Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

[ex-khobar Andy]

I would imagine that if there had been a sentence in the exec summary along the lines of: "We can find no evidence of any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" we would have heard about it by now. In a tweet.

[Bicycle Bill]

I agree, xKA.  What we AREN'T hearing is probably far more telling than anything we DO eventually hear.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

[ex-khobar Andy]

A question for one of our legal folk. What does this mean (from NYT reporting):

Mr. Barr has broad discretion, but it is not absolute. He may not lawfully be able to share information that is subject to grand jury secrecy rules absent a court’s permission, for example.

I understand that grand jury deliberations are secret - and that's how it should be. But I assume that the bulk of a GJ proceeding is presentation of evidence on which the GJ is supposed to make its determination whether to go to trial or not. "X was seen getting into the back of Y's car on such-and-such a date." Is that piece of evidence itself secret? Is it because evidence to a GJ need not have the rigor of evidence before a regular jury which would be subject to cross examination?

[BoSoxGal]

Here’s an excellent discussion of the subject befitting a curious mind like your own. It’s an interesting topic to explore given that this will be a core concern if/when Congress attempts to subpoena GJ testimony in upcoming oversight hearings (hence the source of the article). There was a good, albeit brief conversation about this issue on MSNBC last night, I think it was Ari Melber’s program?

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf

[Lord Jim]

I'm obviously disappointed that the Mueller investigation has concluded without (apparently) either Junior or Kushy being indicted, (I didn't think it was realistic to hope for Trump himself to be indicted, given the DOJ position on indicting an incumbent President)...

But the complete absence of dick swinging and end zone dancing from Mar-a-Lago makes me think the report may not be all that rosy for Il Boobce...

I'm just going to reserve making any judgements or reaching any conclusions until we know more...

[liberty]

Does a person or group lose there right to privacy because he or they were investigated and no bases for an indictment was found?

[Scooter]

Gee, I don't know, why don't we ask Hillary Clinton?

[RayThom]

By the very nature that Trump is designated as "Individual #1" gives me hope that there may be a lot in the report that is -- shall we say -- less than kind. And hopefully waking up some of his intractable base that he's out to screw everyone if, and when, he deems it necessary.

I get a feeling that the ongoing NY AG's investigation will be more damning on a personal level for the Orange One.

[BoSoxGal]

Does a person or group lose there right to privacy because he or they were investigated and no bases for an indictment was found?

The privacy is inherent to the proceeding, and no, it doesn’t disappear if the grand jury fails to indict. Moreover, the whole reason Comey’s actions were so remarkable is that generally the state doesn’t go into extensive detail and opinionated commentary about a defendant’s actions when finding them to be not criminally actionable.

For that matter, a really honorable prosecutor avoids any such commentary even when charging defendants, out of a true concern for tainting the jury pool. Scummy prosecutors will push that envelope as far as they can.

[Lord Jim]

Does a person or group lose there right to privacy because he or they were investigated and no bases for an indictment was found?

A couple of points on that lib...

Just because an indictment is not issued doesn't mean there was "no basis (spelling corrected) for an indictment"...

It could conceivably mean that, but all it generally means is that in the opinion of the prosecuting authority there was not sufficient evidence of a crime such that it could be proven at trial with the high-bar standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"...Technically the standards for a criminal indictment are lower than for a criminal conviction, but typically prosecutors do not bring cases that they don't believe they can win...

(This btw, is precisely the standard Jim Comey explained during his congressional testimony that he applied in deciding against recommending an indictment of Hillary Clinton)

So, the absence of an indictment does not in any way imply the absence of any evidence of wrong doing...

This may be the situation with Kushy and/or Junior (it may also be the case that they may still be indicted because investigations involving them have been spun off to other authorities; they just won't be indicted directly by the Special Counsel)

Now my second point; regarding Trump himself...

Trump, as President, is a unique case, because current DOJ regulations (which are obviously not written in to the Constitution and could be changed) prohibit the federal indictment of a sitting President...

So in the case of a sitting President, unlike with any other person, there could be boatloads of evidence for numerous crimes, all exceeding the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, and still there would be no indictment...

Whatever one thinks of guidelines that frown on disclosure of evidence of wrong doing regarding other citizens who are not indicted, surely they cannot be reasonably applied to a sitting President...

There is a HUGE difference between not publicly revealing information gathered on someone who could be subject to indictment, and not publicly revealing (or at least revealing to the Congress) evidence of wrong doing no matter how voluminous and damning that evidence may be, when it involves a person who is specifically exempted from being indicted...

