If Mueller wasn't out to get Trump (I'm not sure I disagree with you, although there are reasons to doubt his integrity), then it's necessary to explain why Mueller hired the likes of Strzok and Page, knowing from the jump who and what they were.
If Mueller weren't out to get Trump (again, I'm not sure he was, per se), I don't have any explanation for such a hire.
Hiring a Weissmann can be explained a little bit more straightforwardly https://ricochet.com/628138/why-andrew-weissmann-is-so-despised/ . A bulldog, even a thoroughly unethical, if not outright dishonest, one like Weissmann has its advantages in an investigations like Mueller's, even were that investigation legitimate. Mueller just thought he could ride that storm.
As an aside, I'm amused by the constant beats about what Mueller was investigating/hired to investigate. To my knowledge, the DoJ charging letter and amendment have not been released.
Chait once again misstates something that Mueller has been perfectly clear about, including in a joint statement with Barr's office after his press conference. The rule forbidding indicting a President is not the reason he didn't bring charges. He's said that like five times in formal statements. Journalists either can't get their heads around this, or they don't want to do.
The reason Mueller didn't recommend obstruction charges is that he and Barr fundamentally disagree about what conduct constitutes obstruction, and the DOJ will follow Barr's interpretation. This is what that memo Barr wrote last summer was all about, and why Barr is currently the AG. Will Chamberlain wrote a great article about this. (https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/)
Mueller wanted a reading of obstruction that allowed prosecution for conduct that might obstruct not actual legal proceedings, but potential future ones. Barr rejected that theory for the very good reason that it could make a huge amount of legal conduct potentially criminal, vastly increasing police powers. Did you ever in your life erase a hard drive that might have had documents that police think might have been incriminating, thus foiling a potential future grand jury? You too can be indicted for obstruction!
It's a terrible theory, the kind of police-state nonsense one might expect from Robert Mueller. Barr is 100% right on the merits of this argument, and that -- not the OLC rule the journalists keep hammering -- is why Mueller couldn't declare Trump indictable.
The whole second part of the Mueller report is thus a "Well, I really prefer my theory on how the law ought to work to the Attorney General's, and I hope Congress will act on it by impeaching the President for this conduct that I would prefer to consider a crime."
Barr rejected that theory for the very good reason that it could make a huge amount of legal conduct potentially criminal...erase a hard drive that might have had documents that police think might have been incriminating....
There's actually case law on this where folks have been convicted for evidence tampering for destroying documents that they knew would be useful in a civil (I think) case that would be brought. That was a high bar, though, as the prosecutors had to show both that the tamperers knew the material they were destroying would be useful in a suit and that such a suit was likely to be brought.
Still, Barr's objection is sound, as Mueller's move would have vastly lowered that bar if not removed it altogether.
The whole second part of the Mueller report is thus a "Well, I really prefer my theory on how the law ought to work....
Except that second part showed an angry, volatile boss venting all over a staff that was well aware of the distinction between a Trumpian temper tantrum and a Trumpian order to do a particular thing. That's also what would have made a court case (as opposed to the political case of impeachment and conviction) difficult to prove.
Reading Chamberlain's article again, I think he reads the objection as different from the one I was raising. He thinks this section is read by both as applying to 'potential future' proceedings, but that Barr thinks it only turns on destruction of evidence; whereas Mueller reads it as far broader, to embrace any sort of conduct that could have any sort of effect on any sort of 'potential future' legal proceeding.
In which case, I'd like to see the thing repealed. 'Potential future' embraces too much, and gives the police far more power than they ought to have.
There are lots of journalists and talking heads, including some with law degrees, talking about the obviousness of Trump's indictability and impeachability. The government employees who are having the spotlight turned on them have stopped talking that way, focusing on deflecting blame from themselves.
8 comments:
In law, technicalities matter. Chait keeps going for "What Mueller really meant is..."
In retrospect, I don't think Mueller was out to get Trump nor to protect him. His goal was to protect the CIA.
