Trump NOT Exonerated

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."



https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html



For an analysis of probable cause for indictment, visit here:



https://truthout.org/articles/mueller-documented-probable-cause-that-trump-obstructed-justice/

Misty, Further Investigations, and Mueller's Report

8275   PM:   Mistysea   [Quote]     -- 7:40am -- Thu, May 30, 19 pst

Mistysea

If there had been a smidgeon of proof a crime was committed.... he could have written a referral to further investigate.

---

That's exactly what he did.  Misty obviously did NOT read his report. He even used  Misty's exact words,  "further investigate."



“Taking into account that information and our analysis of applicable statutory and constitutional principles . . . we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate

potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President.” - Volume II; Page 12 - Mueller Report





https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-224

What's In the Mueller Report

Read the Mueller report carefully, and you will find, among other things, that --- 






1) The Trump campaign colluded with a Russian intelligence operative;  (Vol. I; pp 6-7)

2) Requested Russia hack Hillary's emails; and welcomed help from Russia. (Vol. I; pg 49)

3) Trump is suspected of committing obstruction of justice at least 10 times noted in the Mueller report. (Vol. II; pp. 1-8)

4) Mueller explained why under Barr's DOJ guidelines, he's not allowed to indict Trump. (Vol. II; pg 1)

5) Mueller recommended further investigation of Trump's suspected crimes.  (Vol. II; pg. 12)

6) The next administration will be able to prosecute Trump.  (Vol. II; pg. 1)
 



____________



2941   PM:   Celeste   [Quote]     -- 8:08am -- Fri, May 24, 19 pst
Celeste
Doss: I'm not gonna read that report. Why?  Do you think it's gonna make a difference if I do? You're really good at wasting time.

Mueller Explains OLC Restriction against Prosecuting a Sitting President

Mueller explained why he couldn't prosecute Trump.



"Under OLC’s opinion that a sitting President is entitled to immunity from indictment, only a successor Administration would be able to prosecute a former President."  --- Vol II; page 179



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-391

Conason Suggests A TV Show

Joe Conason on Barr's lying about the Mueller Report:

''Sooner or later, someone will find a way to convey the report’s actual facts and conclusions to Americans in a comprehensible form. Maybe a movie or a comic book (or an impeachment hearing) would work. Then, despite the incessant spinning by Trump, Barr, and their craven servants in Congress, people may understand that the absence of a criminal indictment does not exonerate Trump at all. If it did, Mueller would have had no reason to publish hundreds of pages of evidence describing the shady, unethical, and unpatriotic conduct of the Trump campaign, all the way from George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone to the president himself.''



https://www.nationalmemo.com/what-made-robert-mueller-so-mad/

Congress Can Arrest Barr

The Rarely Used Congressional Power That Could Force William Barr’s Hand

It hasn’t been done in nearly a century, but House Democrats could arrest the attorney general after they find him in contempt.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/house-democrats-could-arrest-william-barr-contempt/588976/

Russell Berman

May 8, 2019

Impeachment is Congress’s most famous, yet rarely exercised, power over wayward presidents and other federal officers. But as Trump-administration officials continue to defy House subpoenas related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Democrats in control of the chamber could turn to an even blunter weapon in their arsenal: arrest.

Courts have recognized that the House and Senate each have the authority to enforce their orders by imprisoning those who violate them—literally. They can direct their respective sergeant at arms to arrest officials they’ve found to be in contempt and bring them to the Capitol for trial and, potentially, jail. Congress hasn’t invoked what’s known as the “power of inherent contempt” in nearly a century, but the escalating clash between two co-equal branches of government has Democrats talking about moves previously deemed unthinkable.

“Its day in the sun is coming,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland told me by phone on Tuesday. Raskin, a second-term Democrat and former constitutional-law professor, sits on the House Judiciary Committee, which on Wednesday approved, on a vote of 24–16, a resolution finding Attorney General William Barr in contempt for his refusal to give Congress the full, unredacted Mueller report. As lawmakers met to consider the move, the White House carried out its threat to assert executive privilege over the document.

