mueller got was written answers to questions. Any person with a passing familiarity with litigation knows that the attorneys prepare the answers to the written questions (interrogatories) for the witness. And those responses are crafted for the witness to be ambiguous and say as little as possible. I look forward to reading Tump’s responses to Mueller’s questions, but those responses are no substitute for live testimony.
2
What a sad time for this country!
12
We was robbed.
7
The problem to me seems to be that Trump's obstruction of justice was just raised to a new level by the Barr appointment. Everything that Barr did reeks of obstructing justice.
12
HRC was the most qualified candidate. We don't need Mueller to know the truth. The Russians stole the election from her. Trump can't win in 2020. Go Kamala!!!
5
It stinks that Graham wants Barr to testify. Barr is a partisan as is Graham. More impartial if Mueller testifies about the issues related to obstruction of justice. Also stinks if it goes to the Supreme Court which is hyper-partisan. The US is kind of starting to stink with partiality, nepotism and bias. Not just the politicians but the institutions. Just sayin'
9
This is “Cliff Notes” not the report
5
No waiting patiently for the report. It is time for the Liar in Chief's head of DOJ Barr to make the report public. PERIOD. We the people should be able to read the report we paid for.
7
Move on. Rosenstein was included in the decision making.
Exonerated.
2
Rosenstein should have recused himself from any decision on obstruction. After writing the memo back in early 2017 at the request of Trump which supported Comey’s firing and thus taking a stand in on obstruction in that instance, he had become a material witness in the case with respect to obstruction.
Barr himself in his 18 page earlier memo had taken a stand on obstruction and should have recused himself.
I’d like to see the whole report (as redacted for national security by an impartial or bipartisan committee) and hear from Mueller himself before I make any conclusions.
2
We don’t really know how Rosenstein was allowed to participate. They kept him around to try to keep from the fish from stinking too much.
This was not a vindication and we still don’t know why this President has secret meetings with Putin.
3
Trump is so incompetent and such a widespread failure that maybe it's just as well to give him this victory now, regarding this issue of collusion. The fact is, he and his team are probably incompetent to have contributed anything to the Russian interference, which is not being denied – so none of them really could have contributed to it. But I can't imagine that he and his team's failure to govern or to further the aims of this country won't go without appropriate recompense when the time is right.
2
You have behaved unjustly and in that regard are no different from the senate republicans who aid and abet this monster with their silence.
You also stand in contrast to a convicted criminal who assisted your unindicted co-conspirator but, in the end, concluded that there is a difference between right and wrong.
You are not a liar, you are a silent enabler. If you couldn't prove obstruction here then I am sorry to say that the evidence of your malpractice would be hard to deny.
2
Help me understand why, if there was no coordination between Russia & the Trump campaign, so many members of the campaign lied about contact with the Russians?
9
If Mr. Mueller's report shows no obstruction of justice, then why not release the whole report so that we can see that Mr. Trump has been exonerated?
9
We have a president who is famous for doing business with Russia and Bill Barr did not mention what Robert Mueller found regarding their cyber war and why it continues without resistance from the Trump Administration. Without that data everything Barr said requires us to trust him and Donald J. Trump.
The investigation was tasked to investigate Russian interference into our 2016 elections and follow it wherever it took him. So, where is that evidence and why is Barr impairing the nation from knowing what was done and by whom?
Remember that two grand juries found Mueller's evidence compelling enough to indict Russian a score of intelligence operatives and two of their cyber operations. That's huge considering Trump's actions that always seems to benefit Russia.
The Appearance of corruption used to mean something. If we do not find our way back to that as the big black line our representatives must honor and respect then we won't ever have the, "America the Beautiful," we once knew.
6
There is a better way.
Everyone is seeking the truth but why are most – from readers to editorialists – seemingly content to receive a “redacted” version of the special counsel’s report? If the attorney general’s letter is any indication – the summarily dismissal of the obstruction of justice charge within one day of receiving the report – there should be widespread concern as to whether the report will be “properly” redacted. Consequently, everyone – from all members of congress, the media, and especially the electorate – should insist on the immediate and full disclosure of the report. No “processing” (read censorship) of the report should take place.
If any redacting is to be done to meet requirements of the law, such redaction should be carried out with congressional oversight as represented by the heads of the two judiciary committees. This bipartisan, comingling of the two branches of government in this history-making initiative should not and does not infringe on the constitutional separation of powers. Moreover, these members of the committees should collectively sign off on the report with a covering letter that assures the American people that any redaction was done solely pursuant to legal requirements and not to suppress any inconvenient truths.
Anything less will be an affront to the American people.
5
Trump is by nature dishonest. With that in mind, it is a solid that he has broken laws as well as protocols repeatedly as a matter of fact. GOP interpretation of Mueller's Report is similar to the three monkees who neither see, speak, or hear no evil. On the other hand, the DP will see all sorts of transgressions and they will be mostly correct.
5
It'll be a wash.
The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Grumble on.
It's very simple, release the entire report so that legal experts and the public can judge Barr's actions. Certainly Barr is aware that there is a need to justify his decision to exonerate trump on obstruction, at a minimum to show us he's not just another partisan lackey.
It is amusing that criminal intent to obstruct the investigation could not be proven since every bone in trump's body is corrupt. His allies must be thanking their lucky stars, for I'm sure most of them in private were surprised at the finding.
Meanwhile the autocrat who occupies the presidency has been unleashed to put another nail in democracy's coffin.
4
Honest Don's attempts to derail the Mueller investigation -- that is, to obstruct justice -- occurred in plain view (for example, the Comey firing, which Trump told Russian officials relieved "great pressure). The fact that Trump's efforts were so open does not mean that they carry little or no weight -- how could Barr simply discount such acts by Trump?!
3
What nobody has suggested so far, and which would be far-fetched, even in this day and age of ridiculous scenarios, driven by the Trump Saga, is the possibility of Robert Mueller having been corrupted. And of course, Bill Barr. All Republicans. All in the monied class. I will not take anything off the table at this point in time. Proust would be proud.
8
@dave beemon
your idea is not ridiculous. what's ridiculous and crazy is this president telling his inner circle while at one of his 3.2 million dollar getaway weekends in florida that mueller and his team are really a coup within the FBI to oust him from office. talk about paranoid. wow.
3
The president had a lawful right to fire Comey. You can twist that fact in knots all you want but it always comes back to what rights he holds as president. This paper and everyone in between wanted Comey fired until President Trump did. It would be pretty hard to prove there was corrupt intent when there is no underlying crime. Apologize to our president and move on.
2
No apologies, here. There were plenty of crimes committed by his campaign and appointees, despite not having a collusion charge. As evidence by convictions and admitting to crimes.
1
Trump appointed Barr because he bad mouthed the Mueller investigation. How is this justice, if Trump fired everyone in the Justice Dept. who was in favor of the investigation and then appointed a stooge who would discount anything in the report. Isn't the purpose of our three parts of government to avoid exactly this scenario, that the president can make sure he is above the law.
4
William Barr has been Attorney General for 3.5 weeks. There is news reporting surfacing right now that he has had the Mueller information for 3 weeks, leaked from the Administration to counter criticism that Mr. Barr made a decision that prosecutors weren't ready to make in a mere 48 hours.
So there is an obvious alternative scenario: William Barr takes office, and demands that Robert Mueller report right away. Mueller says he has nothing rising to the level of criminality yet on coordination with Russia. He says he is not ready to make a case on obstruction yet, and cannot make a call on it. Barr then tells Mueller that the investigation is over and they agree on the date the report will be on Barr's desk. Barr receives the report, and then issues his letter after checking that he can withhold anything that contradicts what he says as a "6(e)" fact. He issues his 4 page report, and at this point his only intention about the rest of the report is to get ready to fight any efforts by Congress to get the unredacted copy.
There is no reason to believe that William Barr, who's always been willing to act as low as needed in political positions to protect his highly enlarged version of Unitary Executive power and any Republican president, is doing otherwise here. There is plenty of reason to believe Robert Mueller would not have deliberately sought this outcome.
So now it's William Barr telling us, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
3
Why does that not surprises me?
5
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”-Oscar Wilde
4
Just a reminder to Barr - when you lie down with dogs . . .
13
Let’s all play judge, jury and executioner.
How long is this ‘farce’ going to go on?
The subject of the inquiry was never questioned by Mueller and was somehow able to provide ‘written’ answers instead, which are to accepted ‘as facts’ or ‘truths’ as we all know about the WH incumbent’s penchant for ‘veracity’ and ‘truth’ (read: fake news and alt. facts).
Isn’t ‘perjury’ alone an indictable offence?
13
It is clear that America has two legal standards--one for the Donald Trumps of the world and another for the Otis Boones.
7
.
@Mark Hungerford,
Yes, thats a function of plutocratic America that's been dressed up as a democratic republic.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/business/dealbook/paul-volcker-federal-reserve.html Paul Volcker, former Chair of the Federal Reserve. Oct 2018
------------------
Volcker: “The central issue is we are developing into a plutocracy.”
-------------------
.
1
A comment by a old Canuck: the USA have become a banana republic. The average man, as in a member of a jury, should decide not some..
Present the evidence to a Grand Jury.
Here, we have a preliminary inquiry before a judge.
3
William Barr was chosen for his favorable (for president Trump) views on the Mueller investigation.
As soon as Trump found out there would be no more indictments, he was relieved and went to Mar-A-Lago to celebrate.
And as if on cue, Barr crafted a crafty letter just enough for the president to claim "exoneration," though as a caution Barr stuck in a phrase of non-exoneration.
The public is looking for simple wording to run with. Trump's supporters found enough to praise him and they self-congratulated for being right for sticking with the president. Whereas, his detractors were dejected and are looking for an avenue to reclaim their offense. And the left are acting as if they haven't got the message.
My worry is that Trump maybe reelected. There are too many in the left who are advocating superficially socialist policies, which the country would just oppose.
Among the more known candidates, only Mayor Pete has a "modest" chance. But he is only 37 & openly gay. Two other candidates who could beat trump to me are John Delaney who doesn't even register on polls & Mitch Landrieu who isn’t (yet) running. Harris, Warren, Booker, et al., have little chance to beat trump. Biden & Sanders are too old. Biden's idea of naming a running mate maybe ingenious; I would suggest name Mitch Landrieu as his running mate. Perhaps, Sanders could name Delaney as his running mate.
1
After the debacle, as Trump saw it, of Sessions recusing himself from the Mueller Probe, does anyone really think that there weren't serious discussions before nominating Barr as to whether or not he'd be a "team player"? I watched the confirmation hearings and clearly Barr is a seasoned professional (in the worst sense of those words). I had no doubt that this moment would come and that Barr would do whatever he could to mitigate the effects of Mueller's work. Let us read the report for ourselves and draw our own conclusions, Mr. Attorney General! Whatever recap he's made of it is, by definition, tainted by a conflict of loyalty that we all know exists no matter how hard anyone tries to deny it.
13
1. William Barr knows the report will eventually become public
2. So is he really going to tip the scales and put a shine on this report? Risk his reputation? Be completely unethical?
3. Of course not.
4. If he did someone on the Mueller Team would leak the entire report.
4
@Luciano, regarding your point 2: it seems to be a requirement of Trump's appointees that they be unethical!
and as to your point 3: it is a hallmark of the Trump Administration that consequences can be avoided by simply denying the underlying facts.
2
So far, absent the full report and the supporting evidence we have no collusion but plenty of treasonous contact during a Russian active measures operation against our Democracy. Additionally, No obstruction per DOJ policy but lots of abuse of power, failed cooperation and obstructive threats to an ongoing investigation. Now the whitewash begins in earnest. The new mission is to hamsyring Congressional oversight by any means necessary. This is our system at its best courtesy of Citizens United.
6
If Barr does not release the entire report this week he needs to be charged with obstruction of justice. It may not be possible to indict a sitting president (although that is only a policy, not a law), but it may possible to indict an sitting Attorney General. John Mitchell wasn't convicted until three years after the Watergate break-in, but we should be able to move faster on this one because the cover-up is more blatant.
7
I think the one major flaw in Robert Mueller's investigation and one I have a hard time getting over, is that Robert Mueller did not do a face to face interview with Donald Trump under oath, and even if it meant issuing a subpoena to force him to appear before him.
15
Absolutely correct! I am waiting to hear Mueller’s rationale for not getting 45’s testimony under oath.
3
Trump, Attorney General Barr, and Trump's base are wrong on many levels regarding the special prosecutor's report.
The investigation's scope included whether the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election, whether there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".
The investigation resulted in dozens of indictments for federal crimes and at least eight guilty pleas or convictions. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner. In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were indicted.
So, did the investigation prove the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election?
You bet it did.
What does Trump, Attorney General Barr, and Trump's base have to say about that finding?
Absolutely nothing.
And what does the report itself say about that finding?
Who knows? We, the people, don't have the report.
It took Barr less than two days to review a legally complex, lengthy report and make his conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice.
How long will it take Barr to release the report so that we, the people, can read it and make our own conclusions?
3
“It seems that Mr Barr, “concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Which doesn’t mean that Trump is innocent of obstruction, it simply means not enough evidence exists, or has been found that would reach the legal bar needed to get a conviction.
But Trump isn’t out of the legal woods yet, there’s still the condo development deal that was going on in Russia, well after Trump had been nominated, that Trump and his “associates” including Michael Cohen, were still actively trying to close the deal. Then there’s the money used to pay off Daniels, and reimburse Cohen, well after Trump had been sworn into office, and numerous other potential campaign related crimes.
And let’s keep in mind, Mueller’s job was to see how much influence Russia had in the election of Trump, and he did that. Trumps not a total fool, like a mafia don, they don’t do the actual killing, they just order it done. But unlike Ken Starr, Mueller didn’t just shift gears, when he couldn’t prove something, remember the Clintons were initially investigated for a land deal in Arkansas, called “Whitewater” and investigate beyond his mandate as Starr did under the republicans. Trump may not guilty of collusion, but he may well be guilty of other post election crimes, campaign moneyed being misused, etc.
2
By my count Barr's letter only quotes 101 words from the Mueller report, and 12 of those happen to be the title of the report. So we only know about 89 words...about one to three paragraphs. Since it has been obvious for some time that Mr. Barr is a partisan hack, I don't really trust that those 89 words are fully representative of what Mr. Mueller laid out in the report. And I trust none of Mr. Barr's own conclusions since he has already laid out that he doesn't believe a president can be indicted or that he can in fact obstruct justice.
On the other hand, there is a direct quote from the report that states "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him". If this is truly what Mr. Mueller has concluded, it seems entirely cowardly. Much like the ridiculous Comey conclusion.
However, I don't rule out the fact that either 1) this quote is misleading as to what is actually in the report or 2) that Mr. Mueller was ordered to conclude his investigation before he was done and so he simply laid out his findings to date but wouldn't reach a full conclusion on them.
Hopefully the House can hold some hearings which will bring this sort of information to light as I have no faith that Mr. Barr will release full enough excerpts of the report that it won't be corrupted by his motives.
3
My eyes and ears saw/heard him tell Lester Holt that he fired the director of the FBI because he was investigating Russia. That, is what a first year law student would say, obstruction of justice.
11
Trump's critics have been waiting two years for the release of this $40 Million boondoggle. There was no evidence found of the collusion with Russians, and although Trump has been obstinate over sharing all details with the Congress, his response also is not criminal.
It's now time to put away these silly efforts to restrict the President and get on with business for America. Let's get the infrastructure, health care (again), and the need to address bnational debt issues.
3
@Robert Miller: The investigation has in no way prevented the Republicans, in complete control for two years, from getting on with any of the serious government business you mention. Why has there been no progress? Not because a special prosecutor was conducting an investigation.
2
hooray, some common sense!
If Mueller couldn't determine there was obstruction of justice nobody else will be able to
Is Jerry Nadler going to find a smoking gun email?
Is Adam Schiff and his committee going to find a video? Maybe an audio recording?
Please...
The American people recognise obstruction of justice as Nixon on tape saying "I know where to get a million dollars". Angry tweets from Trump or firing his FBI director doesn't register in the public's mind as the kind of obstruction that is clearly impeachable.
The Democrats continue to pursue this at their own peril. It just looks like angry tribal politics and sour grapes
5
Barr's conclusions are unusual in light of Trump's pubic comment that he fired Comey because of “this Russia thing”, thereby admitting to intention of obstructing an investigation into his suspected criminal behavior. Is it now legal for a suspected criminal to take out his prosecutor before the trial? Barr's statement has deep implications for our justice system if not challenged.
2
"...suggested that Mr. Barr’s action may amount to a “hasty partisan interpretation of the facts.”
It appears that the media on all sides of this issue might be accused of the same, But what do I know?
2
Your headline that a cloud has been lifted from Trump's presidency and now calling him him President Trump in an article is laughable. He has many more crimes to answer for, especially when he loses office in 2020.
6
People will question it if they don't understand the legal requirements. What you might personally think of obstruction does not meet the very critical legal test of actual legal obstruction.
4
@vulcanalex Maybe so, but I bet it meets the requirements for impeachment.
3
I bet every criminal would love to have their own attorney general.
18
Barr is just another Trump shill. He like just about every other republican politician is shielding the leader of the tribe.
9
I think Jay Sekulow should go back to the Christian Broadcasting Network to shill for Pat Robertson, and stop trying to tell Congress what to do about oversight of this corrupt President.
I take what Lindsey Graham says with a grain of salt, he's been corrupted by Donald Trump.
Lindsey Graham who claimed to be John McCain's friend, but basically stayed silent while Trump smeared and trashed John McCain's integrity and stature as an American heron; Lindsey Graham who threw a hissy fit over Brett Kavanaugh's hearing's and shed tears, but when his supposed friend was unmercifully trashed by Trump for months, nary a peep from Graham.
Lindsey Graham is bought and paid for by the Trump Family business, he's a cheap golf date.
12
I take what Lindsey Graham says with a shovel of salt. He is a true Trump sycophant now, wonder what McCain would think. Graham is an embarrassment to my state.
9
Lyndsey, was also the loudest detractor of Trump, until they kissed, and a love affair was born....they still own the tax break that isn’t producing anything but more national debt, and shifting more tax payers money into the hands of the rich.
8
God, learn your lesson NYT. Stop the singular Trump hysteria. Your reputation is hobbled right now, dont kick it while its down.
5
Nothing is hobbled, The NY Times merely reporter what Mueller had been doing, they never drew a conclusion one way or the other. But maybe the democrats need to do what the republicans have done to the Clintons, and just keep digging, unlike the Clintons, if you dig into the dirt that is the Trump family dealings, you’re bound to find something, and they have, it’s not over, the democrats need to follow the GOP playbook.
6
Federalists Republicans decide to not slay the goose...the eggs are too good.
5
Do we have a king now?
11
Trump found his Roy Cohn in Attorney General Barr. He finally has someone who is loyal to him above all else.
14
Barr and Rosenstein are two conflicted, angry Republicans.
6
Expect a lot more nyah-nyah-nyah from the party of nyah-nyah-nyah (and its lackeys at the network of nyah-nyah-nyah).
5
Big deal, remember Nixon wasn’t indicted either......
2
Let's not go down the rabbit hole.....lets lick our collective democrat wounds and aim for the Whitehorse. As a reminder...it was a republican (Rod Rosenstein) who appointed special council, who was also Republican (Mueller). What did we really expect?
2
Except Mueller is no lackey, he’s got integrity dripping off him, just ask Trump, I’m sure he sent someone to find some kind of dirt on Mueller, so that he could discredit him. What Trump was doing (as he always a does) is set the stage Incase it goes against him, he could keep beating the “it’s rigged” drum. But Trump isn’t out of the woods yet, we don’t know what Mueller gave to other prosecutors, we’ve seen some of it, but not all of it. Trumps hands are too dirty, to be innocent.
3
Mr. Barr is, after all, the Attorney General. If Mr. Mueller left the decision on obstruction to his superior, the only surprise here is the Times’ surprise that the proper officer made a decision. Who else was supposed to make it? We can better judge the soundness of the decision when more facts come to light, but please spare us from surprise that the Attorney General did the job he was appointed to perform.
3
I get it.
Trump was just too obtuse to actually premeditate obstruction. He just did what what comes naturally to him.
Stop anyone who tries to get in his way, by hook or by crook.
6
When did the U.S. Attorney General become the President’s personal judge and jury?
8
Well, I guess any hope Attorney General Barr had of receiving a "Profiles in Courage" award has been dashed.
5
Final Jeopardy question:
"He was the only other presidential candidate to benefit from Russian hacking crimes and social media trolling besides Donald Trump."
Final Jeopardy music plays.
(sing it in your head)
To our leader Michael:
Written answer-
"Who is no one ever in our history?"
Alex:
Correct!
3
Who is Trump. Oh yeah, the so called president that did benefit from Russian trolling, it’s only a certain group of zombies that totally ignores what our intelligence people have been saying, and what the CEOs of the social media platforms agreed with, that yes Russia did in fact use trolls to sway voters, you should know that is a fact.
3
Two years and millions of dollars did not result in cornering the President.
Those of us who always thought this collusion boloney was a witch hunt by the left wingers needed just a nanosecond to exonerate the President completely.
Common sense is not so common when one is blinded by communistic ideology.
Rational people who believe in the American values of individual responsibility and accountability use our inalienable right of liberty to yell out loudly that the ilk of Pelosi, Nadler, Booker, Harris, Warren and the rest of the left have no common sense whatsoever.
2
And the republicans do. Mueller was looking for collusion, collusion is a hard crime to prove, and this is what the Barr said. “
“He concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Not sufficient doesn’t mean innocent, it means just that, insufficient evidence. Trumps got other legal issues when it comes to his condo deal that he was working on AFTER he had been nominated, and paying Cohen, AFTER he was sworn in. No only one investigation has happened, and that is only insufficient, it’s doesn’t exonerate Trump, Barr didn’t say that, he said, insufficient evidence. Leave it to the bone head Republicans to one utter the word communist, I guess if I support a government that is progressive, and puts the people first is communist well, okay. It’s better than being a party that always wants to backwards, that takes tax money and gives it to the rich, a party that thinks that polluting the planet is a sound policy. I would rather belong to a party that has vision, instead of a party that looks for scapegoats, and espouses the trope that should have been relegated to the ash heap of history. There is a day of reckoning coming for the republicans, and it’s coming in 2020.
