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

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

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:

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

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

GOP leader McCarthy swats aside Fiona Hill’s national security testimony debunking his Ukraine conspiracy theory

Published

on

On Thursday, during one of the final scheduled impeachment hearings this week, National Security Council official Fiona Hill demolished President Donald Trump's conspiracy theory that Ukraine, rather than Russia, meddled in the 2016 election, calling it a "fictional narrative" and noting that it originated with the Kremlin itself.

But in conversation with reporters, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) flatly disbelieved Hill's testimony, and insisted he still held onto the theory.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told me that he was not going to lose any GOP votes during impeachment.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Nicolle Wallace breaks down the impeachment moment ‘women will be talking about for years’

Published

on

MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace on Thursday highlighted one of the key moments from the impeachment inquiry testimony from Dr. Fiona Hill.

"Often when women show anger, it’s not fully appreciated. It’s often, you know, pushed onto emotional issues perhaps, or deflected on other people," Hill testified.

Here's Fiona Hill on why she thinks Sondland misunderstood her anger — and how women's anger is often viewed, more generally: "It's not fully appreciated. It's often pushed off onto emotional issues." pic.twitter.com/AsMR3A9InI

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Mulvaney lawyer denies Mick was ‘so heavily involved’ — despite his White House briefing room confession

Published

on

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney was referenced multiple times during Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony Thursday, but Mulvaney's lawyer said he doesn't understand why.

"We have no idea why Ms. Hill believes Mr. Mulvaney was so heavily involved, especially in light of Ambassador Sondland’s contrary testimony," said Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, quoting a statement from Robert Driscoll.

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1197633921065930753

As former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance pointed out, Hill recalled during her testimony how angry she was about Sondland not briefing her. She said that after hearing his testimony Wednesday and learning he was briefing Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Mulvaney and President Donald Trump. She then decided he was correct-they had separate missions and Sondland was on a domestic political errand.

Continue Reading
 
 

Happy Holidays!

As a special thank you from all of us at Raw, we're offering Raw Story ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. Now 'til Dec. 31st.
Offer Expires In:
close-link