The contempt resolution now goes to the full House, where it will likely clear on a party-line vote with the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who announced on Wednesday morning that she supported holding Barr in contempt. From there, Democrats would have three options to force Barr’s hand: They could refer the matter to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who would decide whether to launch a criminal prosecution of his own boss, the attorney general. Democrats could turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Or they could take matters into their own hands and call their sergeant at arms. Raskin himself brought up the arrest option when I asked him how far this confrontation could go, even as he acknowledged that not many members of the House were aware of that particular congressional power, much less supported its use.

The debate over how congressional Democrats intend to defend their constitutional prerogative to oversee the executive branch extends beyond Barr; Donald Trump’s administration is challenging the House’s authority across a range of areas, from the Ways and Means Committee’s bid to get the president’s tax returns from the IRS to the Judiciary Committee’s request to hear from both Mueller and one of his key witnesses, former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

“This is not some peripheral schoolyard skirmish,” Raskin said. “This goes right to the heart of our ability to do our work as Congress of the United States.”

Still, Democrats have been reluctant to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump for fear that they would backfire politically. Would they really send the House’s sergeant at arms down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Department of Justice with instructions to haul the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer to the Capitol, in handcuffs if necessary? House Republicans made no such effort after they voted to hold then–Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012 over his refusal to turn over documents connected to the “Fast and the Furious” probe.

In our interview on Tuesday, I spoke with Raskin about the Judiciary Committee’s confrontation with the Trump administration over subpoenas and the bubbling debate within Congress over impeachment. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

---

Russell Berman: If the House does vote to pass the resolution to hold Barr in contempt, where would it go from there?

Jamie Raskin: Well, first of all, at that point the contempt finding is complete. In other words, that goes on his permanent record, as you might say. He has been held in contempt of Congress, meaning in contemptuous or contumacious defiance of a lawful order of Congress, okay? So at that point, contempt is complete. However, we still need to enforce the contempt resolution in order to obtain compliance with the subpoena. There are different ways of doing that. There could be a criminal prosecution, but given the object of the resolution, there might be a problem getting the U.S. attorney to act forcefully and with dispatch. But we also have the power to go to court.

We also have the power—and I should say I’m speaking for myself here, because I don’t know how many people I’ve been able to convince about this—but we do have the power to exercise the so-called inherent powers of contempt of Congress. It was ruled in the 19th century, in a case called Anderson v. Dunn in 1821, that Congress has the power to enforce its own orders. Just as a court can enforce its orders, Congress can enforce its orders. And in the 19th century, Congress had the sergeant at arms arrest and detain people until they complied with lawful orders of Congress. And we would have the power to fine people who were out of compliance with the law. So that provides another avenue.

Berman: If it got to that point, do you think the House would have the attorney general arrested by the sergeant at arms?

Raskin: Well, the vast majority of the Judiciary Committee, much less the House itself, are just not aware of this process. So it’s just premature to be talking about it. But, you know, its day in the sun is coming. We will educate people about the power of the House to do it. The executive branch is acting in categorical bad-faith contempt of Congress. This is not like a dispute over one document or the timing of the arrival of a particular witness. This is the president of the United States ordering the executive branch not to comply with the lawful requests of Congress.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that Congress has the power of inquiry and investigation. This is essential to our lawmaking function. We have a responsibility to research how the current laws are working and what conditions are that might require legislative changes. We also have a specific power, the Supreme Court has emphasized, to investigate corruption, self-dealing, fraud, waste, and abuse in the executive branch of government. So, you know, this is not some peripheral schoolyard skirmish. This goes right to the heart of our ability to do our work as Congress of the United States.

Berman: From your point of view, would you personally support and advocate this move, which in modern times is unprecedented, to have the attorney general arrested by the sergeant at arms? Would you personally advocate that?

Raskin: Well, no, nobody has advocated that specifically. But I just want to make sure that we have all instruments on the table, and we should be aware that Congress has inherent powers of contempt that can relate to fines, orders, as well as arrests. But I, you know, nobody’s calling for that at this point.