1
Let's stop pussyfooting around the fact trump committed treason in July of 2016. When he asked Russia to obtain emails for him on live television in clear violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, he made himself a party to the act of international terrorism under Title 18 U.S. Code § 2331.
12
In a not so distant past.
Trump: And what makes you think you are qualified to be my Attorney General?
Barr: Well, I personally believe you cannot be charged with anything, no matter what crime you commit.
Trump: You’re hired!
Fast forward to Friday.
Trump: So what did the Mueller report say?
Barr: That you did nothing wrong.
8
Barr spent more time and effort preparing his unsolicited 19 page opinion than his 3.5 page summary of Special Counsel’s investigative summary. Absurd. Release the report, Americans paid for it and don’t want the abridged “Reader’s Digest” opinionated version. “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him...” which is to say, there’s plenty to read which isn’t flattering of the President or his campaign. We can handle it, release it.
9
I don’t think Mueller found enough evidence to indict Trump for obstruction (regardless of whether a sitting president can be indicted). That simply means he could not be brought to trial, based on what Mueller found.
I’m not happy about that. I think Trump clearly abused his powers by threatening Comey, firing Comey, and dangling pardons. Apparently, that wasn’t enough to prove intent.
So be it. While I can’t stand Trump, there has to be evidence to prove such an assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. That was never clear, and Barr didn’t use anything we didn’t already know in coming to his decision.
So it’s time to move on, for the good of the country. The best way for us to rid ourselves of this malignant president is to vote him out in 2020. That’s how a democracy works.
7
Where are the tax returns? Where are the interpreter's notes from the secret meetings with Putin? Why is it acceptable for Putin to lie about his proven interference in our election and for Trump to buy that lie and convey it to the American people? (Not to mention repeating the process with the Saudis.)
7
It is now time for the movement to impeach this President. Clearly, Barr has chosen to do Trump's bidding in protecting him by not making the Mueller report public. Barr and this administration thinks they can ride roughshod over every single ounce of democratic procedure and the rule of law.
Rep. Nadler will subpoena Mueller. He is not afraid of anyone and has said he will do the right thing. The fight for truth and justice has begun. Hang on, its going to be a bumpy ride!
2
@Susan: Respectfully disagree. Impeaching him will make him a martyr. Not to mention the fact that if there were an impeachment trial now, he would most certainly not be convicted by the sycophant Republican senate.
He is a master showman and he will turn the proceedings into a pep rally for his base, and cruise to re-election.
Most importantly it would deflect attention from his record. What must happen now is the Dems must articulate policies that work for the middle class. The Republicans have given the Dems a treasure trove of truly noxious destructive and borderline treasonous policies to run on. They should focus on that. Make him run on his record. That will do more more damage to him and his enablers than an impeachment trial ever could.
Besides, the election is close enough that if the Dems play it right, he will be voted out of office first, anyway.
Besides President Mike Pence?? Really??
4
The more space and words that are spent bemoaning the findings of the Mueller report, the less bandwidth that is available to expose the damage that Trump and his new Republican Party are doing to the other 99%.
Democrats should just drop the Mueller Report. What evidence is there that Trump even has the competence to effectively collude on electoral fraud? He would't know if if it bit him.
From environmental vandalism, to cutting taxes on the 1% at the expense of the 99% to the ongoing assault on health care, education, student loans and on and on, this administration is presenting Democrats with a wealth of targets that will resonate with voters, if they can just articulate them effectively.
Further hyperventilating about what an obnoxious oaf he is just plays right into his hands. He and his supporters just don't care. We will lose by fighting on their terms.The policies, and actions: savaging refugees, raiding the treasury and so on are indisputable and more potent.
Why try to win over his 30%? Who cares about them? There is the other 70% to engage with. Isn't it better to just ignore him and his 30% and focus instead on articulating policies and programs that the 70% will respect and appreciate, and highlighting the differences?
6
I always knew that obstruction is a hard charge to prove, by the way, keep in mind, Nixon, wasn’t indicted either, but we know what happened next, and so it goes with Trump. Also, unlike Ken Starr, Mueller stayed within his charter, Starr, when he couldn’t prove any crimes in terms of Whitewater, which was the initial focus of his probe, he would just shift gears and Gingrich would give Starr the green light. Maybe the democrats need to fight fire with fire, and take a page out of their playbook. We al, know, If Trump isn’t guilty of obstruction, he’s guilty of some other crime, which we will see in NY, and with the bank in Germany, that was dumb enough to lend Trump billions even after he sued them.
1
Refuse to release the full report at your own peril in the 2020 general election, Republicans.
5
Barr did exactly what he said he would do when he lobbied for the job...
7
@brian lindberg, with the blessings of the Bushes..
1
Don Trump’s entire time as President is a text book case for corrupt intent, except that Trump is so coy, he knew how to fly under the legal radar and allow other people take the legal heAt that has led to jail time for them.
His lawyers skillfully outmaneuver Mueller, preventing Trump to sit before Mueller who would have questioned Trump in an effort to expose corrupt intent. His lawyers now say that Congress has no legal standing to pursue obstruction of justice or collusion, which implied that his lawyers believe thT the American people have no right to any further investigations on relevant facts to the real truth to the issues of Russian Collusuim and obstruction of justice. Again, his lawyers obviously do not believe in the rule of law that would Constitutionally permit the Congress to fulfill its mandated oversight to investigate matters that threaten the security of our Presidential Elections form foreign influence.
The American public deserves answers to all aspects of this investigation.
5
Barr has just casually insulted everyone's intelligence who's over the age of eight. But I'm not upset. Anyone with a heart can't be upset with a senseless and childish human being, though there are so many. After all they do need our help in understanding the world. What's remarkable and ironic is how the GOP's patriotic farce has become such a whirlpool of the ridiculous and absurd that every serious person is in danger of being pulled into it. Luckily the ideas of their party are dying and what we're witnessing is nothing short of depraved and hideous desperation. I just wish more people had a good-natured sense of humor so they could enjoy the most laughable moments in this country's history.
3
As Roger Stone's hero once said, "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal."
5
This is a farce. I would say it’s unbelievable, but in King Donald’s world it wouldn’t be accurate.
If the Dems really want to fire up the troops for the 2020 elections they’ll discreetly get a copy of the report to WikiLeaks.
If the Dems win the Senate & White House In ‘20 they can then charge both trumpocchio & the AG with obstruction.
2
William Barr must immediately release Mueller's report in full. Anything else is cause for Barr to step down as AG and to also face prosecution.
5
Wait for Act III, people. Mueller has done an excellent job of setting up Barr, who rushed to the presses with his "summary" of the report in record time. The speedy turnaround time alone leads one to question the veracity and accuracy of Barr's work. The fat lady has not yet sung the final aria in this melodrama.
5
Thanks to what Mueller has uncovered and handed off to other prosecutors, this isn't the end of what the public will learn with respect to trump's corruption, and possible criminality. Trump surrounded himself with a revolving door of associates with sketchy, criminal ties to shady Russians -- connections that trump and his associates have repeatedly lied about. If there was no wrongdoing, then why the countless lies? Given what was known by intelligence agencies about Russian interference, and trump's own behavior, it would've been negligent not to investigate.
To those who blame Democrats for an alleged "witch hunt", remember that the investigation was lead by a Republican, assigned as special counsel by another Republican. The dossier was first commissioned by Republicans, a fact that right wing pundits conveniently leave out of the narrative. The report was vetted by a Republican, about his Republican boss, trump, who has only himself to blame for the scrutiny his questionable behavior has drawn.
But let's blame Democrats - for no reason other than it's politically expedient to do so - while selectively ignoring the crimes and corruption that the investigation actually uncovered, and gloating because a so-called president was able to beat the rap. What a disgrace.
4
This preening-POTUS (and his mouthpiece, SHS) claim that the $25M spent is uncalled for and shocking. How much have his frequent trips to Mara Lago cost the country (plane, secret service, ….)?
The unheard of Russian efforts to collude with the Trump campaign and administration would have required investigations into any and all previous campaigns for president.
What would the GOP have had the government do? Believe what Trump said was "true"? There can not be anyone, anywhere so naïve (but for Pence) as to believe anything that our POTUS says.
4
Bar was appointed for one reason, to give Trump a get out of jail free card. And he did.
5
If we still have a democracy left (many of us doubt it), then that entire report belongs to us, to "we the people." Otherwise, we will know that Trump and his gang of thugs (including those in the House and Senate) have deprived us of our democratic rights to be informed. We should be very scared.
5
Mueller did not exonerate 45 from obstruction charges. Mueller “punted” and left the decision up to 45’s political appointee Barr. It took Barr just over one day, to “digest” a report that encompassed a two year investigation, and not to charge 45 with obstruction. This, from Barr, who before he received his political appointment wrote an opinion that a president could not be charged with obstruction. It appears that Barr and Rosenstein believe that a president is above the law. In so acting Barr shows his fealty to 45, just as all the cabinet members did months ago. I mistakenly thought that the USA was beyond the concept of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The People need to read the whole report. Publish it.
4
Looks like Mueller was expecting Barr to be as unbiased in his evaluations as he himself was, but Barr certainly fooled Mueller. Barr's mind was already made up before he was even appointed to the job. It's not a crime if the king - oops, I mean, the president - does it, because the king - that is, the president- occupies his position by the grace of god. It's known as the divine right of kings - or in this special case, presidents. The evangelicals think Trump has been ordained by god, so no wonder they throw all of their support behind the king - darn it - the president, I mean.
4
Curious that Mueller wrapped up the investigation so soon after Barr got his job.
Most other special counsel investigations have gone on for much longer.
Was there any pressure to wrap it up so early?
5
Yet again the Democrats and the mass media have failed to deliver. First we were assured of Clinton victory, then President Trump most definitely colluded with the Russians to win the Presidency. These weren't small inconsequential promises either, they would have changed the course of our nation. Now they've been reduced to using the fall back defense of how Clinton won the popular vote and how the southern district of NY has the real goods on Trump. Stay tuned.
The never Trumpers will scour the Mueller report looking for double entendres and encrypted messages in its coda. Possibly Mueller himself will come under scrutiny in vain attempts to show that they were right all along.
This blended with the cacophony of the growing number of Democratic candidates for President and the outlandish statements and proposed policies by some of the Democratic freshmen Congressmen, the Democratic Party has a real circus to deal with. It doesn't seem as if the Democrats are interested in dealing with reality, they'd rather tell people what they want to hear and how they can get it for them, then deliver only false hope and disappointment.
Democratic and media credibility are at an all time low and there's no indication of it getting any better any time soon. It doesn't have to be that way but they seem to be comfortable in and getting used to that role. Sad.
3
These conclusions do not seem surprising. Mr Cohen’s description of how Trump communicates his intent is instructive. He never says anything definitive, but his wishes and implicit direction are unmistakable. Hence the beyond reasonable doubt criminal standard stays tantalizingly out of reach. Mobsters are good at this. Al Capone was never convicted for any crime but tax evasion. There is more to come. Meanwhile, Manafort inherits the Oliver Nirth crown.
3
It should come as no surprise that Barr, who was handpicked for his fringe views on presidential obstruction of justice, chose to clear Trump of those very charges. No one can have any confidence in the Barr Report until the full Mueller Report is released.
In the meantime, though, it would be fascinating to see someone re-write the Barr Report, not changing any of the substance, but just the wording and emphasis. We could call it the Schiff Report or the Holder Report, for instance. Same facts, just different language - kind of a glass half-full take on collusion and obstruction, rather than half-empty. Whereas the Barr Report mentions Russian efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton, the Schiff Report would emphasise Russia's efforts to aid Trump. The Barr Report states that much of the obstruction evidence has already been reported in the media; the Schiff Report would emphasise the opposite (i.e., that some of Trump's efforts at obstructing justice are currently unknown to the public). The Barr Report concludes by saying he has evaluated the evidence on obstruction and has declined to pursue the matter; the Schiff Report would say he has reviewed the evidence and decided that criminal charges are warranted, or would be if not for DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.
It would be interesting, wouldn't it? And this would be with leaving the facts of the Barr Report intact. Spin, unfortunately, really does matter.
4
If Trump had successfully obstructed the investigation -- which I personally believe was his goal, based on his own public words -- how would we know whether he was innocent of collusion with Russia or not? That's why the crime of obstruction shouldn't depend on whether there was an underlying crime -- it prevents the truth from being known, whatever that truth happens to be.
For two years, Trump seemed awfully worried about what the Mueller investigation might reveal. Besides Russia, he seemed particularly uneasy about his business dealings and tax situation being examined. And while Mueller stayed out of those latter areas, it's possible that he referred suspicious information to other prosecutors. So regardless of the findings on Russia/Trump collusion, Trump had plenty of other reasons to try to shut down the investigation -- which he said over and over should be done. The NBC interview, the conversation with Russian diplomats, badgering Sessions about shutting down the investigation, directing White House lawyers to fire Mueller (which they didn't do). Trump wasn't shy about wanting to shut down the investigation. This isn't corrupt intent, trying to suppress the truth?
And let's not forget: the "president" was the choice of 3 million fewer people than his main opponent. A recent poll said that 56% of the voters wouldn't consider voting for him in 2020. Most people never wanted him to be president and want him out of office no later than 1/20/21.
2
What we know so far from Barr's letter is that -- according to him -- Mueller concluded Trump and his agents did not conspire to use info that the Russians released and offered to release to help Trump win the election. Let's leave aside for now whether Barr's conclusion accurately summarizes Mueller's findings. Even Barr's summary establishes that the Mueller found that Russians did engage in illegal election meddling something Trump has not accepted as true. The summary also does not refute evidence that Trump and his minions (1) met with Russians offering the info and failed to report these efforts to the FBI. This may not be a crime, but didn't he have a moral obligation to reveal this Russian efforts?
3
Democracy, American values and the rule of law is at a great peril.
The bar has just been lowered another few notches.
4
Sorry, but I think our "hero" Mueller blinked. After two years of investigation, and without having interviewed Trump or Donny or Jared, two weeks Barr is confirmed he decides no collusion and cannot make a decision on obstruction. I want to hear him testify.
3
Chief Justice Roberts famously asserted that there is "no such thing as Obama's judges or Trump judges", meaning that evidence and sources show only one absolute truth that cannot be twisted into something else by the evaluator.
He was wrong. Only Obama judges and Trump judges exist. I fear that Barr belongs to the latter group. Just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and changes and what is considered great art varies with the times, so what is criminal varies with the observer; the judge is the most important determinant of the verdict. Not the "Mueller Report" cleared Trump of criminal charges but the "Barr-Interpreted-Mueller-Report" did. This is why original sources are absolutely necessary for the historian to arrive as a convincing narrative of what really happened and why. The only way for the Mueller Report to have validity is for the report itself to be revealed so that people can see for themselves what is suggested and what seems to be the truth. Why not give the entire report to both houses of Congress and have them--as the voice of the people--decide if anything criminal took place.
3
Is "exoneration" a legal term? Because, what legal status does Barr's slipshod announcement have? None, as far as I can tell.
3
Since one of the great difficulties here seems to be establishing intent, we might as well ask: What was Donald Trump's "intent" in running for president in the first place?
Everything I have read and heard on that issue informs us that it was not to win. I don't suppose running for office under false pretenses is a "crime" either.
What. A. Mess.
2
In the USA when the President tells an FBI Director to drop a case against one of his friends and the Director refuses to do as the President wishes, it is perfectly OK for the President to fire the Director. In America, the will of the President is above any law, rule or regulation.
In America, as in any other banana republic, the tyrant cannot obstruct the law. Apparently.
5
No collusion?
Uh, let's see. " Russia, if you're listening... "
Now, if there was no collusion then why would there be obstruction? If you obstruct to hide collusion and there is no collusion, then why is there still obstruction?
2
If there's nothing to hide, no wrongdoing, then Barr should be happy to release the entire report (classified parts redacted). If he's not releasing it, it's because there's something that he and Trump don't want known.
It's time for some brave soul who has access to the report to leak it to the media. He/she will be prosecuted and sent to prison, but the next president will pardon him/her.
6
"Obstruction cases are notoriously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because prosecutors have to prove that the defendant was acting with a corrupt intent, and the evidence is often ambiguous."
Trump should have been forced to answer questions by the special counsel. Bill Clinton was threatened with a subpoena to testify about an affair. This case is about foreign interference in our elections and obstruction of justice by the president, which is much more serious.
The fact that Trump didn't have to answer questions under oath is outrageous.
7
No collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia?
There may not have been a conspiracy, with actors meeting on a bridge in Warsaw or Vienna on noon a cold, foggy night (as per the plots of espionage thrillers) but this wasn't necessary.
With all of Trump's Tweets and public statements in support of Putin, requests for Russian interference and involvement were express and implied. This was collusion in plain sight!
3
An innocent president would have shrugged his shoulders and said calmly, "Investigate away. We have nothing to hide and support efforts to ensure that laws are followed" and then gone on about the business of governing.
A guilty president would obsess about the investigation, lie repeatedly about events being investigated, and hurl insults at the investigators and seek to undermine and disparage US agencies which seek to ensure that laws are followed. And this is exactly what Trump did.
The president of the United States is, very simply put, not a trustworthy person (and neither is Barr).
How utterly depressing.
5
“Then, Attorney General William P. Barr, a political appointee whom Mr. Trump installed less than a month ago and who began reading Mr. Mueller’s report on Friday, stepped in. With the concurrence of his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, Mr. Barr seized the opportunity to render a judgment — pronouncing Mr. Trump clear of committing any criminal offense.”
No one would accuse me of cutting Trump any slack (I think he’s a deeply corrupt mendacious grifter) but those jumping to conclusion about AG Barr would do well to reread the above. It clearly states that the decision was made in concurrence with deputy Rosenstein. So it appears to be an informed decision since the deputy AG has been part of this investigation all along. That doesn’t mean I would agree with it, only that the rush to conclusions is happening on all sides of this contentious report and there is much unknown so far.
Time to take a breath, this ain’t even close to being over and the Democrats would do well to stop taking Trumps Twitter bait. If they put too many eggs in the Mueller basket, than that was careless of them. Trumps corruption is a much rounder thing and extends far beyond his campaigns clumsy interactions with the Russians. The opposition to Trump needs to be smarter than this if the truth is to come out.
2
Terrible terrible optics. After two years of both sides swearing confidence in Mr. Mueller's ability to make a decision, he made no decision on obstruction and punted to a political appointee who he knew very well had already decided.
Mr. Trump and the nation deserved a real decision by Mr. Mueller. The decision on conspiracy sounds legally correct to me; the decision on obstruction seems procedurally flawed and will not assist either Mr. Trump or the nation in moving forward.
2
If Mueller could not vindicate Trump in two years, Barr did it in one single night? Barr opined in 2018 that presidents are above the law. Let’s see how hard Mr. Barr tries to suppress the Report from public scrutiny of his remarkably hasty decision.
65
@gene c - What we’ve since learned is that Mueller told DOJ weeks ago he’d made no determination on obstruction. Thus, Barr began his analysis weeks ago. Hopefully the whole report will be released so, as the story points out, we can learn the ratio of Mueller/Barr on the decision.
2
Your comment has no merit. There was no evidence of collusion or obstruction. Time to move on. This is America and you are innocent until proven guilty. Two years of intense investigation by a storied investigator with a Democrat laden legal team is enough for me and meets the legal standard.
1
Here we go again. The fevered dream of Trump - Russia collusion has crumbled into dust. But as expected, there is no introspection or apology from the NYT and the DNC astroturfers swarming the comments section. After two years of Russia, Russia, Russia and Putin, Putin, Putin, now the new drumbeat is obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. The geniuses here struggle though with how is is possible to obstruct justice with no underlying crime committed. That's never been the point though. The point has always been to overturn the last election, or to delegitimize the choice of half the country. What a bunch of sore losers.
12
@Fred Rick Why would one be "introspective" about obstruction of justice and Trump not being exonerated? There is a famous verdict in past and present Scottish law of "not proven," as well as guilty or not guilty. That is what Mueller said and which Barr quoted. We need to see the whole report. We cannot rely on the party pris Barr's summary. He wrote a long memo basically saying Trump was above the law as president -- we are not an absolute monarchy. We elected people and they are responsible to us, not vie versa. ALSO, why was the Trump Tower meeting with Russians promising to interfere with a US election not reported to the FBI? That is what a normal law abiding citizen should do? No excuses. Collusion is not the issue re. Trump. I accept he was not directly connected but his minions wanted to collude! Just look at what they said at the time!
2
@Fred Rick....It isn't about winners and losers, but rather about how Russia interfered with the election.
2
And other geniuses struggle with the fact that obstruction of justice is a crime in and of itself, it would appear.
If you think that’s wrong, try lying to a DA for yourself.
3
It is really hard to sit on my hands and keep them from typing outrageous comments on Barr's "verdict" made before the report created ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC is even made public. How much longer do "We the People" have to put up with the travesty of every single thing decent about democracy and, though I am not a believer, every single thing decent about Christianity, too!
19
Why charging obstruction of justice matters: Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, it has to bother you the way Trump constantly attacked the reputation of the FBI (law enforcement have always been seen as pro-Republican), James Comey (a Republican for most of his life), Jeff Sessions (a Trump appointee), Rod Rosenstein (another Republican) and virtually all instruments of law and order. Barr's stated position that Trump cannot be accused of obstruction of justice simply because he is the President should not be acceptable to any American. How many Republicans would accept Trump's conduct if it came from a Democrat?
54
@Bill in order for there to be obstruction there must be a crime. The manner in which he treated the former Dir FBI, AG and the FBI itself may be crude but it's not criminal.
