Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News    H4'ed 5/2/19

Bob Mueller's Extraordinary Letter to Bill Barr

Quicklink Submitted By     (# of views)   1 comment, 6 series
Author 40790
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Susan Lee Schwartz
Become a Fan
  (24 fans)

 'The letter  shows that Mr. Mueller sensed the urgency of his conclusions,  and he couldn’t sit idly by as the chief legal officer of the US actively undermined them. Mueller noted  he had prepared detailed and accurate summaries of the 2 volumes of the report, on contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, and on potential obstruction of justice. 'Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies, I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time  ” -- in March, the special counsel wanted the crux of his findings delivered to the American public immediately, to clear up the misconceptions Mr. Barr had left with his four-page summary letter to Congress.'

Read the rest of the story HERE:

At www.nytimes.com

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Susan Lee Schwartz Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

I began teaching in 1963,; Ba and BS in Education -Brooklyn College. I have the equivalent of 2 additional Master's, mainly in Literacy Studies and Graphic Design. I was the only seventh grade teacher of English from 1990 -1999 at East Side (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Other Series: View All 347 Articles in "Trump"

Other Series: View All 24 Articles in "UTTER CONTEMPT"

Other Series: View All 129 Articles in "wWonderful writing ....must reads"

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this quicklink has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments


Susan Lee Schwartz

Become a Fan
Author 40790

(Member since Oct 25, 2009), 24 fans, 17 articles, 3728 quicklinks, 6898 comments, 2 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content
Why Barr Can't Whitewash the Mueller Report We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president.

Many who watched Attorney General William Barr's testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which followed the revelation that the special counsel Robert Mueller had expressed misgivings about Mr. Barr's characterization of his report, are despairing about the rule of law. I am not among them. I think the system is working, and inching, however slowly, toward justice.

When it comes to investigating a president, the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. That is where this process is going, and has to go. We are in the fifth inning, and we should celebrate a system in which our own government can uncover so much evidence against a sitting president.

Some commentators have attacked the special counsel regulations as giving the attorney general the power to close a case against the president, as Mr. Barr did with the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. But the critics' complaint here is not with the regulations but with the Constitution itself. Article II gives the executive branch control over prosecutions, so there isn't an easy way to remove the attorney general from the process.

Instead, the idea behind the regulations was to say, "We recognize the constitutional reality that the attorney general controls the prosecution power, so what else can we do?" My colleagues and I (which included many career officials at the Justice Department as well as bipartisan leaders in the House and Senate) settled on two things. First, provide a mechanism to enable an independent investigation, and thereby generate public confidence in the outcome of that investigation. Second, design that mechanism so that if the attorney general interferes with the special counsel's inquiry, that interference would be reported to Congress and ultimately become public.

The underappreciated story right now is that we've not only learned that it was Mr. Barr and pointedly not Mr. Mueller who decided to clear President Trump of the obstruction charges, but also discovered the reasoning behind Mr. Barr's decision. The American public and Congress now have the facts and evidence before them. The sunlight the regulations sought is shining.

Mr. Barr tried to spin these facts. He hid Mr. Mueller's complaints, which were delivered to him in writing more than a month ago, even when Congress asked in a previous hearing about complaints by members of the special counsel's team. And the four-page letter that Mr. Barr issued in March and supposedly described the Mueller report omitted the two key factors driving the special counsel's decision (which were hard to miss, as they were on the first two pages of the report's volume about obstruction): First, that he could not indict a sitting president, so it would be unfair to accuse Mr. Trump of crimes even if he were guilty as sin; and second, Mr. Mueller could and would clear a sitting president, but he did not believe the facts cleared the president.

These two items came out because the special counsel regulations allowed for public release of this information (and not, as Mr. Barr testified on Wednesday, because he "overrode" the regulations to give the information to the public). The attorney general was misleading through and through, not just about the investigation, but about the special counsel regulations themselves.

What's more, we now know about Mr. Barr's reasoning to clear the president, which turns out to be painfully thin. When asked on Wednesday why he did so, Mr. Barr said the Department of Justice ordinarily issues "binary" decisions: indict or not indict. But Mr. Barr's own view is that this case is anything but ordinary, because the president cannot be indicted. If Mr. Trump were an "ordinary" individual, he'd almost surely be looking down the barrel of a federal indictment right now. So how can Mr. Barr now use the "ordinary" rules playbook?

This mishmash of legal arguments is absurd. No responsible scholar who thinks a sitting president cannot be indicted also thinks an attorney general can try to truncate a process of oversight by Congress, for example by "pre-clearing" the president in advance. The whole idea behind the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is that the responsibility lies in Congress. An attorney general shouldn't put his thumb on the scale one way or the other. That's why Mr. Mueller's predecessors, Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski, simply served the evidence up to Congress; they didn't try to exonerate the president in advance of it.

And that brings us full circle to the special counsel regulations. We knew when we drafted them that we could have a nefarious attorney general (though, in fairness, we didn't predict this amount of duplicity). But we also knew that the facts would ultimately be forced out into public view under the regulations. That is why the special counsel isn't a regular Justice Department employee. The "break glass in case of emergency" option was that if the attorney general was interfering with the work of the special counsel and preventing it from becoming public, the special counsel could leave the department and testify. Mr. Mueller needs to testify and tell us whether he disagrees with Mr. Barr's analysis and conclusions about obstruction of evidence; what he thinks about the attorney general's reaching his decision without reviewing any of the underlying evidence; what Mr. Mueller thought of Mr. Barr's characterization of their reported disagreements; whether there were other disagreements that have not been reported; and whether Mr. Mueller's knowledge of what Mr. Barr has done leads him to conclude that the attorney general must recuse himself from the continuing Trump investigations.

Mr. Barr's deeply evasive testimony on Wednesday necessitates and tees up a full investigation in Congress. Those who say Congress shouldn't do so because surveys show that the American public is not in favor of an impeachment inquiry must take into account the fact that the American people have been misled by Attorney General Barr's characterizations of the report and its conclusions. These surveys are therefore not surprising. But there is no more sacred duty for Congress than getting to the bottom of whether our president has taken care that the laws of this country have been faithfully executed.

Related

More on Barr and the Mueller report.

Submitted on Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 1:55:27 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Quicklink? Post Comment