Berman: Is there a risk that if the president does resist all of these attempts by the House to conduct its oversight, and if he wins in the courts, that it would actually set a new precedent for executive authority? That he could end up not only skirting oversight himself, but that, through court rulings, it could end up that the presidency itself winds up with more power?

Raskin: Well, it’s definitely been suggested by a number of people that the president has succeeded in packing the courts, including the Supreme Court, to the point that they essentially are part of the White House political operation. I hope that this is not the case.

In any event, we know that the executive branch is acting in categorical defiance of lawful orders of Congress for information. And whether or not we can get the Supreme Court to agree with us in this or that case is irrelevant to that broader judgement. We will decide, as the House of Representatives did when it drafted the third article of the Nixon articles of impeachment, whether President Trump has been acting in an unlawful way to obstruct the work of Congress.

Look, the obstructionism that was canvassed so methodically by Special Counsel Mueller in his report came leaping off the pages and right onto our doorstep and into our committee rooms. The president has been obstructing us with the same kind of vigor and zeal that he obstructed the special counsel.

Berman: Do you expect that the Judiciary Committee will follow this same process for each of the potential refusals to comply? Barr also refused to appear before the committee. Do you expect a second contempt process to begin if he continues to refuse to testify, and then would that same process also apply to McGahn and anybody else who refused to testify?

Raskin: Well, let’s broaden the question. The president essentially is trying to pull a curtain over the executive branch of government, and to systematically thwart and defy the will of Congress. The word on the street is that they are begging for an impeachment, and they think this is the proper way to get it. And I just want to say about that: If we are going to impeach the president, we are going to do it on our own schedule and at our own pace. We are not going to be pulled into it just by a series of provocations from the president.

In our last two Judiciary meetings, I counted Republicans invoking impeachment a dozen times. If they are so eager for impeachment and they think the time is right, they should go ahead and introduce impeachment articles on their own. Otherwise, they’re going to have to trust our strategic and constitutional judgments.

Berman: Lastly, there has also been the suggestion that Barr should be impeached himself. Is that a path you could see the House going down, or is the contempt path the better one?

Raskin: Well, there are certainly members calling for the impeachment of William Barr, and it is likely that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors supporting and advancing the president’s project of obstructing Congress in doing its work. So that becomes a strategic question of what we’re going to do in order to get to the truth that is in the Mueller report and to defend our constitutional system of government. And I can’t say that any of those judgments have been made yet.

Berman: You mentioned the Supreme Court and the president’s ability to install conservative judges more broadly. Is it possible that Trump will just win this fight—that the courts might just rule in his favor?

Raskin: I find it hard to believe that the courts have been so corrupted by Donald Trump already that they would completely abandon the rule of law. But we live in a time where nothing is normal. Let’s hope for the best, be prepared for the worst, and go fight like hell for the Constitution.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Russell Berman is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics.

Graham Defers to Mueller -- Further Investigation Needed

From Lindsey Graham: "Mueller spent two years and $25 million, and to me, he’s the final word.”



https://tinyurl.com/y3rqzmhw



So Mueller's is the final word?  Hmmmm.... Mueller says the facts warrant "further" investigation of "potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President.”



“Taking into account that information and our analysis of applicable statutory and constitutional principles . . . we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President.” - Volume II; Page 12 - Mueller Report



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-224

Trump Would Have Been Indicted

"Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert"

"More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held." - Washington Post





“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,”  wrote over 370 former federal prosecutors.



https://tinyurl.com/y23zommm

Substantial Evidence of Obstruction

Mueller concluded, “Taking into account that information and our analysis of applicable statutory and constitutional principles . . . we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President.” - Volume II; Page 12 - Mueller Report



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-224

Mazie Hirono Blasts Barr

Mazie Hirono’s full comments to Barr are transcribed below:

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, now the American people know that you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway or any of the other people who sacrifice their once decent reputation for the liar who sits in the Oval Office.


[You] once turned down a job offer from Donald Trump to represent him as his private attorney. At your confirmation hearing, you told Sen. Feinstein that the job of attorney general is not the same as representing ... the president. So you know the difference. You’ve chosen to be the president’s lawyer and side with him over the interest of the American people.