The treatment being given to Mueller is reminiscent of the Comey treatment after his HRC statements going from the second coming of the devil to sainthood. Here Muller did not provide the desired results so this savior of the Republic will now be thrown on to the dust pile of history.
For two years every Democrat and many Republicans said let the man finish his investigation … even to questioning at senatorial hearings … well the investigation is over there are findings because you don't like the findings does not invalidate them. As a Nation built on laws it's time to end the omnipresent investigations and get on with the work for the people. They may want to start with high pharma prices and work down from there.
Does it not equally bother you that the FBI and DOJ appeared to be patently biased against a Presidential candidate and a sitting US President? Your position is troubling to me.
Phew. I thought the Democrats really blew it with their overzealous support for Mueller, but now that Barr has overstepped, all the heat is back on the GOP. Now the Dems can demand the full release of the report without looking political. Barr just threw the Dems a huge bone, let's see if they will capitalize.
32
@Al hey Al this isn't a game you're talking about the future of the Republic … your children and grandchildren's lives. If you don't like the guy that much get a bunch of your friends to vote him out in 2020 that's how the Republic works.
1
@Al
And it is possible that Barr himself is provably guilty of obstruction of justice.
Unlike his master, Trump, he is not above the law.
2
Absent the complete report itself, would it not make sense for Rep. Nadler to subpoena
Mr. Mueller himself to explain how he reached his conclusions—and how much “editing”
of the report AG Barr is responsible for?
22
@Donald Worrell yes, now that Barr has punted, Nadler will subpeona Mueller and anyone else. He said so.
3
"The outcome was a victory for Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who initially pushed the president to cooperate with the investigation but later kept him from sitting down to talk with Mr. Mueller’s investigators about what he had been thinking when he took steps that potentially affected the inquiry."
Imagine if they did have him sit down and talk. They would've twisted him into a pretzel under oath. "So Mr. Trump tell us about Stormy. Did you come up with that fake university idea on your own? Ever go to any good Russian mafia parties with Felix Sater? Any tapes? How did you unload that Florida home that had been sitting so long for 25 times its worth to that Russian oligarch?" They would have made him so hot under the collar there's no telling what he might have said.
28
President Trump should sue the main stream media for slander for reporting Trump-Russia collusion for two years when there was none.
4
I agree. And the “Central Park Five” should sue Trump for slander after he put out a full page ad calling for the death penalty for these wrongly charged young men and then never apologized after they were all proven innocent.
3
@P McGrath We still don't know whether there was collusion or not. Collusion was always going to be a tough thing to legally prove. All we know is that Mueller didn't find enough evidence to clear that bar. It doesn't make trump any less corrupt, nor does it erase his possible criminality.
2
@P McGrath...First you need to define collusion.
1
The fix is in.
13
There is still a whiff about this.
12
How I read this is since they can’t prove intent then Trumps actions are in a grey area. Bars position was not enough to pursue.
I guess we will see what congress does when or if they get Muellers’ report.
More drama I presume.
3
Imagine, Barr threw the United States of America under a bus.Wow. All for the position he holds. Contemptible.
28
Russian agenda:
1. Undermine the US Presidency. (check)
2. Undermine the US political process. (check)
3. Embellish the propaganda (manipulate US social media, CIA cause of aids, etc). (check)
4. Undermine the US Democratic process. (check)
5. Gain control over the Justice Department (check, little bit to go though)
6. Gain control over the GOP. (working, should be completed end of 2019)
7. Sow discord. (check)
8. Merge the GRU with the NRA. (check)
9. Remove criticism/Democratic Party. (working)
10. Install puppet leadership. (almost finished, check)
I’d say Putin’s plan is just about completed.
46
@PC
11. Continue making the USA the laughing stock of the world (check)
1
Barr is Trump's John Mitchell. Job? Protect Trump.
15
Who does Barr work for, the American citizens or Donald Trump?
14
@AV Donald Trump. If you this otherwise, just ask Trump.
1
Mr. Mueller—
You need to finally start talking. Your country is depending on you.
Were you pressured by an obviously biased Attorney General Barr to not reach a decision on obstruction of justice, after nearly two years of investigation, while your country waited patiently?
It’s time to speak up, Mr. Mueller. You’re no longer employed by the Department of Justice and you no longer report to the Department of Justice.
33
@srwdm Don't hold your breath. Barr and Mueller have been close friends for a long time.
1
Too funny!
There was and still is far more actual evidence against hilllary yet lynch and Comey let it slide with Obama’s blessing.
Democrats are such hypocrites
6
Hillary Clinton has been investigated (and cleared) on multiple occasions by a mostly conservative FBI. Further, why are you not criticizing George W Bush, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump for committing the same offense on a grander scale? Willful ignorance at its best (or worst). Unfortunate.
3
@William Rodham Your hypocritical bias is noted.
4
We don't know any more today than we knew a week ago. We only have what Mr. Barr (and, indirectly, Mr. Rosenstein) TOLD us. Only "the faithful" will consider that to be "knowing." And remember: This kind of widespread, confused uncertainty is Mr. Trump's comfort zone.
As the dust settles this week, I think Mueller's report is unlikely to resolve anything unless it's made fully public. If it's not made fully public, that secrecy will only fuel more paranoia/anger on the Left (reasonably, IMO), which in turn will only fuel more paranoia/anger on the Right (inevitably, IMO). Yes, things CAN get much worse than they've been. Easily.
12
The NY Times is pushing a consistent false narrative with its headlines, implying that Barr is the sole actor and that - because he was appointed on Trump's watch - that his decisions are tainted.
But the Times is well aware of the fact thyat Rod Rosenstein and others were involved with the review, and that Rosenstein - as well -as Barr - determined that no obstruction charge is warranted.
Game over.
Except at the Times, where the game of misleading its readers continnues unabated.
Anything, but admit that they've been wrong since day one.
12
I don’t trust Barr at all. We all should have the opportunity to read the report, also obstruction is a crime, corruption is a crime. It seems the Barr already made his mind about the obstruction even before he was nominated DOJ. Now Congress has the duty to investigate and punish all the corrupters .
20
well first, mighty pen-holding journalists, admit the collusion was a fantasy?
after two years of intense investigation (and two years of media frenzy and confidence of his guilt), there is no evidence of colluding with Russia. none, apparently. This is Mueller's conclusion, not Barr.
if no underlying crime, no obstruction by definition.
spin all you want, but dems da facts. reality is hard to accept, when it differs from our wishes.
reject reality, or accept it? in the interest of intellectual honesty, let's admit we were wrong, eh
5
First of all, obstruction is a crime even with no underlying crime.
And second, an investigation that concludes there was no crime committed is not therefore a fantasy. It is a legitimate effort to find the truth which the Mueller investigation has done.
1
@Joe Yoh....well first, mighty pen-holding journalists, admit the collusion was a fantasy? ....Do you dispute any of the following? Members of the Trump campaign met with a Russian operative because the operative said they had dirt on Clinton. Manafort as campaign manager gave Republican polling data to a Ukrainian oligarch with close ties to Putin. Stone reported to Trump on his conversation with Wikileaks. Kushner tried to establish back door communications with Russia. Flynn lied about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Now in the interest of intellectual honesty can you provide an innocent explanation?
4
After being “cleared” by Barr, it seems to me that Trump’s comments on Russian interactions during the campaign, his decision to side with Putin over his own intel agencies, and his actions to keep Putin meeting notes unavailable to even other branches of congress loom larger than ever. Surely, the NYT will keep questioning the Administration about this because it strikes me as particularly abnormal.
17
The non-obstruction (Mueller finished his report without interference) of the non-crime (no collusion) just isn't politically viable even if it was legally a close call.
This is where the political sphere works against you. It will look mean spirited and politically motivated to continue, but I invite the Democrats to go down that path if they wish to further damage their chances in 2020.
Normal people have investigation fatigue, but they are still watching. Time to put this chapter behind us.
4
Mueller's investigation finds plumes of smoke, beds of glowing embers, and firetrucks with hoses dripping water, but cannot conclude, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was a fire burning. Granted the legal bar must be set very high for a sitting president, but the bar of credulity was reached long ago.
19
Mr Mueller was asked to find the facts behind a simple question and determine if it broke any laws. Apparently, no laws were broken. There may or may not be more to come in other jurisdictions, but Godot shouldn't be expected to arrive.
Now back to politics, where it has pretty much always been.
As the 2020 campaign begins in earnest, it is time to vet this candidate, the president, like he was shamefully not vetted the first time around. In addition to what most of us already knew but shamelessly not pursued, there is much more information and on-the-job performance to evaluate him, his ethics, and his conduct.
He squeaked to a win in 2016 without a popular mandate. He is no longer a reality show celebrity but a known danger to democracy.
19
@a p right on!
2
In times like these it is comforting, and illuminating, to recall time worn platitudes.
No doubt AG Barr is a brilliant artorney, I believe dedicated to the rule of law. But in his HASTE to dismiss charges of obstruction of justice against Trump, he has made WASTE of the simple logic that obstruction in this case need not be tied to an underlying crime.
To understand this issue we must refer to the philosopher Descartes and his first rule of logic: never put Descartes before de horse.”
Barr notes that the nonexistence of a crime goes to President’s intent, and although not dispositive, did figure in Barr’s decision. This is a gross breach of logic. The person who obstructs justice does not know whether he will be charged with a crime. The best publicly known example of such possible obstruction was Trump’s Air Force One note excusing Don Jr. for attending a meeting with Russians bearing complaints about “Russian adoptions.”
What Trump knew, but did not know was about to be revealed to everyone, was that Don Jr. was going to a meeting where he “loved” potential Hillary dirt coming from the Russian government, and that the price was to support sanctions relief. I believe that the Trump‘s obstructive excuse was grounded in a “guilty conscience “ and not a legal opinion that the meeting was perfectly legal.
That Mueller and Barr have today declined to charge Trump with obstruction does not mean Trump had not tried to obstruct a different judgement call.
9
@Asher Fried...Barr has made the point that the President appoints the Attorney General to run the Justice Department on his behalf. It follows that the President is the de facto head of the Justice Department and therefore the President cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because he cannot be guilty of obstructing his own instructions. Or put another way, if the President says his Justice Department is pursuing a witch hunt, than by definition his Justice Department is pursuing a witch hunt; and saying it is a witch hunt cannot be considered an obstruction.
1
To say this another way, in Barr’s circular illogic, is that a president is above the law, because he is the law. I thought the USA got rid of that ‘divine right of kings’ policy around 1776? No?
1
"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
This was Trump's statement in 2016 (see the story at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html
I fail to see why now that Mueller's report has been released anyone should have any illusions about Trump's morality or role in this. He encouraged Russia to commit these illegal actions back in 2016 so it should be no surprise that there was a Special Counsel appointed to investigate if actual collusion happened.
Even if it did not that doesn't mean that Trump is blameless here. He encouraged the Russians to find the e-mails and they did just that and helped him get elected in the process. His goal as well as theirs.
16
@Gabriel Tunco
Those 30k emails were never found as Hillary had them deleted and the drives bleached while they were under subpoena. Much clearer evidence of obstruction of Justice.
1
Clinton’s emails were deleted with the knowledge of the investigators. If there was a wrongful deletion of those emails Clinton would have been charged with destruction of evidence, and Clinton was not investigated or charged with destruction of evidence.
1
How frustrating this whole episode is. For heaven's sake we just want the full report!!! And before we move on to the pressing issues at hand (low wages, inadequate health coverage, filthy-dirty swamp, revolving door lobbyists and so much misconduct), I think that we the people should decide whether we want skimmed milk-report rationalization, 2% milk-report interpretation or lactose-free milk-report supposition.
8
Barr will never release Mr. Mueller's report. The Supreme Court will defer to Trump in keeping the report confidential. This means, unless the report is leaked, many of us alive today will never know what evidence Mr. Mueller has uncovered.
So where does that leave us now -- the 60% of us who are sickened by what Trump and his voters have done to this country? The choices are simple - but the execution will be extremely painful in either event. We either leave the U.S., or take steps to partition the country.
I have cousins who fled Iran when Khomeini seized power. They were upper middle class people and had the means to do so. They knew that living under the Shah was no picnic, but living under Khomeini would be much worse.
Those of us with means will do so. We cannot afford not to. If we stay, we risk losing everything, including most importantly, our children's future. This regime will not end peacefully. Why do I say this? Because no totalitarian regime ever does. And Trump's will be no exception.
I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail and come to an agreed upon solution that will partition the U.S. Trump voters will never change. But the rest of us do not want to live under a dictator who is dismantling our rights, piece by piece. We are sickened that our nation is turning into a racist Republic of Gilead, and we are powerless to stop it, even though we are the majority.
Two very difficult choices. But they must be made.
16
@Kirth Gerson As an Iranian-American, who like your cousins, fled Iran when Khomeini came to power, I completely agree with your comment. Sadly, I see a lot of parallels between what has occurred in Iran under its toletarian regime and what's happening today in the United States under trump's authoritarian administration, with the help of his highly partisan & power-hungry GOP.
3
@Kirth Gerson Mueller never had the slightest interest in investigating Trump's criminality, refused to demand a Trump interview and refused to interview Jared, Ivanka or Don Jr—all central players.
The report is a fraud and its author is a crook. Period.
1
That's what Barr was hired to do. It is absurd to complain now, because it was expected, by everyone.
5
Ah, the difference a day and a headline (or two) make.
NYT March 24: "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy But Stops Short of Exonerating President on Conspiracy"
NYT March 25: "Barr Goes Beyond Mueller In Clearing Trump on Obstruction, Drawing Scrutiny"
Unfortunate that the "scrutiny" didn't precede that initial and truly misleading headline, blared across the front page of the morning paper? All the more reason why the Congress and the people of the United States should be able to read the morphing Mueller report for themselves and draw their own conclusions about what's happening here.
5
It looked to me that the reason why dt was obstructing justice was not because of collusion, but because Russia had things to hold over him. Maybe those things didn't include proof that he conspired on the election. Still, why Helsinki, why Lester Holt interview, why Kushner with dozens of disclosure re-do's, why Stone under indictment, why inadvertent release that Assange would be indicted, . . . ???
7
How can a criminal hire the judge that’s determining whether that criminal has committed a crime? That alone is obstruction of justice, directly related to this case. Whatever results, Trump is still a liar, a fraud, and a racist, just as Bernie said. Whatever Mueller and Barr say, it doesn’t change those facts.
9
Did Mueller just spend nearly two years to write an "I don't know." report?
10
Yes please, NYT, go with this. Encourage the Democrats to run on the "report didn't prove there was no obstruction" platform in 2020.
3
Mueller could not reach a conclusion on the issue of obstruction of justice? I would ask why not? He was touted as one of the most skilled lawyers/investigators in the country?
Did he need more time? Did he need to interview more people?
What was the rush to finish?
I am not a lawyer but do most prosecutors go into court without having prepared ALL their case? Would they go before a judge with a 'maybe'? I do not understand this.
Seems to me this punt has just prolonged the indecision.
Furthermore, what were the special counsel's findings beyond social media trolling of the Russians? Any evidence of any other type of 'interference'?
The country still has no relief from this nightmare. We now have a POTUS bent on vengeance and hatred just chomping at the bit for payback. If the GOP never will accept HRC was NOT found indictable, why should the Democrats be satisfied with this conclusion? We had 8 Benghazi hearings. Do the Democrats get 7 more?
See, we are in a cycle of horrible partisan divide and Trump is certainly not letting up. He plans to punish the 'evil' people!
When will this ever end?
Most certainly, Putin is pleased. On to 2020 with the bots!
11
@Elizabeth The Dems never HAD any "hearings", not one. What we had was a complete botch of an "investigation" into shady things done in plain sight, on video, written into the official records via tweets, corroborated by statements from people like Comey and other insiders both in the admin, pritvate individuals, and in other parts in government. Mostly we have endless records of Cadet Bone Spurs ranting about WHY I FIRED COMEY, RUSSIA IF YOU ARE LISTENING, NO INTERPRETERS ALLOWED WHILE I TALK TO PUTIN ALONE--- We have all this, we heard it, read it, saw it. Yet a bunch of Republicans--- Mueller, Rosenstien, Barr--- have "delivered" something that may well contradict EVERYTHING we know we saw, heard, read. Why??? Who or what is being held over ALL THESE PEOPLE???
This is Dictator 101. And it is up to us to stop it.
1
@Elizabeth Republican Robert Mueller was put in place to deny justice, not enforce it. This is our system at work.
1
Mueller’s big mistake is that he did not get Trump’s in person testimony under oath. And why he did not, is beyond me. Every set of jury instructions contains the instruction that the credibility of the witness is at issue. One of the elemental factors of credibility is assessing the demeanor of the witness while the witness is testifying. And that demeanor is evidence the finder of fact can consider. Without in person testimony Mueller did not get the demeanor of the witness as a factor in assessing whether Trump obstructed the investigation. Given Trump’s well established propensity to prefabricate I strongly suspect he would not have decided to ‘punt’ the decision about criminal obstruction to Trump’s political appointee Barr. If Trump had testified it would undoubtedly have been video-recorded and we would all eventually have seen it. And wouldn’t that have been a sight to see?
All Mueller got was written answers to questions. Any person with a passing familiarity with litigation knows that the attorneys prepare the answer to the written questions (interrogatories) for the witness. And those responses are crafted for the witness to be ambiguous and say as little as possible. I look forward to reading Tump’s responses to Mueller’s questions, but those responses are no substitute for live testimony.
1
We all know why Trump chose Barr just as why he chose Kavenaugh and others. I picks people who will protect him.
Until we see the FULL REPORT and perhaps Mueller himself speaks to House committees, I view Barr's "additions" to be for the exclusive benefit of Trump not of the American people.
Mueller's express comments on this matter made it clear that in Mueller's eyes and those of his investigation Trump is NOT exonerated from obstruction.
So where does Barr get this?
http://joethevoter.org
9
People who complain about ongoing investigations by the Democrats in Congress need to look at the critics, and remember that the Republican controlled Congress who should have been looking into the issues the Democrats are now doing, gave Trump a free pass for the two years they were in control; the Democrats are doing their Congressional responsibility of oversight.
What I find most troubling is just what Lindsey Graham said, who just finished playing golf with Trump, and has now become his closest buddy now that John McCain is not around anymore; Lindsey said that since Robert Mueller couldn't clear Donald Trump, he left it up to William Barr to clear Trump.
It was an odd statement by Graham, since it is not up to William Barr to exoneration Trump, this matter is far from over, there are many matters of corruption, emoluments violations, illegal payoffs of porn star, National Enquirer involvement, meetings in Trump tower and ongoing business for Trump Tower in Russia, the lying and criminal activity which is now being investigated by the Southern District of New York...….far from over, and far from innocent.
9
I sure wish there was as much pressure for Eric Holder to find someone in the CIA/NSA Bush Administration for torture.
Or how about the destroying of our economy by the Wall Street Gangsters that wiped out our economy and tax payers had to bail them out....
Or how about lying America into a war? No investigation there either!
Or how about how the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary?
Oh wait, all three of those threaten the establishment... sorry, my bad.
2
The argument that there was obstruction of an investigation into a crime that wasn’t committed is the height of red tape stupidity. Move on.
2
Unless the obstruction was successful so that the evidence of conspiracy with Russians could not be obtained.
1
Why has Mueller left the issue of obstruction of justice to the Attorney General ? Is the Attorney General legally competent to judge the issue ? These questions need to be considered in the matter for better understanding.
5
Letting this rest with Barr's conclusions is like letting a single judge determine guilt or innocence and then promptly sealing the court record to avoid any oversight. In a system of checks and balances, it is imperative that, at the very least, the legislative branch be allowed to see Mueller's report. The fear of Trump's tirades and shrieks of political partisanship should not stand in the way of this.
20
The only way out of this rank politicization of this bad affair is a statement by Robert Mueller rebutting the Attorney General’s letter. Perhaps he is waiting to see how much of his work will be made available to the public.
I understand that lawyers do not publicly rebuke their superiors or run afoul of the strict limits of their mission. But given the broad public interest in this case and its ancillary matters attaching to the current administration, perhaps Mr. Mueller can be motivated by pure patriotism to break with traditional arrangements.
Attorney General William Barr has, on its very face, overturned the report to clear this untrustworthy president of obstruction of justice, a president who clearly has conducted his office in such a manner so as to bring discredit upon his ofiice, especially in the manner in which he has publicly boasted of his affection for Vladimir Putin and for governing outside the box.
General Barr has forfeited the good will and trust of the American people in much the same vein as has his president.
27
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Agree wholeheartedly with Red Sox. Well said.
6
Trump's advisers knew what they were doing when they recommended that he appoint William Barr to be the Attorney General--he believes that the presidency should not be challenged by Congress because it holds greater power.
Mr. Barr is a religious extremist who called for imposition of “God’s law” in America during a speech on Oct. 6th, 1992 in Washington, D.C. to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights--a supposedly "traditionalist" Catholic group.
In his previous tenure as Attorney General for George Walker Bush, he spoke out to blame secularism for a moral decline in America, and called for "American law to be based on 'God's law". In fact he repeatedly attacked Americans who value a secular government. The degree of his zealotry is dangerous to all.
So his announcement that Trump has been exonerated is clearly dubious, and the American public must demand to have access to Robert Mueller's report.
13
It’s only contentious because the media makes it contentious. Just stop already. Give it up. I’ve read enough cocackmie conspiracy theories to last a lifetime. Report the news, please.
4
Some of us can read.
Release the report.
22
Regardless of what Müller and Barr conclude, we still have two glaring issues. First, we have an illegitimate president who is elected by the minority, and aided by the interference of a foreign adversary in our elections. Second, we have a president who lies and distorts truth, belittles and insults his perceived enemies, displays demeanor and uses language like a playground bully on a daily basis. Is this what is representative of us, and what is a good role model for our children?
14
@Dodurgali yes, agree, thank you.
I am sure if it were you or I being investigated, we would have been indicted for a host of things - likely spelled out in Mueller’s report that we will never see.
