Yeeessss…Here’s your parade, Mr. Trump. Your place of honor is right up there on the cart.
Okay…I just need to get it off my chest and record it for posterity, so when the truth is told, you can say you heard it here first:
Barr claims that he has asked Mueller (3 times?) that if not for DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting President, would he have charged Trump with obstruction and Mueller has said NO. But, here’s the thing: If you read the introduction to Volume II of the Mueller report (as I assume Barr has, although he has played dumb on comprehending it), you would know that Mueller can’t possibly answer YES to that question without violating the principles he laid out there. He basically said that he can’t indict the President and that it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime and not give them their day in court, ergo he can’t accuse the President of a crime.
So, now Barr goes and asks Mueller in essence, “Well, okay, but if you could accuse the President of a crime, would you have?” How could Mueller answer YES to such a question without then having, in essence, accused the President of a crime?
So, my conjecture is that Barr, being a smart lawyer, knows never to ask a question that he doesn’t know how the witness will answer…i.e., that won’t give him the answer that he wants (or close enough so that he can spin it as being that answer without technically perjuring himself). At best, Mueller would presumably give an answer such as “No, not necessarily, …” and proceed to explain that he can’t answer this or maybe that they decided not even to determine the answer to a question that is irrelevant because they wouldn’t be able to reveal the answer to anyone. And, then, Barr has the answer that he wants - Mueller said NO.
So, that’s my hypothesis of how it all went down and I am frustrated as hell that I haven’t seen others come to this rather obvious conclusion.
And, in a not unrelated note, a lot has been said about Barr playing dumb when he had been asked by the Congressman weeks ago if he knew why it might be that the Mueller team was reportedly unhappy with the summary he put out. However, less seems to be said about how Barr (and admittedly most of the Republican Party) continues to play dumb about why Mueller did not reach a prosecutorial judgement on obstruction of justice. I mean, I have another day job but still on the very day the Mueller report came out I managed to find and read the introduction to Volume II where Mueller lays all this out in about a page and a half in very clear prose (Okay, as a disclaimer, I’ll admit that I had no classes to teach on Thursday, but still…). I mean…What the fuck!?! He’s entitled to disagree with the reasoning but not to pretend he’s ignorant of it.
On the other hand, I understand why he has to play dumb: If he admits to understanding it, then it undermines the fiction that his decision on obstruction was just filling in the vacuum left by Mueller’s non-decision. I.e., he can continue to present the fiction that he did not contradict Mueller’s conclusion but merely made a decision where Mueller had punted. Still, it is utterly disgusting to see this level of deception being promulgated by the Attorney General.
Assuming my understanding of his position (toward the end of the article) is correct, it’s interesting that the same Jack Goldsmith who apparently believes that there needs to be some investigation into the FISA process and how it was implemented by the FBI in 2016 appears to be the same Goldsmith who helped implement and defend warrantless wiretaps on American civilians in 2004. Didn’t seem to have a problem with FISA and “spying” then.
Whoever this Jack Goldsmith is, he is completely out-to-lunch on the whole obstruction thing. He is another person who seems incapable of understanding why Mueller chose the path that he did. If you are going to criticize that path, you have to explain what Mueller’s other option is. I.e., you have to engage Mueller’s argument for doing what he did. He hasn’t engaged it; like, Barr he is just pretending it isn’t there (although I am willing to entertain more innocuous motives in his case, whereas in Barr’s case it is pretty clear why he is pretending it isn’t there).
I think Goldsmith, like Barr, is also playing dumb
I don’t think this could or would happen, but I’d really like to see Mueller call Barr’s bluff on this whole thing. “You want me to make a prosecutorial judgement in spite of the DOJ opinion, then hey, you are the attorney general so issue a new opinion overturning that one and we’ll go back and render my prosecutorial judgement.”
Fucking twit (Barr that is)!
By the way, here is a short interview with someone (Renato Mariotti) who can read and intelligently discuss Mueller’s decision in regards to obstruction and how Bill Barr distorted it. Restores my faith in humanity at least a little bit.
I just discovered that Ben Wittes also has a very nice analysis of the Introduction to Volume II and Barr’s distortion of what is said there. His statement that
is no overstatement. I’ve seen people say that Mueller wanted the executive summaries released in that letter after Barr released his “summary” but Mueller’s letter actual says “the introduction and executive summary of each volume”. The key to Barr’s deception on obstruction is not having Mueller’s conclusion presented in the context of the Intro to Volume II.
“Twit”? You misspelled “lying sack of shit”.
My faith in humanity has been permanently undermined by the fact that the distortions of the above-mentioned lying sack of shit, aided and abetted by Fox News and the rest of the right-wing spin machine, have become the de facto reality for perhaps as many as half of American voters. And the reason it might only be half is that a significant percentage probably don’t even understand the issues and don’t give a shit, as long as a lunatic with an “R” after his name is president.
Glad to see Litt basically make a point similar to what I did above when he says (rather understatedly), “It is not clear what Barr and Goldsmith believe Mueller should have done given these circumstances…”
Barr threatens to get Trump to exert Executive Privilege; House set to vote on citing Barr for contempt
Not sure what he’s threatening. “We’re stonewalling you, and if you cite me for contempt, we’ll…we’ll…we’ll…stonewall you!”
Neither is anyone else. Trump seems to already be threatening to do those things.
Barr contempt vote is live right now on MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, and maybe others.
Also streaming online: Barr contempt of congress vote: Watch LIVE as House Judiciary debates holding AG in contempt - YouTube
If I understood what I was watching, the Republicans tried unsuccessfully to block it with some sort of procedural vote.
Barr is just a terrible liar. I mean, this is How To Spot A Liar 101.
Some Republican reps seem to be confused about the nature of this vote.