To start with, you should never have been involved in supervising the Robert Mueller investigation. You wrote a 19-page unsolicited memo, which you admit was not based on any facts, attacking the premise of half of the investigation. And you also should have insisted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recuse himself. He wasn’t just a witness to some of the president’s obstructive behavior; we now know he was in frequent personal contact with the president, a subject of the investigation. You should have left it to career officials.

Then once the report was delivered by the special counsel, you delayed its release for more than two weeks and let the president’s personal lawyers look at it before you even deigned to let Congress or the public see it. During the time, you substituted your own political judgment for the special counsel legal conclusions and in a four-page letter to Congress — and now we know, thanks to a free press, that Mr. Mueller wrote you a letter objecting to your so-called summary.

 When you called Mueller to discuss his letter, the reports are that he thought your summary was giving the press, Congress, and the public a misleading impression of his work. He asked you to release the report summaries to correct the misimpression you created, but you refused.

When you finally did decide to release the report, over a congressional recess and on the eve of two major religious holidays, you called a press conference to once again try to clear Donald Trump before anyone had a chance to read the special counsel report and come to their own conclusions.

But when we read the report, we knew Robert Mueller’s concerns were valid and that your version of events was false. You used every advantage of your office to create the impression that the president was cleared of misconduct. You selectively quoted fragments from the special counsel report, taking some of the most important statements out of context and ignoring the rest. You put the power and authority of the office of the attorney general and the Department of Justice behind a public relations effort to help Donald Trump protect himself.

Finally, you lied to Congress. You told Rep. Charlie Crist that you didn’t know what objections Mueller’s team might have to the March 24 so-called summary. You told Sen. Chris Van Hollen you didn’t know if Robert Mueller supported your conclusions — but you knew you lied, and now we know.

A lot of officials were surprised by your efforts to protect [the president], but I was unsurprised. You did exactly what I thought you would do. It is why I voted against your confirmation. I expected you would try to protect the president, and, indeed, you did in 1989. This isn’t something you hadn’t done before. In 1989, when you refused to show Congress an OLC opinion that led to the arrest of [Panamanian leader] Manuel Noriega in 1992, when you recommended pardons for the subjects of the Iran-Contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19-page memo telling Donald Trump that, as president, can’t be guilty of obstruction of justice and then didn’t recuse yourself from the matter.

From the beginning, you were addressing an audience of one, that person being Donald Trump. That is why before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my Senate colleagues and I called on the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the way you have handled the Mueller report.

I wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department’s policies and practices and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to other parts of the Department of Justice.

But now we know more about your deep involvement and trying to cover up for Donald Trump. Being attorney general of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign.



___________



https://www.vox.com/2019/5/1/18525727/william-barr-testimony-mazie-hirono-senate

Barr Didn't Review the Evidence

"No prosecutor worth her salt would make a decision on whether (the President) was involved in obstruction of justice without reviewing the evidence," Harris said. "This Attorney General lacks all credibility and I think has compromised the public’s ability to believe he is a purveyor of justice."



https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/barr-testimony-mueller-report/index.html

Trump Caught in a Trap

Pretty damning any way you cut it. He did it. We caught him. Now what do we DO with him?



''“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.''



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-214

Yes, Presidents Can Be Charged with Obstruction

The President's counsel has argued that "the President 's exercise of his constitutional authority ... to terminate an FBI Director and to close investigations ... cannot constitutionally constitute obstruction of justice." 1086 As noted above, no Department of Justice position or Supreme Court precedent directly resolved this issue. We did not find counsel's contention, however, to accord with our reading of the Supreme Court authority addressing separation-of powers issues . Applying the Court's  framework for analysis , we concluded that Congress can validly regulate the President's exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice. The limited effect on presidential power that results from that restriction would not impermissibly undermine the President's ability to perform his Article II functions.



https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Barr Promises Report to Congress

The Attorney General Washington, D.C.