6
having followed this whole 22 month drama from afar/superficially, the conclusion seems it was a massive, expensive and distracting witch hunt. Liberals are going to pay for this in the 2020 pres elections
2
I have no idea why this is the least bit suprising; of course the administration of lies would lie about this as well.
6
Please could we all agree to refer to the Barr letter as "The Barr Summary," NOT as "The Mueller Report"? The two are not the same.
11
How do Americans verify Barr's interpretation, that is was it is, is acceptable. Top Democrats need to see the report or a cloud of legitimatize will always hand over the White House..How do we know Barrs isn't using unreasonably his standards for collisions. What facts lead his to not completely exonerates Trump. People with Inquiring minds need to know.
4
The Mueller report should speak for itself, and the American people should be able to read it.
4
You lie with dogs you get fleas.
Barr will not be spared just as all the others who have had their careers , reputations and lives forever tarnished by their association with Trump. Barr will be forever known as the AG who accepted Trump's assault on the justice system as without "criminal intent".
10
Here come the subpoenas... here comes the entire Mueller Report. This is not a bad thing, IMHO...
2
The investigation is over. After two years of banging heads against walls and screaming, wasted time, money, and effort just accept the results of the investigation. If he was truly guilty we'd know it by now. you can't just make up charges and have them be true. Accept the results of our democratic election, this is all bad for our country.
2
Give it up. The subversive effort to overturn a legitimate election is over, and it has failed. You (the NYT) have succeeded only in assuring Donald Trump's re-election. The only remaining steps are to identify the sources behind this un-American travesty. Don't kid yourselves. The genesis of this mess will be rooted out.
1
@JRDIII. What was subversive? The Mueller investigation was openly authorized by Department of Justice leadership who happened to be Republicans. Russia interfered with the 2016 election and Trump’s relatives and staff had numerous contacts with Russians during the campaign. Don’t you think the American people deserved an investigation to assure us that the campaign wasn’t conspiring with the Russians?
4
If the public is not allowed to see the report minus national security issues and grand jury reports our country as we know it, is doomed, gone, disappeared, shot!
I have lived a long life and never in a billion years could i believe this would happen so quickly and thoroughly. It is truly a nightmare and one that will take untold years not only to find a solution, but to heal.
5
How else will he keep his job?
3
Barr's summary concludes he is part of a cover up.
4
Mr. Barr has now played a role in American history that will forever place an asterisk next to his name. Defending a criminal to the detriment of the nation is a bad look,
4
Schmidt and Savage are entitled to their very private opinions. There is no "news" here, only opinion.
1
Mueller was a subordinate DOJ attorney with impeccable bona fides appointed and tasked to investigate specific things.
He was universally lauded.
The public outcry over removing him, or even Acting AG / Deputy AG Rosenstein, was universal and clamorous.
Now, Mueller and Rosenstein (who delayed his retirement) have completed the investigation. Mueller informed his superiors that he could not file charges against 45 or anyone else for obstruction.
His superiors, Rosensein and Barr (who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate https://nyti.ms/2EaackV , with his own bona fides and record) were left to make a decision.
Barr is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the USA, he acted according to the law.
Persons who do not have charges after an investigation are normally not even identified by the DOJ, now the Dems not only want 45 and all the innocent ID'd, they want all the investigative materials dug up about the innocent.
How fundamentally wrong and unfair.
The AG should not set a precedent by eviscerating innocent people after an investigation.
The Dems did not get their end, so now they will use any means necessary to get it.
BTW, the AG is subject to impeachment, if the House thinks he has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, impeach him.
4
Mueller did not exonerate 45 from obstruction charges. Mueller “punted” and left the decision up to 45’s political appointee Barr. It took Barr just over one day, to digest a report that encompassed a two year investigation, and not to charge 45 with obstruction. This, from Barr, who before he received his political appointment wrote an opinion that a president could not be charged with obstruction. It appears that Barr believes that a president is above the law. I mistakenly thought that the USA was beyond the concept of the “Divine Right of Kings”. In so acting Barr shows his fealty to 45, just as all the cabinet members did months ago.
@A Citizen.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you have not gotten the latest news.
Barr was informed weeks ago by Mueller that he was not going to recommend obstruction charges.
The final report only confirmed that.
Barr was notified over 21 days ago that this was going to happen. He and the DOJ were all surprised by Muellers action.
Barr consulted internally and got a consensus from all his internal DOJ career employees.
Including Rosenstein.
Facts matter.
1
John Mitchell Nixon’s AG was complicit in the Waterfate cover up
is Barr that arogant or just plain ignorant?either way there is historical precedent for Barr’s going to jail if he is seen as legally misbehaving
That’s what it looks like- he should get himself a good defense lawyer
4
Here come the subpoenas. Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller will be forced to testify before Congress.
1
This would be comical if it was not so sad. As I understand it, the report laid out information, but did not make any recommendations, which were left To Mr. Barr.
You mean the man who said a sitting president can't be indicted, and went further to state that the president can manage any investigation (even one of himself) as he see's fit, effectively making him his own judge and jury? as if all of this was not enough, Mr. Barr then chose not to recuse himself.
This has zero to do with Mr. Trump's guilt or innocence. It is a question of whether or not we want to be a country of laws or men.
Is it possible initiating this process was somewhat politically motivated? Sure. Is it also possible crimes and impeachable offenses were committed by Mr. Trump? Yes to that as well.
Regardless, release the report in full, immediately. Anything else is a total farce.
231
@Bob Please; release the report. Barr made a judgement based on GOP/Trump bias. Barr wrote a position supporting Trump months ago; Biased much? Ray Sipe
24
@Bob
If Wm. Barr won't release the full report, without significant redactions that would cover up the president's guilt, Barr should be impeached & ousted.
This behavior of Barr is outrageous. It should not be tolerated. If democrats give in, just because Speaker Pelosi said impeachment (of President trump) is off the table, it should not be forever.
Even if impeaching would not lead to conviction, Democrats in the House have an obligation to the public to proceed with it, if warranted.
If the president is impeached out of vengeance, as Bill Clinton was, voters would punish Democrats. But if the president is impeached purely on principle, regardless of the immediate electoral outcomes, voters would eventually understand it and Democrats will then be rewarded. Actually, that's what Speaker Pelosi said, earlier.
5
Our democracy is being stolen and undermined by the likes of newly appointed Attorney General William Barr. Nothing less than complete publicity of the entire Mueller Report will convince me otherwise.
5
Those that wish to see Trump removed from office will rail agains Barr's interpretation of the Mueller report. Those that want Trump to prevails will use it as vindication. Politics as usually. I believe and I have no basis for this belief, that if the Mueller report found Trump guilty of high crimes against the United States, both sides would still believe or disbelieve what they concluded before the report was completed. We no longer debate and make conclusions, Americans pick a side and do not listen.
6
Mueller demurred from reaching a conclusion or making any recommendation on obstruction because
a) there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt (arguable)
b) the factual and legal issues were too complex for him to make a recommendation or reach a conclusion (absurd given the resources on his team)
c) he did not believe the special counsel could pursue criminal charges against a sitting President and that the only remedies were political; therefore his job was to set forth the facts and leave it to Congress decide whether to pursue impeachment and/or the public to vote him out of office (possible)
We need to see the report to answer this question and make sense of this weekend.
5
If mr. Barr had made a speech last summer extolling the virtues of a complete and honestly conducted inquiry as to whether or not the president of the United States had obstructed justice, because the reputation that our nation is dependent upon honesty, integrity and truthfulness.... do you think that he’d be the man poring over mr. Mueller’s findings this past weekend? I don’t believe so.
6
That is the AG’s job, just as it should have been the AG’s job, not Comey’s, to rule on the legality of Clinton’s private email system.
1
The checks and balances of our government by law are expressed explicitly in the laws and implicitly by practice. The President cannot be subject criminal nor civil actions and serve effectively. Nearly all of our Presidents have distanced themselves from such legal actions and our institutions avoid placing the President into exposure to them for the same reason. Trump is a dishonest man and if he is not convicted of a crime or compelled to settle as courts order, he will not honor agreements that he no longer likes and he will use Executive exceptions to act with impunity. If you do not stop Trump, he will take what he should not and do what he should not. He uses Presidential office as a license to act wrongfully.
2
Barr was put into the AG office for one thing only and that was to obstruct the Mueller Report from going public and to release his own version of the report that vindicates Trump. Most people aren’t buying the Trump/Barr version. If there is nothing to hide - PROVE IT. RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT. Let the people decide. Otherwise, Barr is just another Trump cog, put in place to aide and abet Trump’s agenda and self centered con job he is trying to pull on the American people. When people don’t trust the man or Trump and believes Barr is Attorney General for nefarious reasons only, they won’t believe his version or summary of this report. Release the entire report with redactions to protect future cases. Prove your skeptics wrong. Prove you have America’s best interest at heart and are not just another “Tool for Trump” and were hired just to do Trump’s bidding. Give us a reason to trust the AG office again, instead of helping Trump destroy the American people’s trust in their system of government. Release the Report.
5
Republican appointees always toe the line when needed. Why Barr's letter surprises anyone is beyond me. He stated his position last year. It's why he was appointed. And anyone looking to John Roberts for some sort of judicial restraint is dreaming. Just like Scalia rolling over in the 2000 election case. State's rights? Funny, that's funny.
So the fix is in just as McConnell, Barr and Trump designed it.
The 2020 vote was always going to be the only way to stop Trump. Hope the Dems focus on that rather than whine about this result. The report is in and they got curb stomped. Move on. Let the SDNY do the heavy lifting on the legal issues and focus on the election. Otherwise they'll lose again and the country cannot afford that.
1
I think, in a way, this is good news for Democrats.
I say this. because Democrats need to focus on their own value.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats have to win, not by being against Trump and the Right.
I think Democrats have to be for something, a new democracy.
In 1992, Leonard Cohen wrote a prophetic "Democracy" song.
He sang, "Democracy is coming...to the USA, over and over.
(Ironically, Leonard Cohen died one day after Trump won.)
Now, 27 years, later, Democrats can push democracy vs Trump.
Are Democrats ready to push back Trump's anti-democracy?
Time will tell, if Democrats win and if Cohen's prophesy happens.
I hope that Democrats will pick up this "Democracy song, now.
"Democracy is coming...to the USA"?
--------------------------------------------
2
Show us "the meat"! Why is the full unabridged report being hidden from the House, Senate and the American people? Is there a cover-up in the making? It doesn't look good.
3
Trump finally got what he wanted in the DoJ. If I understand correctly, Trump isn't guilty of obstruction of justice because Mueller didn't conclude there was sufficient evidence to indict on conspiracy charges. Trump clearly interfered in the investigation, fired personnel, intimidated witnesses, smeared the Special Counsel in tweets and speeches, generally behaved more like a crime boss than a president, but . . . if there was no conclusion of conspiracy, then I guess it's not obstruction???
Typical Trump. Off on a technicality. The only person who comes out of this without taint or stench is Robert Mueller. As Nancy Pelosi said, we paid for the document, let's see it, AG Barr.
2
As much of a distraction as the Mueller probe was for Repubs, the congressional robe will be just as distracting to the Dems. Instead of selling policies, they will be investigating and name calling. And sad to say... the voters are probably not going to pay too much attention. Unless there's a bombshell, it's over.
1
I used to fear for my country.
Now, I just fear my country.
6
Mueller just set a trap for Barr and Barr stepped in it.
History will not be kind to Mr. Barr.
1
Mueller did the right thing. Barr however has lost his perspective. Trump is an unusual leader in that he isn’t one and he lies constantly because his judgment is so poor that he’s always facing problems. Giving such a man discretion in high office just leads to more problems. Barr should have turned the problem of obstruction over to the Congress instead of terminating the matter to avoid disrupting the government. Allowing Trump impunity as he wrecks our institutions is inane.
2
I will be patient and see what else develops. I am frustrated by this outcome. Papadopoulos brags to an Australian ambassador that Russia promises to get intel on Secretary Clinton for 45's Presidential campaign. The Ambassador notifies the US Government. FBI starts looking for Russian cyber interference into the campaign. Retired MI6 agent Michael Steele develops a dossier and discovers 45 might be compromised by Russia. His information is given to the FBI and is added to the investigation. 45 is warned Michael Flynn has issues, bad. 45 hires Flynn and tells FBI Director Comey Flynn is a good guy, leave him alone. After a series of lies told by 45's staff, he says in an interview "the Russian thing" is why he fired Comey over Twitter. Then there is the offensive scene in Helsinki when 45 expresses more trust in Putin than the US National Security team. There is the Oval office scene with Russians Only allowed in. There are many other incidents. Mr. Mueller's declaration that "the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference" does not dissolve my doubts. 45 and his mob day after day repeatedly lied. As the Rev. Al Sharpton noted, "People do not lie about nothing. They lie about something." 45's difference to Russia and Putin and abuse and disrespect of our democratic institutions and traditions only increases my anger, fears, and suspicions. That most Americans do not care does not help.
3
We all know the fix is in, Trump obstructed justice in firing head of FBI Comey. Barr has also obstructed justice in his ridicules review of the case.
4
This does not “exonerate” Trump. He plays up to Russians because his business depends on them. That’s the issue. Technical “collusion” was a sidetrack.
1
The GOP will depict Barr as an heroic figure. Soon enough they’ll name an award for him.
Yes! Let’s name it after Chief Justice Roger Taney!
It’s like if Janet Reno wrote a summary and declared Clinton innocent and nothing to see and refused to release Starr report.
The Starr report was delivered to Congress.
Not sure why the Mueller report was not.
Oh yeah I know why, they are hiding what it contains.
4
Republicans put party first, even if headed by a total sleaze, rather than Constitution and rule of law first. This proves it.
2
Seems clear that the accumulated evidence should now move into the hands of the 'Prosecuting body/House of Representatives'. A formal inquiry begins with this report and other evidence already in hand, and yet be uncovered.
After inquiry proceedings a move by one or more committees to hold impeachment hearings.
Finally each Committee if they vote in favor of impeachment will take their particular, unique and different articles to the full house for more hearings and an up or down vote.
Only then will a full trial occur in the Senate.
Seems to me that sequential process will take many months
Can we just STOP with the Trump obsession. I didn't vote for him and wouldn't vote in a million years for him, but this is getting ridiculous. Taking a social media/media outlet break because of all this.
5
I am not interested in William Barr’s “National Enquirer” version of Mueller’s report. The American people deserve access to the full report and we will get it one way or another.
14
Is any of this a surprise? We knew Barr had an "allegiance" to Trump during his confirmation hearings. It was up to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to aggressively and boldly raise concerns at that point. They should have been screaming from the rooftops. But, this is typical of Democrats... they demonstrate weak leadership, and then complain later. It's too late... Democrats lost their opportunity... we are stuck with Barr.
4
@Tom. Have you forgotten that only in the House.do Democrats hold ANY power these fine days?? And all the screaming in the world in the Senate Chambers would have accomplished exactly nothing, since every Republican Senator is somehow aligned to Spanky's lodestar???
Do your homework. The House, the various federal courts, and the sundry state courts will have to do the heavy lift here. And now the House must also concern itself with an AG who may be compromised, as well.
Hold fast, House Dems. Hold fast.
Muller investigation was going at its pace for almost year and half under Jeff Sessions.
Then came Barr. Trump's political appointee who wrote a scathing memo about Muller investigation, and also quite close to Muller in terms of personal friendship.
Suddenly, Trump lawyers, Trump administration and his key allies were out on all channels spreading the rumors about how the Muller Report was due out any second. It was like tail wagging the dog. Their campaign, it appears, almost forced Muller to wrap it up as quickly as he can.
In the process, Trump got a free pass from testifying in person. His lawyers successfully convinced Muller team that because Trump has tendency to lie, they would rather answer the questions in writing. People should wonder if they can use the same excuse when they are caught committing a crime.
The most bizzare thing of all. What we have just witnessed is that an accused (Trump) conceded in front of national audience that he fired Comey because he would not drop the investigation. Yet, we have a judge (Barr) on his own concluding that Trump didn't commit crime.
This is beyond bizarre.
9
"With the concurrence of his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, Mr. Barr seized the opportunity to render a judgment — pronouncing Mr. Trump clear of committing any criminal offense."
Why did we waste almost two years to get this "verdict"? William Barr could have told us immediately that Trump was not guilty of anything. Granted there was a roundup of criminals in the Trump administration and five convictions with more to come, but Trump himself, as he claimed, was the victim of a witch hunt.
Well, not exactly, because despite the spin put on the Mueller report, what Mueller actually said was that the evidence for Trump's obstruction of justice is not conclusive enough to insure that he would be convicted of the crimes that we all saw in those tweets (let alone any pressure and threats we don't know about).
3
Just. Stop. It.
Trump did not commit collusion. Collusion with Russia was the purpose of the Special Council's task.
The longer the media and Democrats keep beating this dead horse, the longer actual governing and coherent opposition is delayed.
Give. It. Up.
Get to work.
2
@michael Too funny. We obviously have a very criminal individual sitting in the WH. If in investigating one crime, others are discovered, that doesn't mean they go without attention and consequences. Trump is guilty of many things and obstruction of justice is certainly one of them. And he has not been exonerated from it. Plus there are many other investigations on going in different states. It'd be different if this investigation really did have an impact on his 'governing' but he has never 'governed' from day one and will never 'govern.' He's been unfit from day one. America deserves a president. Not a criminal.
3
I keep hearing about Clinton , pizza gate, Barack not a citizen, so.... BTW there were other crimes committed with indictments, confessions and verdicts, so it’s not like his campaign and appointees did not commit crimes.
2
The fix is in. But the pendulum is still swinging.
3
Mueller punted. Barr was selected for a reason. He did what was expected. Why, he spent a whole day making that decision. What else would we expect from this administration? Noticed no mention of a tweet storm today...is T collapsed somewhere recovering, or building up thumb strength for his next assault?
Didn’t expect much from the Mueller report; the big issue with trump is trump. He’s very practiced at protecting himself; he uses other people to do the indictable dirty work. Let’s see what SDNY says... and get people out to VOTE in 2020.
3
Attorney General William Barr has only added to the rank smell emanating from the Trump Administration and the Republican Party.
Perusing the report of the Special Counsel then hurriedly drawing the conclusion that Trump did nothing to obstruct the investigation that would rise to a criminal offense, is offensive. And an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
5
Barr was selected for his unique opinion about presidential onbstruction. His pre-determined rush to judgment was exactly the obstruction Trump was hoping for
7
There is just so much left unanswered. Was Manafort a link that could have corroborated conspiracy with the Russians? Why so many Russians tied to the Trump campaign? What about Eric Prince's lies to congress, and Donald Jr's? Will those lies go unpunished? Stone clearly was in touch with Wikileaks/Russians and DT in touch with Stone. When the AG is uniformly described as having "auditioned" and as "hand-picked," there is a low level of confidence in what he says. The report needs to be released.
3
President Trump angrily announced to the world (and us) yesterday that the Mueller Russian Investigation Report was "A complete and total exoneration. It was a shame your President had to go through this". Attorney General William Barr gave us his own condensed version of Mueller's 2+ year investigation, pronouncing Trump clear of any criminal offense.
What about obstruction of justice? What about all the lawsuits in different judiciary courts pending against President Trump, his associates and his family in New York and other locations? What's next? Only heaven knows.
4
Trump, his lawyers and Fox have pushed against and squirmed around the nations boundaries. As divisive, manipulative children might.
As responsible adults, our fault has been to assume that we could trust and rely on the good faith of our leaders.
3
Trump's exoneration will prove to be a problem for the GOP because it will no longer have an escape hatch for its embrace of this awful human being. In short they are stuck with him. Good luck with that.
2
He didn’t need to “collude”
It was all nudge nudge wink wink.
Be nice to Russia and get loans and hotels in return.
Russia helps Donald get elected, get any sanctions lifted and reward him loans and hotels.
Nothing needs to be said.
All just business.
All understood.
Nudge nudge wink wink.
6
There seems to be collusion between the AG and the president. Something doesn't smell right. How can the AG receive a lengthy report that took 2 years to complete, resulted in dozens of very close associates of the president charged with serious crimes, and, within 24 hours, reduce it to a tidy summary that declares it a nothing burger? Let's let us see the report and see if we agree.
4
@TAL I agree. I think that was too quick an assessment. This all smells.
1
Under the guise of being a summary of Mueller's principal conclusions, Barr misleadingly included Barr's own unilateral hasty conclusions, judgement calls and actions included in the section titled "The Special Counsel's Report" and not in the section titled "Status of the Department's Review".
Moreover, Barr states no justification whatsoever to his conclusion that none of the President's actions, individually or collectively, constituted obstructive conduct, including;
-his firing of Comey and public comments about it
-his repeatedly calling the Mueller investigation a witch-hunt and hoax and associated threats
-his refusal to testify
-the promotion of Russian interests, the Russian contacts and the hiding of them
-his subsequent threats to go after those who initiated the investigation.
Aside from the Mueller report, Barr immediately needs to justify what in the Mueller report, if anything, led him to his conclusions and actions.
13
The Democrats have lost all sense of reality. Mueller did not "demurrer". Instead, he recognized the reality that if there was no underlying crime of collusion or conspiracy, then it will be very difficult to establish that Trump had "corrupt" intent. Also, when you take into account the fact that Trump is the chief executive law enforcement officer, it creates even more problems is making out an obstruction case. These issues are exactly what Bill Barr wrote about in his 15 page memo that he wrote last year before he was confirmed.
2
@johnny It's not about the "Democrats" why so partisan. That's cheap.
Trump was a criminal before he became President, is still one, and will remain one afterwards. He was unfit from day one.
You should want more from the President. He has done nothing to help America and instead we are heading in the wrong direction.
1
At the very least, Congress needs to clean up law about obstruction of justice when dealing with a POTUS. And a few other things, like emoluments, emergency/war powers, and violation of human rights and dignity by an administration's policies for people attempting to immigrate, even if not following our laws (ideal) but surely if following them (seeking asylum), .
And how about a law stating unequivocally that if a foreign government attempts to aid a campaign for ANY US office, at any level, the campaign MUST notify law enforcement?