If you on the one hand say that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and then turn around and also say that the evidence and conclusions of investigators can't be made public or turned over to Congress, (because there's no indictment) you have created a pure Catch-22 situation that has the practical effect of placing the President completely above the law...

You won't let the legal system hold him accountable, and you also are thwarting the legislative branch's ability to hold him accountable...That makes him accountable to no one...

In effect, you are assigning to the elected executive of our democratic republic the sovereign right of a King...

Lib, I'd like to think that you're not in favor of that...(though as a Trump supporter perhaps you are; I know we have at least one Trump supporter around here who would be perfectly happy to see him treated like a King, above the reach of the law.)

It's entirely possible that there is a section in Mueller's report that says something to the effect of:

"Were it not for the fact that Donald J. Trump is President Of The United States, and Justice Department guidelines prohibit the indictment of a sitting President, I would have sought and obtained indictments against him for the following crimes...."

"And here is the evidence I developed to support why I would have done this..."

If something like that exists in this report, please please tell me that you don't believe that information should be withheld from the Congress or the public because Trump wasn't indicted (since the current rules say he can't be.)

[Scooter]

[Lord Jim]

I find this kind of interesting...

Barr Reviews Mueller Probe Findings for Possible Sunday Release

Attorney General William Barr is reviewing the long-awaited report submitted by Robert Mueller and determining how to explain the special counsel’s principal findings to Congress as early as Sunday, a Justice Department official said.

Mueller submitted the still-secret document Friday evening, capping an investigation into whether President Donald Trump or those around him conspired in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that’s riveted Washington and cast a cloud over Trump and his administration for almost two years.

Barr, 68, who was sworn in as Trump’s second attorney general about five weeks ago, is working with Deputy General Rod Rosenstein to figure out how to present Mueller’s conclusions, the official said. Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel in May 2017.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ey-general

This tells us a few things...

First, it tells us that Mueller definitely submitted a full detailed report, not just the bare bones requirement of the Special Counsel statute which could have fit on one page...(Who he indicted and why)

It obviously wouldn't take two days to review one page and decide what parts of it you could release...

Second, the fact that Barr has dived into this immediately, personally, full time over a Saturday and Sunday indicates that he is very serious about getting at least some preliminary material out to the public and the Congress with as much speed as humanly possible...

He didn't have to approach the task with this level of urgency. He could have said, "I'll start on this first thing Monday morning" and nobody would really have faulted him for that. (Afterall we've waited 22 months for this report, a couple of more days wouldn't have made much difference. )

So whatever suspicions one may have about Barr he definitely doesn't seem to want to drag his feet on this. (I have to wonder how much of his commitment to speed may be dictated by a fear that the longer he waits, the greater the possibility that the report will begin to leak...either to the public or to the White House...)

And finally, the amount of time being put into this also suggests that even the preliminary "major findings" report is going to contain more than just a few bullet points, because again, it wouldn't take two days to produce a summary like that if that's the way you wanted to play it...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Barr, 68, who was sworn in as Trump’s second attorney general about five weeks ago, is working with Deputy General Rod Rosenstein to figure out how to present Mueller’s conclusions

[Lord Jim]

CNN is reporting that Barr is expected to hand over his "Main Conclusions" summary of the Mueller report to Congress in about the next half hour...

ETA:

There are actually some things I can see here that could be legitimately redacted from the public...

For example, the intel sources and methodologies used to identify the specific Russian hackers that have been indicted must be pretty impressive, and I see no reason why Vladimir Putin needs to be informed as to how that was accomplished...

[Lord Jim]

Nadler is tweeting that he has received a "very brief letter" that he will release shortly...

[Econoline]

I thought ^^^this^^^ was a joke, but...

(yeah, that's Devin Nunes)

[Econoline]

"No new indictments"???

Just remember: As of last month, Mueller had 64 sealed indictments in his back pocket.

[Burning Petard]

I have in my hot little hands the four page summary which the Attny Genl released and WaPo published.

Of course no collusion--go back to the early news repots of this investigation. Collusion is not a crime. That word became a propaganda noise with no objective meaning.

No sealed indictments. Mueller is done. But 'The Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further actions."

Yes, there was Russian interference in the 2016 election. [Now the Beeb is doing stories that indicate the Russians have been working continuously since before the referendum to turn Brexit into economic chaos for all of the EU, including the UK]

I only hope House and the Senate will get the entire report released.

snailgate

[Bicycle Bill]

It will become this generation's version of the Warren Commission report — a best seller that people bought but never bothered to fully read.

-"BB"-