Quantcast
Connect with us

Mueller bears witness: His dispute with Barr is a turning point on the road to impeachment

Published

on

- Commentary

It’s too soon to tell for sure, but a couple of events this week may turn out to have been turning points in the Trump era.  First, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a conservative Republican held a town hall meeting in his district to explain to his constituents why he has decided the president should be impeached. He was surprisingly well received. We learned that even some conservatives appreciate someone who has the courage to buck the party leadership on an issue of principle. Perhaps there’s a lesson in that for Democrats.This article was originally published at Salon

The other event was the first comment anyone has heard from the sphinx-like special counsel Robert Mueller. More than few reporters and pundits called it a “game-changer,” if only because Mueller’s appearance proved that personal testimony is much more effective at telling a story than expecting people to read a 400-page report. If Mueller didn’t say anything on Wednesday that he hadn’t already said in the report, what he said was received very differently.

Some of that was understandable, since Attorney General William Barr’s interpretation of the report was highly misleading and he has repeatedly put himself in front of the cameras to muddy the waters ever since the report was turned over. Barr even raced to a TV studio while on vacation in Alaska to respond to Mueller’s comments, clearly intending to get in the final word.

As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte observed, the right-wing punditocracy (and Donald Trump) are very well aware of what Mueller said, and what he meant. They reacted with the vitriolic hysteria one would expect. The reason is obvious. They know that in his restrained way, Mueller made one thing very clear on Wednesday: His report was intended to be taken up by the Congress as an impeachment referral.

But Mueller’s statement on Wednesday, summing up his investigation with a focus on his reasons for not charging Trump with a crime — despite all the evidence of criminal behavior documented in Volume II of his report — showed once again that Mueller and Barr have very different points of view about the obligations of a special counsel and the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. We now know for sure that Mueller does not agree with Barr’s decision to declare that Trump did not obstruct justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even Fox News understood what they had just seen. Lead news anchor Bret Baier said this right after the statement:

This was not, as the president says time and time again, “no collusion, no obstruction. It was much more nuanced than that. … [Mueller] said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, they would have said that, and then went into specific details about the DOJ policy and why they couldn’t move forward with anything else than their decision.

Mueller had certainly made his point clearly enough in his appearance at the Justice Department:

ADVERTISEMENT

First, the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

That other process the Constitution requires is, of course, impeachment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Contrary to Barr’s implication in his various statements, Mueller didn’t come to the end of the investigation, throw up his hands and declare that he just couldn’t figure out what to do. He stated that he had been operating under those interpretations of the mandate from the moment he began the investigation and that he had kept Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the loop throughout. Barr knew what was coming and understood exactly why Mueller wrote the report the way he did.

Despite all that courtly desire to be fair to the president (who called Mueller and his team “some of the worst people on earth” on Thursday) Mueller famously observed, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” They did not have that confidence and that’s because the report shows that the president obstructed justice numerous times, based on testimony by his closest associates. Yet a mere 48 hours after Mueller submitted his report to Barr, the attorney general stated categorically that Trump had not committed a crime, obviating the entire purpose of naming a special counsel to make an independent judgment in the first place.

As I mentioned, Barr gave a rushed interview with CBS News in Alaska to respond to Mueller’s comments. He said he believed Mueller should have made a conclusion as to whether Trump committed crimes, even if he couldn’t be indicted. This is obviously disingenuous. Barr knows very well what conclusion Mueller reached. He is cynically relying on Mueller’s anachronistic sense of honor to keep this disagreement from exploding into a public brawl.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even more disturbing, Barr made a claim he’s made before that sounds very ominous for the future if other attorneys general adopt his view. He disagrees with Mueller that evidence gathered by the Department of Justice on a sitting president can be used by Congress for an impeachment proceeding, once again suggesting that the DOJ is not an independent institution. Specifically he said that “the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress.”

It sounds as though the attorney general does not believe the Department of Justice should ever investigate a president. If it cannot indict him, and cannot collect evidence against him that might be used by Congress, then there is really no point. Essentially, Barr believes that a sitting president is above the law or, as Richard Nixon famously put it, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

We don’t know what’s been happening behind the scenes at the Justice Department, but Barr and the  Mueller team are not on the same page. Apparently, people needed to hear from Mueller directly in order to understand that. As much as Mueller may not want to go up on Capitol Hill and testify, he’s probably going to have to do it. Witness testimony is the only way to make anyone listen to the evidence. And whether Mueller likes it or not — and he clearly doesn’t — this dispute with Barr over whether or not the president of the United States committed a crime has turned the former special counsel into a witness as well.


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Kim Jong-un threatens to restart nuke tests as Trump’s efforts to talk to the regime fall apart again: report

Published

on

On Tuesday, CNN's Brian Todd reported that the North Korean regime is on the brink of rescinding what little they promised President Donald Trump, as the future of his efforts to continue talks appear uncertain.

"Kim Jong-un's regime is once again in negotiation by intimidation," said Todd. "Just two weeks after their historic meeting at the DMZ, and President Trump's short stroll into North Korea, North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-un appears to be threatening to start testing his nuclear weapons again. In a new statement, Kim's foreign ministry calls the joint U.S./South Korean military exercises planned for next month a breach of the main spirit of what President Trump and Kim agreed to in Singapore, and says, 'We are gradually losing our justifications to follow through on the commitments we made with the U.S."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘He’s ignorant — not stupid’: NYT columnist says Trump is trying to ‘bait’ Democrats because he wants to run against AOC

Published

on

President Donald Trump is not going to get the 2020 opponent he wants, so he's going to pretend that his actual opposition is being led by the four young women in Congress known as The Squad, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote on Tuesday.

Trump has spent the last few days with racist attacks on the four first-term members, who are Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘Nickel and Dimed’ for the sharing economy: Inside the hellish new reality of low-wage work

Published

on

In 2001, journalist Barbara Ehrenreich's investigative book "Nickel and Dimed" revealed to those who weren't on low-wage payrolls how expensive it is to be a member of the working poor in America. Some things haven't changed since Ehrenreich's experiences working as a Walmart clerk, a restaurant server and a maid, among other jobs. Housing can still be prohibitively expensive on low hourly wages, and high turnover remains a constant. Workers still risk their health — mental, physical and emotional — every precarious day.

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

close-image