I think we leave WAY too much unethical or dangerous behavior open for interpretation of illegality when the actor is a POTUS. There really is no good reason why impeachment should be 100% political. Some crimes should require automatic investigation, and removal from office if indictment and conviction results.
POTUSes shouldn't be able to pardon themselves.
By law, no POTUS should be able to touch any aspect of an investigation by the DOJ once it is underway, period. An independent panel including (an) Inspector Generals should be empowered to remove prosecuting or investigating personnel, only for incompetence or corruption.
While we're at it: Any bill passed by the House must get at least a vote by acclimation in the Senate, and vice versa (only takes a few minutes!). Presidents get to have SCJOTUS picks heard and voted on, up to their last day in office (election year or not).
Existing laws are never perfect.
2
We also need to learn whether Mr. Barr's arrival at DOJ led to the sudden wrap-up of the Mueller investigation even though some new avenues of inquiry were being pursued, like the provision of internal campaign data to Kilimchik (who while not a Russian government official himself, certainly had connections to Russian intelligence personnel) and the whole Stone/Wikileaks area.
7
We, as a country, simply do not agree on basic norms, behaviors, national security alliances or the integrity of our FBI, Courts, National Intelligence services, CIA, or Armed Forces leadership.
Sadly, it appears everything is seen through the prism of what political party one is affiliated with.
It reminds me of the old High School cheer during a basketball game "Is this not the winning side? "Is that not the losing side"? Just a winner/loser mentality with regards to serious policy questions.
It does sadden that there is total cynicism for all the institutions. I wonder if that means we do not agree that we are "The greatest nation in the history of man". That sounds more like a Russian victory than anything else.
Barr opposed the obstruction of justice charge and he chose to let it go even though Mueller stipulated that the President could not be exonerated on that issue. It would seem that the President’s lawyers determined that Barr should be the AG for this reason.
Republicans, especially the lawyers, know that Trump’s conduct has never been ethical and the trouble in which he finds himself is not due to politics but to Trump’s dishonesty. He is their man but he’s a true low life, a man with neither honor nor convictions who follows his own base instincts. He drags all down to his level.
4
Over the past two years, the nation's attention has been focused on the Mueller investigation while Trump's domestic policies on virtually everything, climate change, clear air, clean water, consumer and safety regulations, financial institution regulation, education, pharma, coal mining, education, etc., etc. have produced a national disaster.
The truth should not change with our ability to stomach it.
Part of the truth is that when Trump told Comey that he hoped he could let the Flynn thing go, Comey had told Trump that he was not the subject of an investigation. It's hard to prove corrupt intent.
Another part of the truth is that Rod Rosenstein's signature appears on the original FISA warrant application, on the letter recommending firing Comey, on the letter appointing Mueller, and at least according to Barr, his concurs with the decision that there is no basis for an obstruction charge.
America has great problems to solve. Some of these problems are made more difficult by another problem which is that Trump is President.
It is time to focus on solving our problems some of which are becoming intractable.
We saw how the Republicans paid no attention to the national agenda when Obama was President. Now, the Democrats in Congress are promising to do nothing while the "investigate" something that Mueller, a somewhat unimpeachable source, says doesn't exist.
The NYT can be a part of refocusing the nation.
1
Au contraire. The Democrats are quite capable of "walking and chewing gum" at the same time. They do, indeed, have many important proposed ideas for consideration - for instance the Green New Deal,
1
@Joan
The Green New Deal! Really?
LOL.
I must be missing something here about the obstruction of justice. How can a determination be made when the President never testified under oath, and why won't he?
Is he worried he'd have to take the fifth?
4
On further reflection, the Democrats may be the ones that have dodged the bullet here because recent history has shown that even for a president shown to have lied under oath, Clinton came out it just fine.
It turns out that the problem with the Mueller investigation is that the evidence obtained and its potential criminality was going to be judged to a "beyond a shadow of a doubt standard" but Trump was never going to be indicted regardless of the quality of the evidence so the standard was pointless.
What isn't pointless is the evidence obtained over two exhaustive years of investigation and that is the real gold here because most people judge evidence not to a lawyer's criminal threshold standard but a "common sense" one.
That is why it is critical to obtain the pro/con evidence regarding obstruction which combined with more hearings, that will explore the details of the evidence of obstruction through questioning of witnesses, will provide the information to which a "common sense" standard people use to judge other people's acts is applied.
The penalty voters will then apply after hearing more witnesses and reviewing the Mueller report will be meted out at the polls, assuming the Russians aren't there again.
Mr. Nadler added, “I would in fact wonder if the attorney general pressured the special counsel into not making that finding so he could make the finding."
I really wanted Trump to go down. Now statements like this will make middle America roll their eyes and shake their heads. I'd advise Messrs. Nadler, Schiff, Blumenthal, et.al. to stay off cable news, be quiet and get to work on health care, climate change and other agendas that Americans care about. Otherwise it'll be Trump's election to lose.
3
Republican operative hired to protect Trump from accountability achieves his objective.
3
Republicans were the ones who thought due diligence required 8 investigations into a tragic consulate attack. Now they seem to believe that a four page summary of one investigation of limited scope should result in the ceasing of all investigations into our president’s multi-threaded streams of corruption. Sorry, but by their precedent as well as a legitimate desire for the truth, there’s much more work to do both by Congress and the involved US Attorneys.
4
Please give us a break. Hillary lost because there was a better candidate. Accept the results of the election and let's get on with doing something constructive in Congress. Anything else is hurtful to our democracy.
2
Mueller has a reputation as an unbiased investigator. However, considering the chaos that the U.S. is mired in and all the unfairness being exposed, a damming report of Trump may have sent the country into an irretractable downward spiral...maybe this is why there is ambiguity.
Thanks to the New York Times and Washington Post for the fantastic jobs they've done covering Trump. Now the inevitable criticism. As I and a few others have complained since Day 1, you've enabled Trump to win this controversy by letting him intentionally distort the issue. You've allowed him - he's shrewd, unscrupulous and did this quite intentionally - to make the issue "collusion." There's no such criminal charge, and if there were, it would be nearly impossible to prove. Trump was setting that up so he could say, "Look, witch hunt, no collusion!" The real issue is that Russia, a hostile foreign power, elected Trump, not because it necessarily agreed with his politics, but because it knew he would be the most divisive, abusive, malevolent president in our history. Media focus should never have lost sight that that is the real issue here. It still is.
3
It seems to me that Trump succeeded where Nixon failed by placing his people in spots to help him.
1
A massive piece of work, nearly two years in the making, and the Attorney General skims it and decides that there is nothing there to suggest that his boss did anything wrong; what is wrong with this picture??? A serious Attorney General, one who wanted to ensure that no egregious crime was committed, would have actually read the document, taking notes and contemplating the severity of actions committed. Mr. Barr could not possibly have carefully read and contemplated the document; it appears that he skimmed it, made sure that Mr. Trump had done nothing that would send him immediately to Death Row, and decided that there was no reason to look any further. He was just "following orders"; we know where that leads...
2
To paraphrase the old English bard: "Something is rotten in the administration of justice in Washington, D.C." But, will there be serious short and long term consequences due to this? This is what us working stiffs are all wondering now.
But Barr did not explicitly "clear Trump" of anything. What he did was write a letter that could be interpreted as factual by objective readers, but could also be interpreted any way one wanted to by readers with an agenda to pursue.
So Mueller's report (we surmise) carefully avoided drawing conclusions, while Barr's letter craftily enabled Trump and his enablers to escape yet again. Worse still are media outlets who glibly? underhandedly? naively? print such headlines, knowing well that these boldfaced titles set the public discourse that can't easily be corrected no matter how hard wiser voices try.
1
I am increasingly less interested in President Trump. It will not be long, even if he is re-elected God help us!), is little more than a bad memory. What is more concerning to me is that in this world riven by this self-absorbed narcissist, our focus is not on the issue far more important in the long run; Russia's clear interference with the electoral process which is obviously documented within the report. It is a threat not only to the United States, but to all democracies. As many disappointments as one can find in this President, the most worrisome to me is his total lack of concern for our basic democratic principles. He should be outraged at the conduct of the Russians and the threat to our democracy. But that is not where his interest resides.
1
Boy, sort of wishing for the old days of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld than this presidential nightmare. And I’m a liberal!
Basically the president’s attorney from his party said “my boss is innocent.”
Of course he’s going to say that.
Now get out of the way and let the real bosses, the American people, make the real assessment.
4
It is evident that Mueller provided the facts to Barr who was left to make a decision. No obstruction is based on the policy not to indict a sitting President, that a President can fire whomever he wants for any reason, and that unless indicted nothing should be said about his actions so as not to tarnish his reputation. This is clearly bipartisan politics.
Nixon's reputation has been enhanced. In fact, I wish he were on the ballot.
Why did Mueller not make the determination regarding obstruction himself when that was his job - to be apolitical in his findings?
As the President stated on national television on Friday, make the full report public.
2
How does a person, who did not commit a crime, obstruct justice? The legal answer is they cannot obstruct justice on something that didn't happen.
Further, the fact that the report found no evidence, and will have no indictments, cannot be said that it doesn't exonerate. Either there is proof and an indictment or there isn't. Otherwise, I could just claim to be a victim of a crime and if there is no proof, no charges, no trial - and then say "well that doesn't prove it didn't happen". Our legal system has that as a foundation.
Last, to hear that the investigation resulted in many trump-related indictments is backfiring. My liberal friends do not want to defend the play on words. None of those indictments involved the president nor the campaign. To mix them together continues to confuse the story and it isn't a good look for democrats.
2
Mr. Barr did exactly what was expected of him.
He gave his boss a pass.
195
@mjbarr You don't mince words! That's exactly what Barr did after applying for the AG job in writing saying he would do just that. It was done in front of us all just like Trump beckoning Putin's mob to come on over and dance him through the election to victory. Bill Barr pulled the rug from under justice and he will continue to do it. He shouldn't return to Seattle. He's as welcome as a magnitude 9 earthquake.
20
@mjbarr Barr is a Trump GOP appointee. All loyal to Trump; will never cross Trump. We need the full report. Ray Sipe
16
This is exactly true, but aging democrats aren’t equipped with the tools to ask the right questions and so we are stuck with emphasizing the unknown. Barr should have recused himself and allowed Rod Rosenstein to make the decision on obstruction. I do not believe that Barr did not pressure Mueller to end this.
They should subpoena Mueller, Rosenstein and Trump Jr..
6
During his confirmation hearing, Barr, like Trump's Supreme Court appointees, concealed and downplayed his partisan bias with evasive responses -- like the lawyer he is. But he is Trump's pick, and now Barr has paid the first installments on his devil's bargain.
4
The Mueller Report is a vindication of Trump in regards to Russia, but far more importantly an indictment of the Washington establishment, the media, and academia, all of whom care far more about pushing our outsider president out of office than working with the man we elected to fix the many problems we all face.
1
Trump has said that he wants the entire report made public. Democrats may block that because it might reveal ongoing investigations. But Representative Schiff has secret information that he says shows Trump colluded with the Russians. He needs to publish it immediately.
"But in the end, the special counsel reached no conclusion — instead producing a report that merely marshaled evidence on both sides."
We have next to no idea what's actually in the report. We have seen four snippets and not a single complete sentence from it. It is grossly irresponsible for the Schmidt and Savage to claim a knowledge which they cannot possibly have.
A lot of the chaos surrounding the Russia investigation has been the result of imprecise reporting, framing things in a way to support the author’s views. This has been very harmful to the democracy and needs to stop. Here, it is not accurate to state that Barr “cleared” Trump of obstruction. Rather, he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute him and so under DOJ standards no prosecution would be pursued. The standard for obstruction prosecution is high and it is understandable why without an underlying crime that all of the Trump antics would not meet those standards. Better to put this to rest than to tilt at windmills.
29
You cannot let a man like Trump get away with bad behavior, he will never stop. Barr thinks that the President needs some forgiveness in transgressing laws that are minor but he presumes that the President is focused upon the responsibilities of high office, not using that high office to serve personal interests and conduct himself without respect for that high office. In fact Barr is enabling Trump and when Barr realizes it, he’ll bail just like all the others.
6
@Andrew No he did not, he evaluated the evidence and the law and found that the evidence did not meet the standard of the law. This is different than there was insufficient evidence, very different. To have obstruction you need a reason for it (layman's terms), here when there was no crime there can be no legal obstruction. Pretty simple if you pay attention.
1
@vulcanalex
Since we have not seen the report, none of us, you included, have any idea on what Barr based his conclusion. It’s never as simple as they tell you it is.
3
It is the job of the Attorney General's office to determine if a crime has been committed and to prosecute if, in their determination, one was. One can agree or disagree with Mr. Barr; just as with any such determination, but to claim, as many have, that he is wrong to make the call is to miss the entire purpose of the office.
15
@mikecody I agree in principle but in the case where there is such a determination to be made about one's own boss who can simply order the DOJ to say what he wants them to makes the process suspect in this case.
What we need is a law (never happen under GOP rule) that specifically separated DOJ powers from the administration in any case in which that administration is the subject of that investigation.
When the fox has the keys to the hen house chickens are not safe.
The looming question remains" Why did Trump try so hard to get rid of this investigation if he had nothing to hide from the American people?
Bottom line...suspect any system of justice where the person(s) being investigated control the investigators.
http://joethevoter.org
2
That's true in a civics class. but politically, all Bar did was draw the nation's eye to the counterfactual: Trump's actions in regard to obstruction cannot be exonerated at present. Therefore, Dems in the house will go bananas (full Gowdy) on that front. And the drama continues. great news for NBC and Fox. Bad for the electorate. We have to stop fighting and start talking.
It is the job of the AG to thoroughly review the facts before announcing the report’s findings as a summary. It’s incredulous to believe that Barr read and synopsized 22 months’ of work over a weekend in order to make a summary of the report of that work. No wonder he got it wrong (besides having publicly prejudged the wrongness of the investigation previously).
Article of Evidence #1: The Mueller report did not exonerate Individual One.
1
Can two years of collected information with names, dates and times be perused and a decision rendered in a few days? If so Mueller defrauded the country! Wouldn't it take some serious study and consideration thereby requiring more time?
This is like Kavanaugh with his dog eared pocket edition constitution. Don't the GOP see the phony in all this?
America is not that great anymore!
83
@Vanman, two years of investigation yielded a clear conclusion; no evidence of collusion.
its is pretty clear.
the "decision" rendered in a few days? perhaps you are mis-understanding
no evidence of conspiring with Russia. and therefore no obstruction as no underlying crime to obstruct per se.
1
@Vanman I don't suspect Mueller I suspect AG Barr who seems to be a whiz at speed reading 2 years of data in a matter of a couple of days.
Barr had his determination planned prior to this report, probably handed to him by the White House in advance...it's why Trump hired him.
We need to see FULL REPORT and Congress needs to talk to Mueller directly.
http://joethevoter.org
4
Barr didn't have to read the report silly. He concluded last year there was no obstruction. That's how he got the job.
5
The Steele report was entirely fabricated and was the pushed by the FBI for its own dubious reasons. But, the Dems got their Special Counsel. Now that he has found nothing on Trump. Nonetheless, the Democrats are going farther and farther out on a limb to pursue this.
It should now be obvious that the Dems have no policy issues they want to pursue and all they have to hold them together is Derangement.
14
@Amy Policy issues that Democrats want to continue pursuing include affordable healthcare and prescription drug costs, combating climate change, protecting the environment, reducing the deficit by rolling back the last tax package for the 1%, reducing income disparity including raising the minimum wage, reducing corporate welfare, ending systemic racism, and promoting women rights. There are many more issues but these are the ones I am most interested in. You may disagree with them, but the policy initiatives of the Democratic party are very real and have been consistent for decades.
31
@AmY
Back up. Much of the Steele dossier has been proven true. Steel is an FBI source used and trusted before, not some out of the blue character. Rod Rosenstein, life long Republican, appointed by Trump, appointed the special counsel. On his own. No Democrat did that. In any way.
To have a substantive discussion, one should know what they are talking about.
12
It was the Republican DOJ that appointed the Special Counsel: and the investigation is part of our national life: of course it will be discussed. Not a single Democrat has questioned Mueller’s integrity: and now the only demand is that the report be made public. Not one of the Dem candidates has even mentioned the findings in the last 24 hours that I have seen. I am on the far left myself but can honestly say that I am glad the investigation is over. I do agree that the report needs to be released so we can be certain AG Barr is not reaching an unreasonable conclusion with his blanket exoneration.
104
It's now official; Barr is the worst attorney general since Jeff Sessions.
149
@Robert Turnage Disagree. AG Sessions (regardless of what you may think of his agenda) stood up to a relentless barrage of insults and bad behavior from the president, and did his job. Do you think that Barr would do the same? He is a Trump yes man, hand picked for his viewpoint on the ability of a president to be indicted. The deck continues to be stacked in favor of the Republicans. Moreover, the Barr is low.
8
@Robert Turnage Preceded by John Mitchell.
4
@Robert Turnage In regards to this issue Sessions had the modicum of integrity that got him fired...he recused.
5
Hoe could Barr recommend indictment for obstruction if the SC did not fine sufficient evidence to indict? Barr had no other reasonable choice. If congress want to impeach on obstruction grounds they can do so.. Good luck impeaching him on grounds that he attempted to obstruct an investigation into a non crime.
8
@John If it was not a crime, why did he try so hard to block the investigation?
1
@John....Who said the SC did not fined sufficient evidence to indict? That judgment was made by Barr, who had argued, before he was appointed AG, that the President, by definition could not obstruct justice.
2
@John I see you have done well at absorbing the Trump team talking points, however as Martha Stewart could wearily inform you unequivocally- you CAN obstruct justice and yet have insufficient evident to prosecute any other suspected criminality.
2
Barr might just as well have written a one-liner:
"Who do you believe--me or your lyin eyes?"
50
If it wasn't for the obsession with Russia, there might have been an opportunity for papers like the NYTs to positively influence the policies adopted by the president for the better. Now, that opportunity is lost because of the persistent drumbeat of Russiagate in the paper. So much for the fourth estate!
9
If it weren’t for the “obsession with Russia” we would never know about the continued involvement in the Trump Organization’s attempt to build a tower in Moscow, and Candidate Trump ‘s involvement all through the campaign.
Throughout his life, Donald Trump has never been influenced by the Press, and has constantly put the Fourth Estate atop his list of “enemies”, even when the NJ press supported the “Taj Majal” a casino plan, which, if investigated, would have been demonstrated insanity - a project that required $1 million a day in profit to break even!
Forget about it, narcissists don’t hear reason.
@William Stuber
The 4th Estate does NOT exist to lie or cover up truth in order to influence power.
Your suggestion is absolutely frightening. The First Amendment STILL EXISTS.
Or is your suggestion going to be that all media act like Fox News. Giggling with the President over the phone every day.
You make me gag.
The President's own servile Cabinet is incapable of influencing his policies for the better, so there's no ground for lamenting the loss of any influence by the New York Times. You shouldn't criticize the press for doing its job.
After seeing Barr applauding to Trump's national emergency declaration... I knew he was on Trump's side, he's not being objective, he's biased, sold, another of Trump's underlings. The system is rigged, DOJ now belongs to Trump.
Is Trump going to start a witch hunt against his enemies? (remember, what Trump accuses others of doing, he does!)
Is he is going to get away with more crimes?
Do Democrats would finally find a way to stop him and show him limits?
When the next Trump-Putin sleep over is going to happen? at Mar-a-Lago?
Which other dictators will have ties to Trump? Netanyahu? Prince Mohammed bin Salman? Bolsonaro?
Should we expect a new Trump Tower in Rio?
How funny that Trump attracts supremacists while his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish and while he's friends w/Netanyahu and the Saudis...??? and now the Israelis and Saudis are friends??? while peace is good, it looks strangely good...?? they all must be very corrupt to overlook racism against them...
Don't miss the answers to this and many other questions on the next episode of "Politics of our lives" Mon-Fri on NBC!
36
@Erick Vasquez DOJ belongs to Trump, as does the Senate and the Supreme Court. The deck is so stacked it is composed entirely of Jokers.
2
I think the pursuit of money makes strange bedfellows.
1
Trump is a champ of say something enough times and it will be believed. Dems better focus on something else (and perhaps not the mantra of soaking the comfortable) or say hello to the heinous Mr. Trump for another 4 years.
10
Will Barr end up being Trump’s John Mitchell?
23
AG Barr was hired to be Trump's personal defense attorney. Barr could had gotten the Unabomber, Jeffery Dahmer, and O.J. off with his latest performance.
31
It took two years for Mueller to find whatever he found and one weekend for it all to become a nothingburger when Trump's sycophant Attorney General crafted a cagily worded letter effectively saying "nothing to see here".
It will take at least another two years for the report to be made public, at which point Trump could quite possibly be re-elected.
That's assuming there will even be a 2020 election.
We here in Canada are collateral damage. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a U.S. citizen watching your country's democracy being demolished right in front of your eyes.
238
@Abruptly Biff: words cannot express how we feel here watching the dismantling of our democracy. I have friends who have a home in Nova Scotia; we are plotting how to move there permanently. Apologies for being collateral damage - Canada and the rest of the world.
11
@Abruptly Biff
"I can't imagine what it must be like to be a U.S. citizen watching your country's democracy being demolished right in front of your eyes."
Distressing, to put it mildly. But at least 50 percent of us know that the fix is in…and the pendulum is still swinging.
(As a U.S. citizen, although I am highly opposed to Trump, the Republicans and everything he and they stand for, I still I think I owe an embarrassed apology to you and the rest of the world's citizens who are affected by this administrations inept and evil doings.)
12
@Abruptly Biff - It's sickening, depressing, infuriating and frightening. Never in my life would I have ever believed we could come to this. As for trump, I find his visage repellent, his voice unbearable and it's no exaggeration to say he makes me physically ill.
I hope you can keep Rupert Murdoch, Fox, Sinclair, Limbaugh, out of your country. They are a large part of what's infected 63 million Americans to the extent they've orchestrated their own demise.