March 29, 2019

The Honorable Lindsey Graham Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 

290 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 

2132 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler,

I write in response to Chairman Nadler’s March 25, 2019 letter and Chairman Graham’s March 27, 2019 letter, which addressed the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III and the “confidential report” he has submitted to me pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). 

As we have discussed,I share your desire to ensure that Congress and the public have the opportunity to read the Special Counsel’s report. We are preparing the report for release, making the redactions that are required. The Special Counsel is assisting us in this process. Specifically, we are well along in the process of identifying and redacting the following: (1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties. Our progress is such that I anticipate we will be in a position to release the report by mid-April, if not sooner. Although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report, he has stated publicly that he intends to defer to me and, accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.

Also, I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a “summary”of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report. For example, Chairman Nadler’s March 25 letter refers to my supplemental notification as a “four-page summary of the Special Counsel’s review.” My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel’s investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its “principal conclusions”—that is, its bottom line. The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion. 

As I have discussed with both of you, I believe it would be appropriate for me to testify publicly on behalf of the Department shortly after the Special Counsel’s report is made public. I am currently available to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2019 and before the House Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2019.

Finally,in the interests of keeping the public informed as to these matters, | intend to make this letter public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

Attorney General

Ce: Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein; Ranking Member Doug Collins

CAG, Martha Stewart, Barr, and Baloney

9660; PM:   Christians   [Quote]     -- 2:54pm -- Thu, Mar 28, 19 pst

That is incorrect. Stewart was charged with securities fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. 



9672   PM:   Christians   [Quote]     -- 3:00pm -- Thu, Mar 28, 19 pst

Stewart was found guilty on the three charges I cited above.



____________________





Wrong -- CAG cited "securities fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy."  Prosecutors, though, dropped all of the charges EXCEPT obstruction of justice and of lying to investigators.  Thus, there was no underlying crime involved. It's surprising that CAG fell for Barr's bullshit subterfuge.



"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A jury found Martha Stewart guilty Friday on all four counts of obstructing justice and lying to investigators"



https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/

Misty Admits the "Fix" Is In

8022 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 7:11am -- Thu, Mar 28, 19 pst

Mistysea

Funny wasn't what came to mind. The fix was in - from some big gun.... to get a criminal off the hook. Trump nominates ''Cover-up General'' William Barr for AG.

Counterintelligence Cops Rarely Press Charges

A former FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, Frank Figliuzzi, says that their investigations rarely produce criminal charges. Such investigations instead are ''about determining the degree to which a foreign power has targeted, compromised, or recruited.” the target.



“This thing started as a counterintelligence investigation,” Figliuzzi said, “and it needs to end as a counterintelligence investigation.”



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/barrs-summary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/

Dudley, Mountains, and Evidence

4901 PM: Dudley [Quote] -- 6:58am -- Wed, Mar 27, 19 pst

Dudley

Dosset, you say a mountain of evidence? . . .



____________________________



No,  Dudley did.



No, we haven't read the Mueller report.



Yes, we saw Trump urge Russia to commit felonies on his behalf.



Yes, we saw Trump ADMIT to firing Comey to stop the Russia investigation.



Yes, we saw the court filings stating that Individual #1 was in on a series of felonies.



Yes, we saw the lawyers' admission that Trump concocted the story to ''explain'' his campaign manager and family members meeting with Kremlin agents to discuss getting dirt on HRC.



Yes, we saw the checks Trump signed to make the illegal campaign contributions.



Yes, we HEARD the audio recording of Trump and Cohen plotting to commit a felony.

Media Whores Come to Trump's Rescue

Two headlines:

1)''MUELLER FINDS NO TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY'' (NYTIMES)

2) ''Mueller finds no conspiracy, attorney general says'' (WAPO)

One is stating a verifiable fact; one is not. See if you can figure it out.  



https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1110008685546426379

Safire Called Barr "Coverup General" in 1992

On Barr's role in covering up for Reagan's and Bush's Iran/Contra crimes, Safire wrote: ''Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead....''

Just like Safire noted in 1992 -- Barr is up to his criminal cover up again.



https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/19/opinion/essay-the-patsy-prosecutor.html