If Mueller wasn't out to get Trump (I'm not sure I disagree with you, although there are reasons to doubt his integrity), then it's necessary to explain why Mueller hired the likes of Strzok and Page, knowing from the jump who and what they were.
If Mueller weren't out to get Trump (again, I'm not sure he was, per se), I don't have any explanation for such a hire.
Hiring a Weissmann can be explained a little bit more straightforwardly https://ricochet.com/628138/why-andrew-weissmann-is-so-despised/ . A bulldog, even a thoroughly unethical, if not outright dishonest, one like Weissmann has its advantages in an investigations like Mueller's, even were that investigation legitimate. Mueller just thought he could ride that storm.
As an aside, I'm amused by the constant beats about what Mueller was investigating/hired to investigate. To my knowledge, the DoJ charging letter and amendment have not been released.
Eric Hines
Chait once again misstates something that Mueller has been perfectly clear about, including in a joint statement with Barr's office after his press conference. The rule forbidding indicting a President is not the reason he didn't bring charges. He's said that like five times in formal statements. Journalists either can't get their heads around this, or they don't want to do.
The reason Mueller didn't recommend obstruction charges is that he and Barr fundamentally disagree about what conduct constitutes obstruction, and the DOJ will follow Barr's interpretation. This is what that memo Barr wrote last summer was all about, and why Barr is currently the AG. Will Chamberlain wrote a great article about this. (https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/)
Mueller wanted a reading of obstruction that allowed prosecution for conduct that might obstruct not actual legal proceedings, but potential future ones. Barr rejected that theory for the very good reason that it could make a huge amount of legal conduct potentially criminal, vastly increasing police powers. Did you ever in your life erase a hard drive that might have had documents that police think might have been incriminating, thus foiling a potential future grand jury? You too can be indicted for obstruction!
It's a terrible theory, the kind of police-state nonsense one might expect from Robert Mueller. Barr is 100% right on the merits of this argument, and that -- not the OLC rule the journalists keep hammering -- is why Mueller couldn't declare Trump indictable.
The whole second part of the Mueller report is thus a "Well, I really prefer my theory on how the law ought to work to the Attorney General's, and I hope Congress will act on it by impeaching the President for this conduct that I would prefer to consider a crime."
Barr rejected that theory for the very good reason that it could make a huge amount of legal conduct potentially criminal...erase a hard drive that might have had documents that police think might have been incriminating....
There's actually case law on this where folks have been convicted for evidence tampering for destroying documents that they knew would be useful in a civil (I think) case that would be brought. That was a high bar, though, as the prosecutors had to show both that the tamperers knew the material they were destroying would be useful in a suit and that such a suit was likely to be brought.
Still, Barr's objection is sound, as Mueller's move would have vastly lowered that bar if not removed it altogether.
The whole second part of the Mueller report is thus a "Well, I really prefer my theory on how the law ought to work....
Except that second part showed an angry, volatile boss venting all over a staff that was well aware of the distinction between a Trumpian temper tantrum and a Trumpian order to do a particular thing. That's also what would have made a court case (as opposed to the political case of impeachment and conviction) difficult to prove.
Eric Hines
Reading Chamberlain's article again, I think he reads the objection as different from the one I was raising. He thinks this section is read by both as applying to 'potential future' proceedings, but that Barr thinks it only turns on destruction of evidence; whereas Mueller reads it as far broader, to embrace any sort of conduct that could have any sort of effect on any sort of 'potential future' legal proceeding.
In which case, I'd like to see the thing repealed. 'Potential future' embraces too much, and gives the police far more power than they ought to have.
There are lots of journalists and talking heads, including some with law degrees, talking about the obviousness of Trump's indictability and impeachability. The government employees who are having the spotlight turned on them have stopped talking that way, focusing on deflecting blame from themselves.
To live to see the day when Leftists and Right ward factions start channeling Ymar... heh.
How is that normal?
Mueller is unimportant. He is just a stalking horse. Look up what a stalking horse is.
Look out for the Deep State's real critical blow. It will come soon enough, just wait America.
It will be something else entirely, an unimaginable portrayal of domination and power, exceeding that little incident on September 11 2001.
Post a Comment