16
William Barr, the most successful, accomplished graduate of the
Evelyn Woods speed reading course!!
Thosands of documents and hundreds of pages of a written report, over 22 months and numerous indictments and convictions, distilled into a four page conclusion......er, summary in less than 2 days!
A true speed reading success!
In the month since his confirmation, he probably used that time to write and repeatedly edit the press release that insults the intelligence of a majority of our citizens.
149
@joan nj Thanks, Joan! I needed a good laugh!
1
Just in case you have forgotten. All people in the US are presumed innocent. A prosecutor has to prove someone guilty. It's not their job to exonerate nor is it the accused's job to be proven innocent. They are innocent until proven guilty.
11
Not true. On paper this is the way it is supposed to be but only the wealthy are treated as innocent. Look at how many people are in jail without even being charged. If this country truly believed innocent until proven guilty, there would be no need to jail someone until they were found guilty by trial or confession. And there would be no money making scheme by local governments to charge the poorest of its citizens with the most costly (by percentage) and destructive fees.
Your logic is flawed. If only wealthy people are considered innocent until proven guilty, then why was Trump not presumed innocent? Is he not wealthy?
Regardless, prosecutors must prove guilt. Mueller did not. Ergo, Trump is innocent.
@Mark Smith...Innocent or guilty, Trump is still a vulgar, bigoted, narcissist.
Barr should simply quote former FBI Director, James Comey, and say, "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
7
Mr. Mueller stated that 'while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does NOT exonerate him'. That is somewhat damning in itself. He stepped to the brink but let others take the fall. Release the report to the American people so we can read what he did and judge from there by election.
55
"Even if a president abuses his power by acting for corrupt reasons, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to make that a crime."
That is not the country I want to live in. Vote 2020.
101
Two Party System
1 Corporations and Greed
2 The People
The people are loosing.
Stay tuned.
33
Of course the ultimate irony is that Hillary should be in prison for the myriad of crimes she broke that the DOJ, under Obama refused to prosecute, and the same DOJ was directly involved with triggering this misbegotten two year Geraldo Rivera-like investigation.
No matter how repugnant President Trump his, he has helped lift the vale on 'journalists' and the insiders who have driven this story.
8
@Rob
To this day, after scrupulously keeping up with the news, can I find anything criminal that Hillary can be accused of. The crime is in the sick minds of the accusers
@Rob Please name just one law that Hilary Clinton violated. And, by the way, the House Committee investigating her for various things could fine NOTHING to charge her with. Nothing to do with the DOJ. Please, you Trump supporters, get your facts straight!
Meanwhile, Mueller could not definitely state that Trump didn't obstruct justice, no matter what AG Barr claims.
@Rob....Oh please. The DOJ recused itself from making any judgment in the Clinton case.
So after two years of watching and listening to Trump collude and obstruct justice, we are to believe the four page Barr report rather than our lyin' eyes? Or the convicted felons, associated with Trump, that Mueller reeled in?
Given Barr's pledge of allegiance to Trump, this travesty is not unexpected.
"Exonerated" might be the first five syllable word Trump has learned. "Does not exonerate" is too complex an idea for Trump.
Not given to attending opera, Trump doesn't know whether the fat lady has sung. The only thing he knows is that his Twitter withdrawal has ended, and he can once again boast lies,misspelled, in all caps.
36
@Katherine (??) Seems to me the misspelled ALL CAPS lies have never stopped.
Barr cannot change what Trump is.
Trump will go the way of all despots.
Southern District of New York, it's your cue.
67
@Pia
To whom do you think the Southern District of New York reports? Barr!
1
Isn't this why Barr was hired and confirmed so quickly? Surrounded by loyalists and packing the courts, is the new black when it comes to this presidency. What a joke our country has become.
80
I hope that the next Democratic President hires Barr and cleans out all of the Trump cronies.
As a political analyst in another publication noted, as it is the position of the Justice Department that a sitting president can not be indicted, Barr had no requirement to make his statement and it is indeed inappropriate for him to have done so.
It strikes me that Barr has a lot in common with John Mitchell and Edwin Meese, two previous Republican attorneys general who thought their job description read "Protect the prez" and nothing else.
The whole thing stinks.
68
Where is our Martha Mitchell?
The summary is tainted by a trump appointee that was critical of the special council. I do not care about Barr's conclusions. Where are Mueller's conclusions?
Mueller could not find conclusive evidence because of the coordinated obstruction of justice between trump and his Republicans cohorts and lack of cooperation from the criminals involved. Had Bill avoided being questioned by Starr, he too would have been un-impeachable.
31
Just evidence again of how rigged the system is in favor of the wealthy and well-connected. With money and power comes the freedom to do as you please, in plain sight of the whole world. Meanwhile, the stories keep coming across of poor little guys who get ten years for robbing $100 with a beebee gun, and some poor woman in Texas who gets 4 for misunderstanding her voting rights and criminally voting. The folks with power care little what the rest of us think - it is just the use of raw power and so much for "equal before the law." Ha!
56
The rule of law took a huge hit. We were all wrong. Some people indeed ARE above the law. Obviously Trump is. I see a bad moon rising in America.
33
I note that many of these comments seem to suggest that somehow AG Barr was in the tank for Trump and that he cannot be trusted. Barr has been nothing but proper and formal about his work, and shows no overt signs of being beholden to Trump.
On April 4, 2013, then AG Eric Holder said, "I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy."
Did these same commentators complain about AG Holder back then? I doubt it.
4
@Starman
No, but they would have had Obama been under investigation
22
@Starman Perhaps we the people need to clarify the role of the AG. I believe that Bobby Kennedy was also of the opinion that he was the wing man for JFK. Both sides are guilty of this misperception.
Other than the unsolicited and factually-ignorant crush note that Barr sent to Trump regarding his belief that the President is above the law, you mean.
Why was President Clinton, Hillary Clinton and other public servants forced to testify while Trump was not? Do you mean to tell me that all you need is raw courage to beat the justice system in Washington? Trump has lots of raw courage and little else.
20
What you call “raw courage”, I call bullheadedness. Trump refused to testify or be questioned under oath (despite saying he would love to) and Mueller had no choice (well, he could have asked the courts to intervene) but to get on with conclusions sans that most important evidence.
Imagine any other suspect, target, witness (call it what you want) refusing in such a way and having the investigation going on despite such absence?
Does Mueller’s report note the President’s refusal to talk?
Does Mueller’s report the President’s calling anyone cooperating with SC “a rat”?
Does Mueller’s report question why all witnesses lied about contacts and meetings with foreign entities (most often, but not limited to the Russian government which has already been determined to have interfered with our election)?
Does Mueller’s report note the clear lie/cover-up of Trump’s statement on AF1 that he didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting or anything about the extra-marital affair cover-up payments?
While these items may not rise to a provable case in court right now, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence floating around and around the WH to raise continuing questions for investigation.
I didn’t hear Barr raising the questions left behind by Mueller’s investigation.
1
This is beyond Nixon, though I could see him responding in the same way. What we see is how a petty dictator would respond once unfettered by common decency. He was exonerated only in the sense that Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to convict, given the power of Trump's office, and the morally-bankrupt state of the Republican party. Numerous journalists have investigated Trump and identified obvious connections between Trump and Putin: the Helsinki meeting alone is grounds for treason.
What we have is the Barr report. Barr is a man who sold his reputation for a politician. Just like Loretta Lynch.
19
That Mr. Barr pronounced Mr. Trump clear of committing any criminal offense is disappointing but was completely predictable. He as much as said he would during his Senate confirmation hearings.
No, it's all those guys around him who committed crimes and will take the fall. Cohen will take a bullet for Trump, at least metaphorically. Flynn, Manafort, Gates, they did it.
Trump didn't know anything about that. Like Kim, MBS, Putin, all those guys who didn't know anything about crimes committed in their service.
19
@Edward I believe both the SC and the AG found their were no PROSECUTABLE offenses. This is similar to Comey's finding with Secretary Clinton's use of a non-governmental email server.
I expect, better hope, that the Congressional Committees interviewing the two will require both men and the AAG to say that.
Then let the other various federal and state offices investigating other facets of the Republican President, his family and associates, to continue to their natural conclusion.
9
Reactions to Barr’s letter should not include despair, in my view. This is a time for reading what the true experts report so we can form our opinions. Those who are legal and political writers and journalists like those who write in this esteemed publication are not sounding like they think his summary is enough. They have been following the mess we find ourselves in with Donald Trump and have put on record enough factual information to make necessary full disclosure of the Mueller report and further investigation into what if anything is being done to stop further Russian interference.
When Nixon fell, and I believe Trump is even more culpable of wrongdoing, there was not one single person who brought him down. It was a combination of professionals. We also need citizens involved and demanding the truth.
David Corn’s latest anaysis in Mother Jones deserves a look.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/trump-mueller-report-russia/
16
Without an underlying crime, an obstruction charge would be outrageous under these circumstances.
Since there was no collusion, Trump is now totally vindicated for firing Comey and railing against an investigation that now appears unequivocally to have been a colossal waste of government resources.
3
@Greg More wasteful than the Clinton-Bengasi investigations? More harmful?
15
I don’t think the report said there was no collusion. It said there was not enough evidence of collusion to bring charges.
3
@Fred Horgan
Americans were killed in Benghazi. A thorough investigation was appropriate. What was the crime here? Some of John Podesta’s dirty laundry being put on WikiLeaks? Not even close to the same thing.
Sorry, but after 2 years of listening to Trump whine about Jeff Sessions and then watching Trump throw in that certified crook whose name I no longer remember, and then being expected to give credence to Barr?
Sorry, but Republicans expect too much.
Trump has made his mark in history by installing the most incompetent Cabinet, ever, in the history of this country. It is called a "Kakistocracy", rule by the most ignorant and indifferent.
I suspect that Mueller has done the absolute minimum that he was required to.
After all, please remember that Trump's contribution to being "questioned" was to have his attorney's help him write the answers to "submitted questions".
Mueller never questioned him.
Just as Kavanaugh was never questioned.
Nothing less than the FULL REPORT.
You had the weekend, Barr, to submit the FULL REPORT.
And, you didn't.
That tells me everything I need to know.
26
What about admitting to Lester Holt on national television, he got rid of Comey due to the Russia investigation? What about openly daring Russia to hack the sensitive internal records of Clinton campaign? Is there some rule that obstruction of justice committed in broad daylight doesn't count?
19
Barr is a partisan hack. Neither he nor Rosenstein are credible. Not releasing the full report to congress and a redacted version to the public is admission that the Barr's summary is all spin and Trump is culpable.
19
@todji
The Barr Report did not contain a single complete sentence quotation from the Mueller Report.
Accept the report and move on to substantive issues voters care about. Independent voters are watching and 2020 is almost here!!!
7
If you want to vote for Trump just do it representative for the independents.
The new attorney general, who wrote only recently, unexpectly and out of no where to
Trump saying how he could protect him from his obstruction charges was immediately hired.
And now still breathing hard from the
rush to DOJ, protects the lying wretch of a president by
reading Mueller's years work poste haste.
Oh, we are a splendid democracy.
18
When a prosecutor cannot decide issues of fact or law, he/she believes that he cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a determination that the presumption of innocence cannot be overcome, and in this sense it is an "exoneration".
In the criminal justice system ties go to the person investigated/prosecuted. Still, it is no more a determination of factual innocence than is a verdict of not guilty by a jury.
10
Retaking the Senate should be the Democrats’ aim, not Trump. If Dems control Congress, they control the agenda even if Trump is re-elected.
8
This was always a possibility. Law is extremely exacting. My concern now is that if the democrats decide to pursue this endlessly the ability to win the next election will fade dramatically as the huge issues facing the country are set aside and the country becomes weary and tired of this exhausting process. The issues facing the country are as critical as they ever were and this master of maintaining focus on himself must not be given the stage again to do so. The democrats must move on quickly, let the courts do their work and develop a platform for the coming election that has far less to do with Trump and much more to do with Russia. Russia must be controlled and stopped. It's time to take the high ground and get out of the mud with this character.
8
@elaine
" Law is extremely exacting." Especially when being exacting furthers the interests of powerful white men. Otherwise, the law is not so reliably exacting.
9
We know there were massive efforts on the part of the Trump campaign and the Russians to deceive and defraud the American public during the 2016 presidential election. Some 37 indictments removes all doubts on that score. AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report suggests ONLY that their efforts were not coordinated.
19
Actually, it says they could not find ENOUGH evidence to persuade a jury to convict, not that there was no evidence.
If there was no collusion with Russia over the election, then what is all the lying about? The judge in the Michael Flynn case described Flynn's conduct as treasonous and raged at the special counsel's recommendation of no prison time. I'd like to see the full record in Michael Flynn's sentencing record and all evidence produced to the special prosecutor in his case. We need that record to know what appears on its face to be obstruction of justice was all about. Then the full record in Mueller's obstruction deferral, and the quick decision not to go there, may be explained.
13
I believe that Barr pressured Mueller to end this investigation, blocked his subpoenas to speak with Trump and his family and made a conclusion that would protect his job.
Having Mueller testify before Congress would be contentious, but it worked for republicans. I think it could work for democrats as long as they move some legislation too.
10
@Dr. Girl
"I believe that Barr pressured Mueller to end this investigation"
I am no Trump supporter, but "beliefs" are dangerous. Beliefs are what people have then they lack information, lack proof, lack the ability to think critically about the information they do have, or all of the above.
4
Russia if you hear me! -Trump
Trump tower project.
Russian propaganda support for Trump.
Cover ups of financial crimes and lying everywhere.
Massive bank funding and constant defaults.
The president's worst offenses are not crimes as defined by our legal system (though it seems clear from the public record that he committed crimes both before and during his presidency and will yet have to answer for them), but other actions that display an absence of moral compass: pulling out of the Paris Accords, breaking our country's word on the Iran deal, failing to condemn white nationalism unambiguously, and putting journalists at risk by questioning the principle of press freedom.
15
It certainly did not explain all the russian contacts this administration had or trump's subservience to Putin.
14
Until the entire report has been released and scrutinized it’s impossible to reach any conclusions about Mueller’s investigation. Barr’s summary can not be relied upon.
13
It is absurd that after 22 months and a report of who knows how many pages (hundreds?) a Trump appointee who had previously publicly criticized the investigation as well as the notion of presidential obstruction of justice now takes a few hours on a weekend and tells us to "look away folks,nothing to see here."
21
The entire Mueller report needs to be released to the public so we can determine what happened. Too many questions linger. Why did so many people lie, apparently over nothing? Why did Trump constantly attack Mueller if he did nothing wrong? And, if Trump did nothing wrong, why didn't he explain it all right in the beginning? There would have been no need for the Special Counsel. The motivations and actions don't add up.
11
@Joe Smith I agree with your conclusion that nothing adds up, unless you see everything he did as a distraction, to give both the appearance of being guilty, and the denial of guilt, so during 17 months, he could sneak all of the democracy-destroying executive orders through. Hoping no one would notice.
I will never understand why a regular citizen can be charged, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison or death for a crime without absolutely any direct or physical evidence and based solely upon circumstantial evidence but when it comes to the president and his aides a special prosecutor has to have concrete and irrefutable direct evidence of a crime to have charges brought against them.
When was considers that the president is the highest leader in the country the evidence needed to either impeach or charge them for anything should be lesser than for any other citizen of our country, not the exact opposite.
The people of this country can debate the inquiry and its conclusions all they want, and trump and his supporters can jump for joy, but the truth is that trump is guilty of countless crimes whether or not there is concrete proof or not. He has even admitted to many things. But in our corrupt government he will never face justice.
The only real recourse we have is to deliver the most lopsided defeat of a sitting president in the history of our rotting country come November of 2020, but we need people to actually vote and we need those 60 percent of Americans who never vote to get off their couches and for once do something to help themselves and their country.
I never had any illusions that the inquiry would turn out this way. The powerful and wealthy have no laws to be held accountable to like the rest of us. How many times does this have to be proved?
13
In the "looking for silver linings" department, the quirk about human nature is that anger often motivates more than happiness. When Clinton was impeached, to the surprise of many he sailed to re-election in 1996, in part because of the anger Democrats felt at his being railroaded.
With the release of Barr's letter there does seem much for Republicans to crow and be happy about, and much for Democrats to feel angry and believe they were robbed of justice. Nancy Pelosi would be smart to now categorically take impeachment off the table - further angering Democrats - as a way to motivate them to the polls in 2020. The election of 2020 will not be about changing minds but about GOTV.
4
@Evan Reis
Actually your timeline is incorrect - Clinton was impeached after he was re-elected in 1996. He was re-elected in part because the Gap took much of the blame for the Gingrich-induced government shutdown.
@Evan: I didn’t vote for Clinton’s re-election in any way as a result of that ridiculous impeachment proceeding or result. I was disgusted the man couldn’t keep his pants on and that Lynda Tripp was such a weasel to her “friend”. The end. The economy was good, and nothing terrible was happening, why not re-elect him? Trump is a dumpster fire on steroids. Before his election I thought he was mildly amusing. Now, he’s a menace to our country. Not exactly apples and oranges.
Mueller found that the Russians hacked our election in support of Donald Trump. He may not have knowingly colluded, but he must not be allowed to pay back their generosity. This is the fight for democracy that we must win.
9
Wait a minute. What Barr did here was totally within his job description. Barr is our chief federal prosecutor. Prosecutors decide all the time that there is not enough evidence to charge someone and take him to trial. That's all Barr did.
That said, it seems likely that Barr had some difficulty completely putting aside his sympathies for the Republican party and for Trump. It would have been much better to say, "I find there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this behavior constituted at attempt to obstruct justice. Under longstanding Departmental policy, this matter will be reconsidered at the conclusion of the Trump presidency when an indictment can be brought." This would have held Trump in check during the remainder of his presidency, which would have been a mercy for all of us.
Then, when the president could actually have been indicted without doing any violence to what is, after all, a sound policy (unless we are willing to see Democratic presidents repeatedly hauled into court by Republican prosecutors seeking to advance their own political careers), the evidence could have been considered anew. And there is no rule that says new evidence that comes to light after March 24, 2019, could not be put used in the case then.
So yes, Barr made a bad call for the U.S. process. But it was a bad tactical call, and probably not an outrageous call that flies in the face of the evidence.
2
A tiny nation like NZ demonstrated to the entire world that in a time of crisis they come together provide solace comfort to the grieving and take concrete steps so unfortunate events like these never happen again, ever.
America for all its maturity as a democracy, is still struggling with the basics. We now have a president who likes to escalate things rather than defuse de-escalate and resolve. For all its bluster America is not a real democracy it is a bully a mercenary and a pawn to wealthy greedy people who want to get wealthier leaving behind the poor the middle class the weak and the invalid. If we were a blossoming democracy we would never allow the poor the weak the invalid to suffer like they do.
America is work on progress, it is far from becoming a successful democracy that champions equality dignity honor justice health and well being of ALL its citizens barring none.
8
Barr emphasized that both he and Rosentein came to the same conclusion. Would the Deputy DA ever disclose his personal opinion if it didn't concur with that of Barr and would Barr have mentioned it if did?
1
Why the charade of having "Attorney General William P. Barr, a political appointee whom Mr. Trump installed less than a month ago" opine on the report?
Jared Kushner's interpretation of the report would not have been any different...
5
Republicans urge Democrats to move on. A two year intelligence investigation with tremendous public evidence already and of profound interest to the country. Sure, a two page synopsis saying "nothing burger" is just fine.
The absolute audacity.
5
I think everyone agrees Barr's letter is at best useless. We have a four page letter of Barr's legal opinion. That is all. We need to see the report and probably hear testimony from Mueller too.
What do you think is a reasonable amount of time for the DOJ to parse the report and pass along the remainder? Seeing as Barr could provide his legal determination in a weekend, there can't be too much to sort through. I'd give the DOJ one week before threatening subpoena.
Furthermore, I'd make sure to subpoena everything that is not a national security risk. I'm guessing Barr is already planning to use his legal determination to redact evidence about uncharged individuals pursuant the DOJ policy of protecting reputations. Because William Barr decided no crime was committed, he plans to throw most of the report in a paper shredder.
Congress needs to see the whole report. The only alternative is to call in Mueller to testify, get his interpretation of the evidence and restart the investigation from scratch in Congress.
8
And here we thought Mueller was strong, nonpartisan, and decisive; instead we see a headline that he "demurs." It is beyond comprehension.
5
Barr would have been smarter to release the entire report...now, each day, there will be a leak, then another leak, and...so, until 2020 this report will always be waving in the background. Now if Trump was smart, he would move on...pick a issue--let's say infrastructure---and pursue that. But he won't...this is his talking point for the next two years.
6
It was not just Barr who cleared Trump of obstruction or justice. In his letter to Congress, Barr wrote, "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
As acting attorney general, Rosenstein launched the special counsel investigation. In May 2017, he called 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.” Except for Rosenstein, there would have been no Mueller probe.
1
And we all owe a debt of gratitude to Barr and Rosenstein for making Mueller's declination decision on his behalf.
From Bush's pardons to his opinion about Presidential power, we already know he is a political hack. We need more Democrats in office and Democrats in charge of the FBI, the Justice Department, etc. I don't want any Obama like DINOs for President either.
4
64% of voters opposed impeachment BEFORE Trump's exoneration by Mueller (collusion) and Barr (obstruction). Equivocal evidence on obstruction (much consisting of public statements) where there was no underlying crime (collusion) to obstruct and does not rise to criminal culpability does not meet Nancy Pelosi's clear and unequivocal evidence of impeachable offenses standard for impeachment.
Politically its over. Sorry CNN/MSNBC, Schiff and never-Trumpers. They are talking it to death on CNN this morning. ("Wait for the full report.") But it really is over, as far as most Americans are concerned.
3
@Stephen Gianelli
It was over before it began.
Signed,
Cynical
1
Mueller stated he found no conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign , Barr, in his statement says no conspiracy with Russia which is very misleading because there was plenty of contact with Russians and the Trump campaign and they all lied about it. These people may not have been government officials with the government but they were definitely connected. Maybe it is nothing but it is suspicious considering Trump is acting like OJ Simpson after he got away with murder.
