A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

Look, we have no idea who these officials are. The only one who we know by name who claims this is how it went down is Barr himself. He is also the one who claims that Mueller told him that it was not the DOJ regs that prevented him from charging Trump with obstruction of justice.

Both of these claims of what Mueller has said are in clear conflict with what is in the actual text of Mueller’s letter and the report, respectively. I choose to believe what Mueller actually put down in writing to what Barr claims he told him in person since Barr is now known not to be a credible source and Mueller is known to be very careful with what he chooses to say, certainly in writing and I would presume in person too.

(Actually, here is my conjecture for what Mueller told Barr in regards to the obstruction of justice claim: I think that Mueller did what he would have to do by his own logic; I think he basically told Barr that he can’t say either way whether he would have charged Trump with obstruction of justice if his interpretation of the DOJ regs had allowed him to. After all, if he tells Barr “Yes, I would have charged the President if not for the DOJ regs” then he is violating his own principle of not making a charge that the President is unable to defend in court. And, so I think Barr has parsed this as “It wasn’t the DOJ regs that prevented Mueller from charging the President with obstruction.” However, that is not the correct conclusion at all. The correct conclusion is exactly the conclusion one draws from the actual text of the Mueller report, which is that Mueller felt constrained to not render a prosecutorial judgement in regards to obstruction of justice unless that prosecutorial judgement was that Trump clearly did not commit the crime. And, the evidence prevented him from reaching that judgement. Whether or not Mueller would have charged / indicted the President if he felt he could is unclear, but what is crystal clear is that Mueller either reached the conclusion that the President committed the crime of obstruction or that he may have committed the crime of obstruction. The only thing that has been ruled out by the report is the possibility that Mueller believed that the President clearly did not commit obstruction.)

Maybe Mueller needs to come out with another open memo to Barr which reads in full. “No you goat felcher I wasn’t talking about the media I was talking about you. I clearly stated that it was you who misrepresented my report!”

Of course Barr would probably make a public statement interpreting that memo as calling for Clinton’s immediate incarceration. And Farnby who didn’t bother to read the memo will take that interpretation as the gospel truth.

Oh, I have. That’s an excellent consummation devoutly to be wished for.

The movie made from the book is good, too, but not as hard-hitting as the book. I recommend both.

But is it really that big a deal? Now, if he had made a misstatement on a Sunday morning talk show, and was corrected shortly there after, then we would have something.

I think it worked better with Powers especially because he was a “pretty boy.” It’s more believable and more true to the book.

Protip: crazed street corner preachers don’t make good teachers.

Just got a notification on my phone that the “White House blasts Mueller report, says Trump can instruct advisors not to testify to Congress”. Apparently, the WH Counsel sent a letter arguing this to AG Barr.

So we’ve moved from “total exoneration” to “blasting” in, what…3 weeks?

White House Counsel blasts Mueller

Not being a lawyer, I don’t make hide nor hair of it.

Tl;dr is The president hasn’t been proved guilty, so he can order those with knowledge of his guilt to not testify or to ignore subpoenas.

Where is the first letter from Mueller? That hasn’t been released (or leaked) yet.

I’m not sure whether it’s been released, but Mueller describes it in the letter that has been.

Nevermind. Apparently the dates work alright.

I agree. Have not yet seen the movie, but I understand it offers Stanton redemption in the final scene.

Kind of spoils the proper ending.

In sum: “If someone committed a crime to whistleblow on the President, then the President’s crimes cannot be counted against him.”

Of course, it makes no particular argument that someone did commit a crime to whistleblow on the President. And nor, should we expect, did anyone who was actually part of the FBI/Mueller investigations.

But, more importantly, innocence by the guilt of others is not how it works. While it is the case that if the cops broke the law trying to prove your guilt and the case will be thrown out, that is not the same thing as “innocence”. You’re still a criminal and impeachment has lower standards than a criminal case.

IIRC, Barr was asked in the Senate hearing if he would produce that letter, and Barr’s response was: “Why should I?”

The Republican-dominated committee is unlikely to subpoena the letter, of course, and in the event that a House committee subpoenas it, the AG will almost certainly ignore that subpoena.

Thing is, Mueller HAS to have a copy of the letter (and the enclosures) in his possession. What’s to prevent him from forwarding copies to any Senator or representative who requests it?

Mueller certainly kept his own copy. They can get it from him instead.

“Guys, I can’t believe it. I printed it out but forgot to hit save.”

Mueller’s old. He probably has a carbon copy. Please don’t make me explain what that was.

I’m not a lawyer but here is my reading of it.

  1. Mueller wasn’t supposed to present any report other than just a yes/no statement as to whether a given person should be indicted. Since the president can’t be indicted, he shouldn’t have been investigated at all. And certainly shouldn’t have had all his dirty deeds shown to congress or the public.

  2. If we had known that an actual investigation was going to occur we would have done a better job of covering up and obstructing. You think we were obstructive before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  3. Since I’m president I should be able to have full control over any investigation even of my self. The justice department had no business trying to be independent. I am above the law.

Reading it a little more closely, it has the further argument that Mueller was supposed to either prosecute or not prosecute (according to the law that defined the existence of his position) and that it’s unseemly and unprofessional for him to have aired Trump’s laundry when not giving Trump’s legal team a chance to debate the matter in court.

The law that defines the SCO position, however, is not written to specify that the Special Counsel is a position that exists for the purpose of prosecuting a sitting President. Flood tries to imply that it is. The SCO laws do not call out the President in any way and when they refer to “prosecution decisions” they almost certainly mean as regards non-Presidential persons. And the statutes are written to simply say that the position exists, “to investigate any matters where the DOJ might be viewed as having a conflict of interest”.

Congress is big on kicking the can down the road. If the SCO laws specified the President, then there’s the chance that they would conflict with the Constitution, get shot down, and render the first investigation under those laws completely invalid. The “kick the can down the road” strategy is to just keep it vague who is being investigated and for what purpose, and offer no particular recommendation as regards who can or can’t be prosecuted. That way, it’s up to the SCO to pick a position and fight the battle.

The SCO laws do not specify the President and do not make any attempt to expand the abilities of a Federal prosecutor to have greater authority to prosecute any one person than any other Federal prosecutor.

They could just as easily be used to investigate Barr as Trump, but the ability to prosecute would be different.