Posted on 03/25/2019 12:20:45 AM PDT by nathanbedford
Exoneration on obstruction too!
The attorney general quotes the special counsel's report:
The Special Counsel’s report states that "“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (Emphasis supplied)
In this that half of the investigation in which the special counsel was to act not as an investigator determining whether foreign interference in our election occurred with the "coordination" of the president or his associates, the special counsel was charged to act as a prosecutor to pursue any crime of obstruction of justice. A prosecutor does not behave like a clone of James Comey, he either prosecutes or he does not, he does not opine about the morality of behavior, nor does he "exonerate."
Thus, the special prosecutor's duties were concluded the moment he failed to conclude that the president committed a crime, full stop! Under any normal set of circumstances, that is where the rule of law rather than politics is pursued, the president was therefore "exonerated."
Succeeding paragraphs of the attorney general's letter notes that the special prosecutor outlined facts "without reaching any legal conclusion [about whether the president] committed a crime" it was in this half of Mueller's brief that he was to make a go-no-go decision. In the other half of his mission he could draw conclusions about whether there was or was not improper foreign interference in our election but with respect to the commission of a crime by an individual, or a group of Russians, the special counsel had no choice but to prosecute or not prosecute. The power of "exoneration" was never his.
Under our system, an individual is presumed innocent and that presumption applies without need of "exoneration." To hold otherwise is to turn our rule of law on its head because it simply does away with the presumption. The rule of law is not just whether an accused is guilty or not guilty, the rule of law holds that no man is guilty until proven guilty. It is not within the gift of a prosecutor to grant or withhold "exoneration" because if it were it would substitute his judgment in the public domain for that of a jury. If he concludes there is guilt, his conclusion is tested by a jury but if he fails to "exonerate" the accusation simply hangs in the air and haunts an individual who is otherwise not accused.
The attorney general quotes the report once again:
the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,
One is at a loss to conceive of what other underlying crime might be contemplated here but certainly obstruction of justice would be the most prominent "underlying crime" of any Russian election interference. The special counsel tells us,
" the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime…"
So this is not merely a decision to pass the buck to the attorney general as commentators are already characterizing the failure to "exonerate," this is clearly a situation in which Mueller himself concluded that no crime of obstruction of justice was committed by the president. There is no other reasonable explanation unless Mueller was engaging in verbiage with no connection to his mission.
I don't know how to read this other than as a full "exoneration" which the special counsel simply could not bring himself to make explicit. Perhaps his staff, 100% composed of Trump enemies and Clinton acolytes, were in revolt and Mueller's extra-legal two-step in exceeding his responsibilities was prompted by a desire to preserve public appearance of unity. That is mere speculation but one is entitled to say that if the special counsel can indulge in moralizing rather than prosecuting, we can indulge in speculation.
Finally, the attorney general presents compelling reasoning why there was no obstruction of justice not just because there was no underlying crime which the president might have obstructed, but because when Atty. Gen. Barr and his deputy Rosenstein read the entire report of the special counsel they both concluded:
the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct
"No actions" means no facts. End of subject. But the letter is reinforced with further reasons compelling to Atty. Gen. Barr and Rosenstein why there was no obstruction: 1) the public nature of the "actions"; 2) no corrupt intent (probably not just because there was no underlying collusion to be obstructed but also because, as we can speculate, that the president instructed FBI director Comey to pursue any collusion that might be found; 3) and we can also speculate that the discussions by the special counsel with the office of the Atty. Gen. revealed that the investigation into alleged Russian collusion was in fact unimpeded, that is, there was no actual interference apart from public blustering by the president.
All of this of course is going to be swept away in a dust cloud of Democrat rhetoric about the need to see all of the details which led Mueller to fail to "exonerate." But it is important for us to understand what happened and be confident that there is no "there," there.
It is equally important that a forceful presentation be made to the public on three levels. First, a sober analysis of law and facts to create a foundation below which Democrats cannot slither. Second, a popularized approach, even a bumper sticker approach, which satirizes even as it exposes every Democrat who made a fool of himself in this affair. Third, the public must be told how the hoax cost them personally as it deprived them of the fruits of their votes in the last election, deprived them of the policies which might have created more jobs for Americans, made their country more vulnerable abroad by undermining the president (remember the questions in Helsinki?). All of this should be presented in a highly digestible and compelling format.
Very true!
I hold the media equally responsible.
Bookmarked.
People who are not adjudicated as ‘not guilty’ are not declared ‘innocent’, either...
They’re simply acquitted.
They’re simply acquitted.
Oops -- extra word in the wrong place!
I think the “underlying crime” reference means that a President CANNOT “obstruct justice” when the “justice” being “obstructed” is not prosecuting or investigating an actual crime.
Andy McCarthy has been saying this for months. The President can fire anyone, including James Comey, and he cannot thereby be obstructing justice UNLESS he does it to prevent Comey (or whomever) from completing an investigation of a crime by the President himself.
Since collusion is not a crime, even if Trump had fired Comey, Mueller, Weissman, McCabe, Baker, Preistap, Ohr, Strzok, Page, and all the rest, it could not have constituted “obstruction of justice” since there was no predicate crime in the first place - and they all knew it.
You cannot obstruct for a crime that never existed.
If Trump says the crime is BS, is that obstruction?
Because that’s what the democrats and media now want people to believe.
But it WAS BS, Trump was right, and he had NO obligation to help them make up a crime that didn’t exist.
Attorney General Barr and Rod Rosenstein both agreed on this, and NOW the democrats and media want to say Barr “rushed to judgment”?
Get real!
No collusion means no obstruction.
I think that’s what it boils down to: obstruction is when you try to prevent the law from addressing your crime. If you committed no crime, no matter how you act, you’re not obstructing by definition. I mean, who ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for trying to prevent investigators from discovering his innocence?
How much did Mule-herr get paid for his one sided walk the pony show? He did just enough around the Trump fringe damages to others to keep the liar Dems appetites jacked up in anticipation for the juicy steak entree that won’t be served after all. Mueller had to justify his paychecks somehow even if General Flynn, Manafort and Roger Stone were the whipping posts.
Mueller is a deep state hack but he knew laying a false charge on President Trump was a bridge too far.
Well said.
"...it also does not exonerate him."
good stuff...
They keep trying to twist that around... could not find evidence proving that he did NOT do it. It’s terrible. Capitalizing on the horrid public indoctrination school systems.
THis is a big big win. I thought that special counsel was going to sit out there forever slinging darts at whatever is going on.
The reason that Mueller refused to find that no obstruction occurred is simply this: to do so would be an admission that Trump was right to fire Mueller's best friend James Comey.
Therefore, Mueller declined to make a conclusion on this point.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.