4
Barr did not "clear" Trump of anything. His letter amounts to "decline to prosecute." -His- issue is whether DoJ could win a legal court case, not whether he could win in the court of public opinion. Nor does this affect any debate on the potential for impeachment, in which there are essentially no rules of evidence.
Trump -may- have avoided legal jeopardy in this matter, but for most of the country, he is a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
8
Precisely. And all we have to go on so far is Barr's own representations of what Mueller found. I would not be surprised if the report eventually shows that Mueller found evidence of conspiracy but judged the case to be 1) unlikely to result in a courtroom success and 2) unlikely to be filed in the first place because of DOJ policy regarding the president.
Seems to me to be a fair assessment. If I interpret correctly, he is saying if there was no crime, then there would be no obstruction. Makes sense.
1
@william: nope, you’re not interpreting it correctly. A college logic course might be helpful...there’s no “if this, then that follows” here. They’re two different issues.
1
The AG considers the report for a day or 2 and then makes a decision from a massive report. It seems that his consideration of the report could not thorough enough. How can the AG inspire trust with such a short review? Many in the legal world would comment that in a situation as weighty as this more time is required. Personally, I have spent longer composing and reviewing a letter of resignation. Any trust of the seriousness of the process is now questioned - and as an appointee of the man under suspicion - the AG has fast-tracked the declination of indictment. How can this not be questioned?
2
Since no collusion was found, it would probably be very difficult to succeed with a prosecution for obstuction, which is a difficult charge to prove, even if Mueller had found the evidence.
I think if we want to see Trump face justice we will have to wait for the conclusion of the multiple other prosecutions pending. If no charge at all is brought against Trump over time, then my faith in the judiciary will have been shaken.
110
I highly doubt no collusion was found. Maybe not enough evidence to indict but there is enough evidence known to the public already to show some level of collusion (meetings, requests for help, requests answered, sharing of campaign data, etc). But Mueller's bar for indictment is high.
We need to see the Mueller Report, not the Barr interpretation.
28
But there were underlying crimes though - they just weren't Trumps. Just look at Flynn, Manafort, et al. The President was actively trying to kill the investigations into them when he fired Comey, and then ADMITTED this on national TV. If that's not obstruction of justice, I don't know what is.
17
@RHR, for an investigation supposed to have such a narrow focus as mueller sharp laser beam light, the 2 years have yielded bountiful: “seven guilty pleas and one conviction at trial, but 25 Russians indicted by Mueller are unlikely to ever see a U.S. courtroom.”
As all things in America this investigation too was very expensive. We Americans do not understand frugality efficiency and the concept of reaping the most bang for our buck.
3
He has done exactly what he was hired to do. " lowering the BARR ".
Period.
30
@Phyliss Dalmatian hate kills happiness. Move on.
This is the key:
With breathtaking legerdemain, Barr assigned himself, not Congress, the role of decider, even though he is not independent of Trump, not elected, and was not appointed Special Counsel.
"“The special counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” Mr. Barr wrote, adding that he and his deputy “concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
33
@Pasdelieurhonequenous
it's obvious that Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein, unlike McCabe and Comey were more interested in self preservation and preservation of the Republican leadership than protecting the best interests of the American people. This president and his inner circle have become reckless and behave as if they are above the law - greedy for their own personal enrichment, money and power. And why not, no one is holding them accountable for their wrongdoings.
This presidency has forever changed the democracy we live in to protect the interests of the rich and powerful who are not held to the laws of the land but function with their own set of rules. They believe in keeping the vast wealth for the top 1% of Americans and disrespecting, denigrating and marginalizing the rest of the American people.
2
@Pasdelieurhonequenous: Congress can still act despite Barr's actions.
1
@Pasdelieurhonequenous
That Barr quote was penned months ago.
This with have a profound effect on the board game of monopoly,Barr is synonymous with 'get out of jail free' card.
3
AG Barr just gave a green light to the establishment of an imperial presidency by sweeping obstruction and any - any - questionable actions by the President under the rug. It now falls to Congress to hold this most unfit for office President accountable. Even a casual glance at the oath of office DJT swore to shows that he has betrayed the office, and the American public, over and over.
115
@Michael Gilbert Congress is where it should fall to.
1
It’s clear that we all need to see the report in full, and then we can be sure. But right now, this summary seems to disclose as little as possible as to the heart of the investigation.
We have all seen Trump acting guilty as sin. The question remains, why was he acting that way if there was nothing to hide?
48
Democrats need to spend most of their time passing legislation, supporting their recently elected House members in red states, and articulating until they’re blue in the face a simple, coherent agenda that would undo Trump’s dismal record on the environment, taxes, health care and the social safety net. Investigations will distract an already-distracted media from a substantive agenda.
44
@AlNewman
Too late. Normal people are not going to take the Democrats seriously for the foreseeable future.
You do realize the republicans block everything in the senate right? There is nothing they can pass that isn’t beneficial to the republicans. They will not let anything else pass.
1
@AlNewman Don’t worry about that. While Trump can still do damage, his legislative agenda is over.
2
Now that trump and Barr (a trumpist and foe of the special council from the start) have misrepresented the Mueller report, trump is now going to go all out on an Ergodan-like persecution spree of his perceived foes.
Based on all the facts that journalists have uncovered, not only is there still smoke, this whole thing stinks to high heaven, especially from the head.
The consciousness of guilt demonstrated by trump's herculean effort to obstruct, defy, slander, mislead, lie, debase, obfuscate, etc. and by his complicit cronies too, is proof enough for me that he is guilty as sin. Why would you go through such efforts to sabotage an investigation that would prove your innocence?
We need to hear from Mueller under oath whether he agrees with the characterization and conclusion Barr has provided in his summary.
47
@PAN,
We will see. It is clear that the Justice Department is clearly in the hands of Trump loyalists: the fascists. If they go after reporters and the opposition then we will sorely need a revolution to clear the air.
1
Most think the Muller played by the rules. I have serious doubts about that.
14
@Roland Berger
He is a Republican.
And Republicans will be Republicans.
2
I guess it doesn't matter that I--or anyone who reads--
can quickly and easily name a handful of clear obstruction actions by the president.
I guess what matters is who you hand the report off to.
42
It's done. Every article that continues to beat the dead horse will only serve as a fire for trump supporters that this was a political witch hunt. We need to move on and focus on pushing this despicable human being out of office in 2020.
29
@JG
Exactly! And once he is gone, he will probably be indicted for various banking crimes.
But winning a national election means getting the votes of Independents; let's not forget that.
@JG "It's done"? Nobody has even SEEN the full report except for Trump's people in the White House. We should just take their word on it that there's nothing there that incriminates him?
3
What the public doesn't know so far is how Mueller and his team defined collusion with a foreign power and how they came to the determination that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the president could be found guilty in a court of law. Knowing those answers are essential for voters in 2020 to decide whether Trump deserves another term. Similarly, we need clarification about what constitutes "obstruction of justice" in the eyes of the law. Trump's admission that he fired Comey to take the the Russian matter off the table and his subsequent cries of "witch hunt" would seem to show that he intended to impede or at the very least de-legitimize the investigation. Is all that "obstruction" or is it not? Let the voters decide.
9
I smell a rat.
50
Bottom line: Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, he left it open citing evidence on both sides, and Barr took it upon himself to decide in favor of Trump. He had no authority or business doing so. As a presidential appointee he was clearly biased, had previously published an unsolicited opinion against the Mueller investigation and should have recused himself.
165
@Christy
The resounding question is why Muellet left this all-consuming question unanswered when Trumps public actions around obstruction were as plain as the nose on his face. Mueller has managed to make the questions of Trumps guilt or innocence even more puzzling. Is nothing ever black or white with this presidency?
3
Mueller had 2 years of evidence on both sides:
Trump fired Comey, called the investigarion a witch hunt, and sidelined and then fired Sessions. So that's in the yes column.
But there was 2 year investigation-Muellers-that proceeded unimpeded. And Trump said he'd wait for the outcome. That's in the no column.
Mueller took 2 years because that's how long the investigation took. Barr too less time because he read the results of the 2 years.
There are clear arguments on both sides. The time issue is irrelevant.
2
@Talbot On e No side, Trump said he's wait for the outcome, knowing that the AG was in his pocket. I'd say that belongs into the Yes column.
1
Here's another perspective. The Democrats and their media outlets, and certain members of the FBI attempted to subvert a duly elected president with lies, innuendo, and inappropriate use of the judicial and law enforcement processes. In other countries these actions may be referred to as a failed coup d'etat with the leaders ending up against a wall with blindfolds and a last cigarette. But not here. Smoking is so frowned upon now in the US.
12
@Mike: Yes, that's another perspective, but one that must have come from somwhere well outside this solar system.
4
@Mike...Perhaps you could tell us what the lies, innuendo, and inappropriate use of the judicial and law enforcement processes were? Comey, Wray, Rosenstein, and Mueller are all Republicans.
4
You could’ve been describing the GOP and FOX News’ eight-year-long rejection of Obama’s presidency that began with the current president’s racist questioning of Obama’s birth certificate. You Republicans deserve a taste of your own medicine.
3
The kakistocracy and kleptocracy continues. The solution is to vote them out. I' m not optimistic.
40
@Point Zero
It will get much worse before it gets better. The silver lining, if it can be called that, is that Trump now unhinged and unleashed will be even more impulsive and reckless than ever. If the next two years don't make it clear to American voters, then nothing will.
As a Trump appointee, AG William Barr doesn’t bite the hand that feeds him. The Mueller report left the obstruction issue to the DoJ.
Barr wrote, “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
He seized the opportunity and swept the issue under the carpet by clearing Trump of obstruction of justice, adding enough fuel for critics to cling to their beliefs that the GOP goes to great lengths to shield him.
The political reality in the US is depressing. Republicans – held hostage by ideological rigidty and right-wing media - turn a blind eye to Trump’s illegal and immoral conduct. Despite Barr’s obligation to Trump, some state and federal prosecutors are determined to defend the rule of law, delving into Trump's shady business empire.
If Robert Mueller didn’t bring Trump down, please Karen McDougal, Stormy Daniels and Summer Zervos could.
A New York appellate court earlier this month denied a request by Trump to dismiss the suit, allowing it to move forward. If the ruling stands, Trump would have to sit for a deposition, facing allegations about groping and kissing Zervos without her consent in 2007. Her lawyers could seek to ask him questions about his treatment of other women.
37
@J. von Hettlingen. The 16 Democrats on Mueller team had unlimited budget and were never interfered with at all. Besides, how would would one obstruct the investigation into a crime that did not exist? Impossible.
3
@James
You don't need to commit a crime to obstruct justice. And, if you're rich and powerful, you can obstruct justice just for the fun of it. But, had the average citizen acted like Trump, you would see how quickly you can be charged with obstructing justice without having committed a crime.
3
Easy. First, Trump HATED being investigated and he wanted to stop the investigation. He took multiple affirmative steps to interfere and obstruct, despite his apparent belief in his own innocence. Also, he took affirmative steps to obstruct the investigation/prosecution of others, such as Flynn. In that situation, the lack of any crime by Trump is irrelevant.
2
obscurantist - n., a person who deliberately prevents the facts or full details of something from becoming known.
27
Mueller's most likely sensed that the Presidential and national fabric could tear by going further, cut short his mandate to pursue "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation..." and without a crime to cover-up affected ambivalence about the President's obstruction of it.
4
The Kavanaugh investigation comes to mind: key people (in this case Trump) were not interviewed.
Then it is determined that whatever didn't reach the bar of without a reasonable doubt, because no proof of intent.
American's deserved to see Trump refuse indictment, or plead the fifth, and have to defend it.
Hmmm.
18
"Obstruction causes are notoriously difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because prosecutors have to prove that the defendant was acting with a corrupt intent."
Going into this, and the deeper Mueller got, evidence of how corrupt Trump has behaved during his entire adult life, and in many instances proven in court to have been with corrupt intent, has seriously crippled any objective outcome.
Trump three decade history of corruption, in some instances accusatorial and damning but many playing in court being proven criminal, has normalized his behavior to the extent he's on record for stating, "I could actually shoot somebody and not lose any voters".
Then you toss in the ploy of him warping any sense of responsibility for his actions by claiming criticisms of him to be nothing more than "Fake news', well, any questionable behavior results in explanations that this is just Trump being Trump.
And clearly this has resulted in a sense of him getting handed 'Get out of Jail Free Cards'. So much of what he does becomes normalized with him never having to account for his actions, as if anything he does is not to be taken seriously.
55
Well, trump finally got the man he wanted in as AG. Barr cleared trump when Mueller did not. Now we need to see the entire report.
90
Face it folks, Trump has created a culture that defies truth, logic, and justice. Life in Trump-World will continue to frustrate and anger those of us left with even a shred of prinicple and integrity.
191
@rab Right on, Rab. This dystopian distortion of decency and integrity baffles anyone with it, and is blithely disregarded by the sycophants without it. Reading Mueller’s bio, you see he has more integrity in one fingernail than Trump has in his whole body. Trump’s aides reportedly implored him to “be more Presidential” when that was never possible from the beginning. According to Michael Cohen, Trump had no desire to lead the country and that Trump often said his campaign was “the greatest infomercial in political history”. Brand building, not leadership, was his goal. Now we’re stuck with “Individual #1”, who schmoozes with authoritarians and insults our allies. 2020 will be critical.
12
Clearly it’s time to focus our attention on running the country… Protecting the country… And growing the intellectual capital that all of the citizens of the United States possess…regardless of their origin of birth. In the same vein it’s time to stop giving press to those in Congress who wish they were a Kardashian. These are people seeking headline news versus earnestly going about for filling the promises they made to the voters who elected them.
10
Lets see. It has been proven beyond doubt the charges the Democrats created a false narrative regarding collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to fix the last presidential election in Trump's favor that was mentioned 24/7 by the Democrats themselves and their left wing media allies for over 2 years. Trump like any normal human being who knew for a fact he was being falsely accused and persecuted objected to being falsely accused and investigated for no reason objected public ally on a regular basis saying at every opportunity that the allegations and accusations against were false and made up by his political opponents. Yesterday we got the news that Trump was 100% correct and that conversely his political opponents lied about the Trump Russia collusion matter for ore than two years. We also learned that although the Special Council could not gather enough evidence to say that Trump was guilty of Obstruction of Justice for firing Comey and other things he said criticizing this bogus SC examination into false accusations about Trump Colluding with the Russians that was made up by the Democrats to topple Trump and ruin his fair and duly elected Presidency but that the SC could not come to a conclusion but indicated clearly he did not have enough evidence to indicate that Trump committed a crime as it relates to obstruction of justice so he turned his evidence over to his boss the Attorney General and staff to make that determination as is protocol.
6
@NYChap
Democrats did not create a false narrative. This investigation was triggered by Trump when he fired Comey. It was Rosenstein, a republican, who appointed Meuller, another republican. If Trump had allowed Comey to proceed with a legitimate investigation into Russian interference, which was affirmed by the intelligence community, Meuller's investigation would not have been initiated. Furthermore, it was George Papadopolous, a Trump "adivsor" who triggered the initial suspicions when he blabbed to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. The diplomat then alerted the FBI. Why did everyone, including lie about all the Russian interactions?
21
Dems had nothing to do with the Special Counsel. The conspiracy inquiry was initiated and investigated by Republicans. There was little oversight from Congress because legislators stonewalled, but now Congress is doing their constitutionally mandates duty.
1
It is understandable that Mueller did not find evidence, much less proof, of collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. If he had, imagine the furor and potential response over any disclosure of such evidence--sources and methods of intelligence gathering would have been compromised, international relations strained or broken by violent repercussions.
As to obstruction of justice, even if Mueller found proof, the OLC and Barr had already spelled out rules for the Justice Department: a sitting president could not be indicted --or prosecuted. In effect, Richard Nixon was right: if the President does it, it is not a crime.
The outcome of the long awaited report is muddled and justice is not fool-proof.
116
@Fran B.
Barr wrote a memo as a private citizen. It has no weight. DOJ opinion papers are just that. Opinions, not law or statute, and untested in the courts.
3
Unfortunately, all the American public knows of the Meuller report comes through the filter of William Barr, a man who thinks it's perfectly legal for a sitting President to commit crimes and never be prosecuted, including obstruction of justice.
Barr should have recused himself from interpreting the Meuller report, given his highly biased, and legally dubious, point of view.
In fact, no President is above the law, and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law when they are sworn in.
If the extremely thorough Meuller could not vindicate Trump of obstructing justice, after more than two years, how could Barr do it in one night?
Trump picked the right guy for himself in selecting Barr, a man wrote a highly contentious, one could say, fringe element, 19-page opinion, in 2018, declaring that sitting Presidents were above the law.
It was as if he were auditioning for the job to be Trump's A.G. Trump really needed someone to get him off the obstruction charges, and although Meuller did not, could not, vindicate Trump, Ball did, based on his dodgy legal opinion.
Since cross examining Barr will result in a lot of stonewalling on his part, the Meuller report needs to be made public, so the American public, and less biased attorneys, can weigh its merits.
486
@Lilou Would the same be true if it was Obama's AG that made the same conclusion? Then what would your position be?
2
@Lee
Not even close to the point.
27
@Lee, yes it would - if. But there was nothing in that administration that rises to anywhere near this level of corruption and disgraceful behavior. The sound you hear is the complete report being swept under the rug by a Trump appointee hand picked to do just that job. Barr is fulfilling my greatest fear about him, one I have held since his appointment and wished that I was wrong about.
47
I've never understood the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel to conduct a fair an impartial investigation free of partisan politics if only to hand over that Counsel's report to a political appointee for final adjudication.
Mueller, a trusted impartial arbiter, made no finding on the subject of obstruction Then Barr, by his own words a clearly biased political appointee, rather than hand the matter over to congress for final determination as precedent dictates, proclaims that no obstruction exits. Barr's summary of his rationale poses more questions than it answers.
Of all the lawyers in the world Donald Trump picked the one to serve as his Attorney General who wrote a 19 page dissertation on the illegalities of the Mueller investigation. Now we know why.
706
@Dave Kuczaj
Maybe you do not understand. All AG's are political appointees. However the SC reports to the AG. That is the law of the land.
POTUS has the right to choose his AG just as Obama had his "wingman" AG who was held in contempt of congress. If Trump chose an AG who follows the law that is his right.
5
@Mr Chang Shih An
Yes, all AG's are political appointees but maybe you don't understand that there has to be a firewall between the AG and the president because it may happen that the AG has to investigate a sitting president, such as Donald Trump.
No one is arguing that a president doesn't have the right to choose the AG he wants.
And yes, Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress but those Fast and Furious documents were ultimately turned over to Congress, as should be the entire Mueller Report.
If you want to learn more about how an AG should properly act in these situations Google "Saturday Night Massacre."
139
@Ralphie....The Nixon investigation involved an Independent Counsel. Mueller was a Special Counsel, and there in lies the difference.
11
I will be very interested in reading the justification by Trump allies of why the full report should not be made public. Of particular interest will be those excuses related to "national security."
19
@Dennis McDonald Are you sure you would want your sons or daughters to be put in harms way just so YOU can read the entire report? I want to read the report. Let's be a bit realistic.
1
Before Barr was even hired he had written about the fact that a sitting president can't be charged with obstruction. He was then immediately nominated and confirmed in an unusually short amount of time, Duh, am I missing something here?
The fix was in from the get go.
36
@scott k. His "background" was as Bush AG covering up the Iran Contra scandal and making sure that the top Republicans who committed treason were either not charged or pardoned
5
Investigation was done to follow the facts and to tell us what was done.
According to Barr , Mueller followed the facts and did not find anything worthy of criminal behavior regarding Trump and Russia.
What about the RICO approach? The underlings did the dirty deeds and the boss knew about it. Otherwise, why did they lie, whose agenda where they trying to protect?
The report will answer those questions, if we are able to read it.
Barr is not doing the country a service, with a summary letter. The report should be made Public.
23
The grifting and tearing down of our Democratic institutions continues unabated.
30
Clearly Barr has come down on Trump's side of the dispute and that the guilt of Trump is not equally clear. We need to see the actual report, NOT the Barr interpretation of the report. The Congress AND the Public should see the report before ANY conclusions are drawn..
23
Well done. The point about Rosenstein and Barr taking into account the supposed lack of an underlying crime in order to judge the intent to obstruct is especially interesting. Why they should even try to rule on this matter when making a quick summary is hard to explain except as political massage and manipulation,
16
The only way to end this nightmare is to vote out all republicans. Focus on voter turnout and voter registration.
45
The clearest indication that Barr is utterly and completely biased is how he builds his position by overwhelming us with the scope of how thorough the SCO investigation was:
"... 19 lawyers... 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants...more than 2,800 subpoenas...500 search warrants... 230 orders for communication records... 50 orders ...13 requests to foreign... 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments..."
There's nothing even-handed about his need to influence (both before and after) his voice in the witch hunt chorus.
We've been gaslighted, bigly.
106
@SD I was just going to write the same: all
"... 19 lawyers... 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants...more than 2,800 subpoenas...500 search warrants... 230 orders for communication records... 50 orders ...13 requests to foreign... 500 witnesses."
...summarized in 4 pages? ..over a weekend? Book reviews for a High school paper are longer...
24
Since Barr probably already knew the outcome even before issuing his judgment then it stands to reason that it wouldn’t take him a long time to examine Mueller’s report and come up with his preconceived opinion.
However, since Mueller sent strands of his discoveries to the more fertile legal minds of states attorneys offices, particularly SDNY, it is there we can expect to see Trump’s shady money and electoral shenanigans brought to justice. Not to mention the ongoing House congressional investigations which will proceed full speed ahead.
5
@svenbi
And if he took longer, you’d be leading a crowd of people with pitchforks saying he was cherry picking facts and parsing the report and figuring out to spin it so you need to see the full report to learn the truth.
