Barr lied to the American people and Mueller called him out on it

[malaise]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-robert-muellers-letter-bill-barr

Mr Mueller, please read the letter you sent on March 25 and explain how he distorted your findings.

Thank you.

[Iliyah]

1. Barr and the Republican party still lying . . .

[Hoyt]

2. Don't think that will get us anywhere.

Barr's 4 page summary admitted the following key points:

1. Barr's Summary admits that the Russians interfered in our election through Disinformation and Hacking; but, the investigation did not find evidence that trump's campaign coordinated/conspired with the Russians. [As discussed below, the latter is exactly what Mueller's Report said.]

2. Barr's summary specifically included comments that Mueller's Report did not exonerate the Prez on Obstruction. Barr specifically used quotes directly from Mueller's report such as: "The Special Counsel states that 'while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'" To me, Barr was pretty clear -- using Mueller's language -- that Mueller didn't indict the Prez because he's in office, and that it was a matter for Congress.


In regard to #1, Barr is accurate that Mueller's Report states over and over that they did not find evidence of trump's campaign being involved in coordination or conspiracy with the Russians. I think Mueller used that the term "did not identify evidence" 21 different times in his Report.

In other cases Mueller's Report used other means to absolve trump's campaign of any guilt. For example, Mueller's Report essentially said that Kushner and Junior did meet with the Russians -- like the trump Tower meeting -- but were too stupid to have the requisite intent to commit a crime. Similarly, Mueller contorted his thinking to let Manafort off the hook for giving polling data to the Russians, essentially saying it was impossible to put a value on it -- as required by law.


I think Barr did make an error -- although he has some support among the legal community -- when he concluded that Obstruction was not an issue if there was no underlying crime. But I do think that Obstruction loses some of its impact, if there is no evidence of underlying crime.

Point is, it was not Barr's Summary that was an issue, it was the extent to which Mueller went to absolve trump and his campaign of guilt. Mueller wimped out by letting trump and his campaign off the hook numerous times by saying he "identified no evidence," and not saying explicitly -- if true -- that trump's Obstruction likely kept the investigation from identifying evidence of coordination or conspiracy, whatever you want to call it.

Mueller's Report is the issue, and bringing Barr in just muddies the waters. I hope the Democratic Committee members coordinate and focus their questions to Mueller to get at the truth, not to turn the hearing into another uncoordinated, showboating circus.

[tableturner]

3. I disagree in more than one way.....

You wrote: "In regard to #1, Barr is accurate that Mueller's Report states over and over that they did not find evidence of trump's campaign being involved in coordination or conspiracy with the Russians. I think Mueller used that the term 'did not identify evidence' 21 different times in his Report."

My response: Mueller also stated in the report that obstruction made it difficult to actually ascertain if a conspiracy occurred. Don't forget.....there is a reason people commit obstruction of justice: To prevent law enforcement from finding out enough about a crime to prosecute. Don't forget that!

You wrote: "I think Barr did make an error -- although he has some support among the legal community -- when he concluded that Obstruction was not an issue if there was no underlying crime. But I do think that Obstruction loses some of its impact, if there is no evidence of underlying crime."

My response: NONSENSE!!! There is almost NO "support among the legal community" for concluding that obstruction is unprosecutable without an underlying crime. ONLY the Trump sycophants are saying that, and they don't even believe it (Rudy Giuliani, for example, has prosecuted people for SUCCESSFULLY obstructing justice, meaning that he prosecuted them for successfully preventing the exposition of a crime he had investigated).

This goes back to what I wrote above in response to the first quote of yours I highlighted. If lying and obstructing justice can't or won't be prosecuted unless an underlying crime has been uncovered, then SUCCESSFUL lying and obstruction, i.e., the acts of covering up crimes, would be rewarded by law. As a result, a much greater percentage of those being investigated would lie and obstruct justice, and many more crimes would stay unsolved and unprosecuted.

That's the entire point of having obstruction of justice laws! Society cannot let people obstruct justice without penalty as a reward for successfully obstructing. We'd become a relatively lawless nation!

[Hoyt]

4. Would like to see where Mueller actually said, "Obstruction made it difficult. . . . . . "

Also, I said I disagree with Barr's finding on Obstruction not being a crime. Please read without pointing at, and mouthing, each word, before saying it's "Nonsense."

But, if there is no underlying crime -- which is essentially what Muellers says (not my opinion) -- Obstruction is not particularly meaningful in this case as far as trump is concerned.

The fact is, Mueller's report and Barr's summary clearly indicate Russia interfered in the election.

What Mueller's report does not do, is indicate he found evidence that trump's campaign worked with Ruskies in a criminal fashion. If Obstruction thwarted his attempts, Mueller should have said so explicitly, and the Committee members should ask him about impact of Obstruction.

I personally think Mueller wimped out, and worked overtime to absolve trump and others of guilt. It wasn't Barr, it was Mueller. If Barr told him to wimp out, fine. Mueller should have had the guts to say so, but he didn't.

[tableturner]

5. I reaffirm what I wrote.....

First, there really is almost no support among the legal community for the idea that obstruction cannot occur without proof of an underlying crime. That is a fact.

As to whether or not Mueller referenced the reality that obstructive acts hampered his ability to find out the truth about conspiracy, see this analysis from Barbara McQuade, a former US Attorney and current MSNBC legal analyst:

https://www.justsecurity.org/64679/did-trump-and-his-team-successfully-obstruct-muellers-investigation/

It describes how the obstructive obstacles put in Mueller's way by Trump and crew hindered the investigation, including the relevant quotes from the report.

Some snippets:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller documented efforts by the Trump campaign to impede his investigation into Russia’s attack on our election. He decided that because he was unable to charge a sitting president with a crime, he would not conclude whether any of these efforts amounted to the crime of obstruction of justice. But to what extent did these efforts successfully prevent Mueller from finding the truth?"

(snip)

"Mueller documented numerous efforts by Trump and his associates that prevented his team from gathering the evidence that it sought. Despite Attorney General William Barr’s characterization of the White House as “fully cooperative with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” the Mueller report paints a different picture. Mueller wrote about numerous instances in which witnesses lied or withheld information, deleted communications and used encrypted messaging applications. Other practical obstacles prevented Mueller from completing his investigation, including some witnesses’ refusal to answer questions on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, other legal privileges and the inability to obtain evidence located overseas."

"In an important but somewhat overlooked passage, the Mueller report states that in light of these “identified gaps,” in the evidence, “the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” That is, the obstruction may have worked."

She then went on to cite several obstructive obstacles cited in the report, including lies and incomplete information, along with referencing the dangling of pardons, and concludes:

"As a result of obstructive efforts and other practical obstacles, Mueller’s team was unable to complete many of their intended investigative steps. The failure to find enough evidence to support a conclusion that crimes were committed in the run up to the 2016 election, then, should not be viewed as a finding that the Trump campaign was “cleared” or that Mueller “found no collusion.” This is not to say that had Mueller been able to take every investigatory step he sought, he would have found enough evidence to charge a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. We don’t know what the additional evidence would have shown. There is even the possibility that the additional evidence would have painted a more innocent picture of Trump and his associates."

There IS a reason people obstruct!

[Hoyt]

6. So in other words, you made up what you said was in the report. I like McQuade,

but I remember when the report first came out. She and the regular legal pundits looked like they were going to cry (as was I, for that matter because we were counting on Mueller). Since then, they have been trying to spin Mueller’s sellout, to stay relevant.

I hope I’m wrong, and will gladly eat crow dung, if so. But Mueller, Barr’s good buddy outside work, is going to have to completely change his tune for that to happen. Don’t think he has it in him.