How long will it take the Times, CNN and MSNBC to issue an apology for telling people everyday for almost two years that our president had sold out his country for a job that even Cohen said he did really want or expect to win.
Move on please. This is destructive and tiresome.
Either impeach him or win in 2020 but stop with the persecution.
2
It is amazing that, in other words, Trump dictating in Air Force One a totally different narrative as to what actually happend at the Trump Tower meeting, would be considered not to merit "corrupt intent."
Is it considered "creative licence" then? Barr should be barred from interpretation, publish the papers!
36
As Mr. Barr stated, an obstruction prosecution is extremely iffy when there is no underlying crime. Obstructing an investigaton where no crime occurred is a case of no harm, no foul. Technically, such a case can be brought, but it’s a sure loser. When there are no adverse consequences to an act of obstruction, it’a big to do about not much. Ask any prosecutor you know. A prosecution that lacks harm is a non-starter. I don’t like Trump. But it is what it is.
2
@michjas
It doesn’t matter if an underlying crime was committed. If, unbeknownst to Trump, someone on his campaign worked with Russian intelligence and he tried to squash the investigation for fear that the FBI might find evidence, that’s obstruction.
22
@NA. Your scenario is way far fetched. Trump is not the kind of guy who puts himself in jeopardy to save the back side of an underling. Perhaps you haven’t notice that the only one Trump cares about is Trump.
8
@michjas
I disagree, because Trump is not very smart, but choose another scenario. If Trump takes action to impede an ongoing investigation, that’s obstruction. It matters not whether the investigation ultimately leads to evidence of a crime. Obstruction itself is a crime.
12
If the report exonerates Trump then there should be no reason to not release the report, if the report is not released then it will be seen as a partisan cover-up. I would like to see Mueller and Barr testify to the facts under oath. Why did Mueller not use a typical procedure? In the end, Mueller probably concluded that getting the President to testify would involve a long legal battle, and then when compelled Trump would take the fifth amendment. If this was the case Mueller needs to testify to that extent. That is not the same as an exoneration.
22
The Iran-Contra Affair was buried by a slew of Presidential pardons from George H.W. Bush issued on Christmas Eve. The NYT article at the time reports, "Throughout the deliberations, Mr. Bush consulted with Attorney General William P. Barr and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser, who had sat on a Presidential review panel that examined the affair in early 1987.
In lengthy Oval Office meetings in the last week, Mr. Bush and his advisers, none of whom offered a sharp dissent, discussed how to balance their desire to grant a pardon with their realization that such an act would almost certainly provoke hostility." Will history repeat?
14
Barr should have recused himself because of the comments he made about presidents not being liable to indictment or prosecutions and wrote a lengthy discourse on the unlawfulness of Mueller's probe. He wanted the job and was bought by Trump for that very reason. The Mueller Report may or may not show exactly what Trump is guilty of. But he used millions upon millions of our tax dollars to conduct his investigations and his report is ours and it needs to be made public. It is why we have a democracy, so the people will have a government they chose and is accountable to them. I do have trust the Democrats will take care of this travesty and that the other state investigations will do what Mueller did not.
25
There’s certainly a very big difference between something that “cannot be proven in court” and Barr’s hair splitting “exoneration” of Donald Trump. While the president and his supporters are dancing in the street, the rest of us should remain skeptical that the attorney general seemed to easily come to a conclusion in two days that Robert Mueller was unable to determine after two years. However, Mueller’s unequivocal statement that his report is in no way an exoneration of Trump being interpreted by Barr as meaning the opposite, should be quickly evaluated based on the evidence compiled by Mueller - impossible without the full report being released.
16
@walt amses, actually Mueller concluded clear "no collussion". Perhaps you misunderstood.
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
2
@Joe Yoh If as you say there was "no collussion" why is there so much opposition to making the full report public?
14
@Joe Yoh Nope. Mueller did not conclude "no collusion". He only concluded there was not enough evidence to directly implicate Putin's puppet in a conspiracy-- therefore the report also could not exonerate him, either. Stop twisting facts. Now we need to see the full report to find out just how Trumpolini's lap dog AG is defending this racketeering, fake president.
3
As I am stressing elsewhere in my comments
Leave this frenzy around the Barr debacle at the feet of our “ do nothing” slow slogging congress !
We must turn media focus to the election integrity we see or don’t see on a state by state reportage until the primaries start.
The electoral college must be dissected in discussions and descriptions of states rules related to voter identity.
Mainstream media discuss with experts our needs as Americans for healthcare and infrastructure and economy and immigration changes . Discuss how trump is destroying our agencies that monitor climate and pollution.
But please !!!!viewers are sick of the one topic focus. !!!!
Voters need education !
Voters are ready to remove trump ASAP.
Stop your ratings wars or we will all boycott your shows. !
And advertisers be aware.
We can still stymie trumps dictatorship aspirations.
Vote 2020.
12
Barr’s legacy will forever be he was compromised, by his employer. Did anyone expect otherwise?
31
William Barr, in his wisdom, has repeatedly stated that, like any monarch, President Trump is above the law. And why shouldn't he be? Why shouldn't the Office of the Presidency United States bring with it complete and total immunity from the law? After all, this is the most powerful political office in the world. Why should it be burdened with outdated notions of things like responsibility or accountability?
Let's face it, we only fought the Revolutionary War in order to free ourselves from the tyranny of an unaccountable monarchy, so that, one day, we could all live under one again.
And that day has finally arrived...
So, raise a glass and celebrate the end of our Democracy!
ALL HAIL KING TRUMP!
77
The simple fact is, in a Darwinian world the Republicans made sure they didn’t make the same mistakes they made during Watergate.
13
So before he was appointed Barr sent a memo to Trumo saying he does not believe a president can be found guilty of obstruction of justice, Trump hires Barr, and now Barr has decided that Trump is not guilty of obstruction of justice. If a President can be guilty of obstruction perhaps hiring Barr was a crime. Maybe Barr's own pronouncement there's not a crime is a crime. It sure seems like obstruction. It was so outrageous and shocking when Trump fired Comey and his malign intent was crystal clear.
125
With all the arrests, indictments, and convictions of his underlings for their conspiratorial activities with Russia, why did Mueller allow Trump's attorneys to answer all his questions? There was nothing to stop Mueller from issuing a subpoena to force Trump to testify. The fact that Mueller passed on that option is confounding and disheartening. Even if Trump refused to testify, it would have at least shown the American people that he was either attempting to obstruct justice or not.
18
@nzierler my theory is that Mueller knew there would be a lengthy court battle, ultimately Trump would lose and then he would plead the fifth. If that is his take on the subject he needs to state for the public, under oath. That is a far different scenario than the one Barr painted.
7
It’s good to know the American President is only an alleged sexual abuser, serial liar, racist, and conman. Apparently there isn’t enough evidence to call him a traitor as well. Conservatives must be SO proud.
362
Mueller takes two years to consider obstruction and leaves it an open question; Barr takes two hours and finds no evidence of obstruction. This after penning a 19 page single spaced legal document (for free) last year arguing that very thing. Barr’s mind was made up before seeing the evidence. His conclusion is worthless.
229
@Orange Nightmare, with no underlying crime to obstruct, there is no obstruction.
do we not at least give him credit for zero collusion? That was the single main point of the special prosecutor investigation.
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
3
@Joe Yoh
"with no underlying crime to obstruct, there is no obstruction."
Your conclusion is fallacious. The underlying crime may not have been collusion. It very well may have been financial misdeeds, and entanglements that he doesn't want to come to the light of day.
14
@Joe Yoh
Maybe Trump fired Comey because he was afraid the FBI would stumble on the copious evidence of lawlessness of the Trump crime family.
11
" Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion on whether to prosecute Mr. Trump after nearly two years of work, but Mr. Barr, with Mr. Rosenstein’s help, decided in a single weekend."
Surely this says it all?
16
@TR
Talking about cherry picking facts here to fit your own narrative. You completely glossed over the fact that Mueller said he found no evidence of collusion.
Isn’t that a least, a little important ?
4
It was disheartening to find out Robert Mueller even attended the weddings of William Barr’s children.
Maybe that means nothing, but it just might exemplify how entangled life is in good old Washington DC.
It’s a small world there after all.
13
Barr's pronouncements on this investigation are obviously partisan and designed to continue the Republican assault on free elections. Dems may have hoped that Mueller might have found Trump to be the head of this election snake, but there are enough close associates who have left a clear trail to suspect something improper did occur and will occur again. It is therefore critical for the House to continue to ask to see these crumbs, but it is also critical for Dems to mount a credible candidate against Trump. These individuals obviously wield great power, and will become more powerful with each passing day. The truth must be learned.
17
Is it Barr's or Mueller's (or both) opinion that collusion and obstruction of justice were "thoroughly" investigated? Barr made no mention of Trump's tax returns being scrutinized, and also failed to note that Mueller never had a face to face interview with Trump. Since either tactic might have unearthed a motive for collusion and/or obstruction, a very odd definition of "thorough" is being used here.
Barr states that 2800 subpoenas were issued. OK, were any of them ignored or resisted?
Over 230 orders for communications records were issued--was there total compliance?
13 requests for evidence from foreign governments were made--was there full cooperation?
Why did Barr feel the need for speed in issuing his summary? The markets tanked on Friday. If uncertainty as to the political and legal fate of an American president were allowed to fester, would we be looking at a Wall Street rout today?
13
“while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,”
With Trump's refusal to speak with the Special Counsel, no real conclusion could be drawn.
Trump's written answers were answers polished by his lawyers and carefully worded. They were not the same as an interview.
It seems to me that Mueller was suggesting that Congress is the appropriate place for these decisions to be made, as Congress is charged with oversight of the president.
Not the Attorney General.
Congress needs to see the unredacted report , and have Mueller testify.
We The People need to see the report, unredacted if it does not compromise national security.
This is far from over.
17
Did Barr also clear Trump in his failure to acknowledge the damage and threat from Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, and continuing threats to subsequent elections? Did Barr clear him from his failure to DO SOMETHING about it? That failure to do so shows how much he is still in the pocket of Putin for his business dealings, if nothing else. No one seems to remember how Trump acted with Putin in Helskink last summer. From USA Today report: Trump also declined to challenge Putin's insistence that his country did not meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, even though U.S. intelligence agencies under two administrations and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Moscow sought to skew the election toward Trump. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump told a joint news conference with the Russian president.
19
Barr clears Trump with a short letter "explaining" the results of a major 2 year investigation of serious charges. He will decide what anyone gets to see, even Congress. Forget about the citizens of this country who paid for this investigation. Why should we know what it actually says?
We're supposed to let someone, whose salary we pay, interpret for the entire country what grown people are allowed to see.
It is all sickenly and embarrassingly paternalistic and, I suspect, completely corrupt.
43
Everybody take a deep breath. The Mueller report has not been made public and nobody knows what it contains. It is certainly a massive, detailed investigation and anyone who would take as gospel a few-paragraph summary from someone just appointed by the suspect-in-chief are definitely not benefiting from the new liberal pot laws. Any attorney would gladly leap at the chance to use what we already know to prove a case of obstruction of justice by the President. What else is there we haven't yet heard? The process will take weeks and months and the story is only at the first page of at least a five volume set.
20
This is a complete travesty. Barr's action is indeed a "hasty partisan interpretation of the facts." We, the American people are left in the dark. For example, what kind of evidence is needed to prove that Trump colluded and/or obstructed? Many of his actions were out in the open (e.g.inviting the Russians to hack Hillary's email) so does that mean they are not considered collusion? WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTES COLLUSION so we, the American public, can draw our own conclusions. If Mueller could not completely exonerate Trump and his team, then he should have stated that clearly and loudly and recommended that more investigation is needed. Instead, he hands it to Barr and lets him decide? In doing this, he provided more fuel for the raging fire that is Trump and his base. Shame on Mueller--unless of course, the report contains more forceful language which will then in turn shine a light on the partisan spinning of Barr. This is wrong, wrong, wrong on every level.
17
A packed judiciary, partisan zealots throughout government and an Attorney General who appears to be in the pocket of a rogue president.
Next up, more rigged elections in 2020.
The republicans have violated every law or political norm that they perceived to be an impediment to their master plan.
The master plan?
It makes me physically ill to contemplate but it is safe to say that this country will not be fit for human habitation.
26
Mr.Barr acted as though he were doing the Congress and the voters a big favor by reading the Mueller Report and summarizing it for us.He was just installed by Trump to replace Sessions who Trump famously said, “did not protect me.” Trump got his protective Attorney General who wrote a flawed summary.The report was important and should not have been recycled through a prejudiced Attorney General.Mr.Barr has done Mr.Trump a big favor- the rest of us await the report with the facts included so we can finally know the truth.
31
I think we all need to simmer down.
We knew Mueller was a "by the book" guy. He was never going to indict Trump. Similarly, Barr has made it clear that he doesn't even think it is proper to investigate Trump.
Nonetheless, we know that Putin had his hand in the election. We know that there were literally hundreds of contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives. We see the timing of Trump's crowing about Wiki Leaks and the actual dumping of Democratic emails. We know that Manafort shared polling data with Kilimnick. We know that the Russian social media bombardment was highly targeted to key electoral districts.
Sure, it is possible that Trump was out of the loop regarding the corrupt efforts to get him elected. That doesn't change the fact that our election was hacked and we need to plug the holes in our electoral process to preserve the Republic.
26
A packed judiciary, partisan zealots throughout government and an Attorney General who appears to be in the pocket of a rogue president.
Next up, more rigged elections elections in 2020.
The republicans have violated every law or political norm that they perceived to be an impediment to their master plan.
The master plan?
It makes me physically ill to contemplate but it is safe to say that this country will not be fit for human habitation.
70
@Interested Party
Their plan is for this president and his inner circle to make sure that the top 1% of Americans (themselves) obtain and retain all the power to continue to enrich themselves and control every aspect of American life.
As for the rest of us peons - we are supposed to continue to work long hours at jobs that don't pay us fairly so we can pay taxes for the top 1% to have vacations on private islands and investment properties and so they can line their pockets with cash and their investment portfolios with wealth. And this top 1% does not want to be questioned or held accountable for the unfairness of this situation.
6
@Interested Party It appears that you dont support the president. Moreover, New York is unlikely to vote for him. We must understand that if we are not part of his cult and dont live in one of his states we are second class citizens. There is no rule of law in this in this jack boated state any longer.
2
The whole idea that Barr thinks the president could only have committed obstruction if there were an underlying reason to do so--in this case, collusion--is absurd. First of all, obstruction is its own, separate crime. But second, and more to the point--follow the money! Trump had every reason to obstruct that investigation. Does anyone really believe that Trump wanted his campaign manager convicted, his personal lawyer convicted, or news of his payments and an ongoing real estate deal with Moscow outed? This is a joke, and a complete affront to common sense and decency. For all the talk about our institutions holding, that's now an obvious lie. Mueller ended up being too squishy to make a call, which allowed the presidents hand-picked appointee to make the call. Big surprise that Barr protected his own party's president.
108
The report dissected a moment in time during the Trump campaign. Trump's lawyer, national security advisor, and campaign manager are going to jail. No one around him is safe, much less our nation and the world. Trump will overreach his supposed vindication and take his war to depths unknown; possibly eliminating departments of justice, and all other inconvenient cabinets that his oligarch puppet masters, both here and in Russia detest; education, health and human services, social security, medicare. Mueller, in his own way, set a path reminding Americans, that absolute fairness, without one word from a podium or twitter response can still exist in this nation. That, for me, is simply astounding. I woke up thinking of all the fine prosecutors who chose to give up their lucrative jobs at a law firm for two years to find the truth. The truth is never convenient. Mueller shone a bright light on this Presidency of ever-widening criminality and corruption. The Republicans will stammer and bloviate but these predominantly white men still support a President with real problems. Mueller knows this is a Presidency mired in corruption. It is not a happy administration. Trump may not have colluded with Russia during the election, but the Russians knew, with more time, he was the ultimate, corrupt mark who would buy and sell their global and illicit financial world, with American tax dollars, the greatest treasury on the planet.
22
The Mueller report needs to see the light of day in its' entirety otherwise the 2 year long exercise is a complete waste of time and effort. Why should an obviously partisan and politically appointed AG be given complete authority over this report to the point where his speedy watered down interpretation and judgement are taken as gospel. Appears to me that an effort is underway to sweep Muellers' hard work under the carpet. Trump was aware of and encouraged Russian involvement to defame Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election and perhaps did not collude beforehand but was a very willing cheerleader of the Russian smear campaign against Hillary and the Dems. I sure hope that Congress is successful in obtaining the complete Mueller report so that others of suitable intelligence can digest and report on its' contents. It should not be left in the hands of any single individual, Barr none!
31
I think that Mueller recognizes that a single point of investigation against the president was fraught with risk. Instead, like the mythological Hydra, he has created a creature that once its head is removed, grows more heads. Remember that he has referred parts of the investigation to SDNY, EDVA, and other jurisdictions. These investigations will continue and will pose an ongoing risk to the president’s cronies, and by extension to Trump himself.
I do think that the public has the right to see, and DOJ the obligation to release, an appropriately redacted version of the full report.
20
I will never believe there was no collusion, and the obstruction happened right before our eyes.
282
The American people have been told that their President is not a crook. The Democrats will continue to demand more information, but the bottom line is that impeachment is no longer possible. Given the Republican control of the Senate, impeachment was always extremely unlikely. The Attorney General's finding has made Republicans feel good and disappointed Democrats, but political world has not really changed much. The 2020 election is still the way to produce change in our leadership. The fact that the President is not a crook does not mean that he is qualified to lead our nation.
21
@Morris Johnson not a crook? You are referring to the guy who wrote a $25 million check to settle the Trump University fraud cases? You are referring to the guy who cut two big checks to silence a porn star and a Playboy bunny from revealing his affairs with them so as not to prejudice his run for President? You are referring to the guy who used his private foundation as a personal piggy bank?
Oh, Trump is a crook.
29
@Morris Johnson There are plenty of other reasons (than the very narrow definition of collusion with the Russian government that Mueller had to consider) to loudly say that he indeed is a crook.
8
Whoah, let's not confuse impeachment with prosecution by the Department of Justice. Impeachment addresses abuse of power, and if the Mueller report is revealed, it will add to the existing evidence that shows that Trump has abused his authority in a variety of ways, including by obstructing justice (notwithstanding a decision by the A.G. not to prosecute, especially given the DOJ policy of not prosecuting presidents).
4
Three things are looming—
Obstruction of justice, whether Trump obtained his high office illicitly, and whether Trump is compromised by a foreign power.
17
Regardless of what is in the full report, which we will likely never see, Trump has been handed what looks like a complete and utter victory. He and his supporters will crow about their "victory" for the next two years; Trump will be obnoxious in his victimhood; right-wind media will claim ad nauseum that this was all generated by the Dems in order to 'get Trump.' In that atmosphere, all hearings now held by the Dems will be viewed as desperate attempts to take down 'the greatest POTUS ever' (or God's own anointed leader, as the Evangelicals view him) out of pure resentment and spite.
This will surely motivate Trump supporters for 2020, maybe even drawing in some who did not vote for him, but distrust the government enough to now have empathy for him (in his victimhood). Whether or not it all helps him get re-elected is an open question. That his chances have greatly improved is certain.
52
@Anne-Marie Hislop My hunch is that the complete Mueller report will be leaked within a week or two. Completely agree that the right will spin it with great effect as you describe. Just as they would if the evidence showed Trump kills babies. But launching an impeachment that would without any doubt lead to an acquittal would be worse. This is like the early stages of Watergate--more stuff will need to come out before Repubs turn against their man. Maybe they never will. But I think (and I certainly hope to God) that the content of the report, once public, will not be helpful to Trump's re-election campaign
26
@highway
You are more optimistic than I am. It seems to me that there is a lot of sleaze, plenty of on the edge of legality or decency behavior, and lots of consorting with criminals, but that 'Teflon Don' will come to Nov 2020 unscathed by it all.
5
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Wait till the recession hits.
8
Robert Mueller spent two years looking at evidence on both sides of the obstruction question, and finally says that he isn’t sure the president is guilty. William Barr spends just two days reviewing the report and makes up Mueller’s mind for him.
Part of the rationale for not concluding guilt is that Trump made statements that could be considered obstruction in public—his comment to Lester Holt on why he fired Comey, for example. All that proves is that Trump is not very bright, which is why his lawyers never let him talk to Mueller.
49
I don't see how it's possible for Barr to absorb the entire report in so short a time and come to any conclusion one way or the other.
It's impossible the escape the idea that the fix was in.
255
Is there any doubt that Trump “obstructed justice” on multiple fronts?
Why Mueller “punted“ on this can only be ascertained by Congress having access to all the investigative files. It is the Congress, not a court, that decides whether we have to be burdened with Mr. Trump for two more years.
[Obstruction of justice, and whether he obtained his high office illicitly.]
49
The fact that Trump’s lawyers so feared he would perjure himself in a live interview that they fought instead for written answers to written questions, is itself an indictment.
307
@Boring Tool: What you say + Giuliani exclaiming that the report was better than they expected.
5
@Boring Tool
I agree but Mueller should answer why he didn't subpoena Trump for an interview instead of giving him a take home exam.
The entire purpose of the special counsel law is so that someone like Barr does not make decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute. I'm sure Muller knows that. So there is a gap in our understanding that I suspect will be cleared up when we see the report (if we see the report).
So this letter by the attorney general seems to be essentially a PR move. Reading the entire letter leaves you with a sense of very carefully worded spin. We'd be better off without it. We should be patient for the report and pretend the letter doesn't exist.
503
@PNBlanco Too late for that, unfortunately. The media already irresponsibly amplified the talking points and now there's no going back.
19
@Adam What was the media supposed to do? Ignore it? Freedom of the press cuts both ways, and Barr used it to
Trump's advantage.
14
@PNBlanco
I fear that if they had any intent of releasing a redacted-for-nat-sec full report they would have said so yesterday. I’m betting only way it gets public is through SCOTUS.
3