Replies

It’s actually a delusional analysis. . . In that the President has complete executive privilege against having to reveal anything, while this statute unconstitutionally claims that preventing such revelation of privilege could be construed as obstruction of justice. That is not possible. In addition, it claims that the any person who prevents another from appearing to give testimony could be considered to have committed obstruction of justice, and the article is arguing that the President of the United States, even when he could invoke such claim of privilege, would be obstructing justice. They are implying this general statute to the specific case of the President of the United States, something which cannot be done. The Courts have ruled that the President enjoys absolute executive privilege when he chooses to invoke it. This article claims that Mueller was arguing that it doesn’t apply to a Special Counsel. He’s wrong.

The article was also claiming that Barr’s previous letter objecting to the appointment of a special counsel was all about this particular section of the law. . . When that was not the case at all. Barr was objecting to the appointment first due there being no underlying predicate named crime to be investigated under the Special Counsel statutes and regulations, then second, he was objecting about the fact that appointing officer, Rod Rosenstein being hopelessly compromised in multiple ways was compromised by being a witness, a potential subject of investigation, and a personal friend of one of a potential target and witness, and also a personal friend of the appointing officer, all completely contrary to the intent and literally words of the statute. The Letter Barr wrote had very little to do with Obstruction of Justice, except for the overall general affect such flaws the appointment itself would have on any potential cases it might eventually cause to be indicted. The article’s author attributes to Barr the ability to either know Mueller’s theory of investigation of Obstruction, or an ability to absurdly foresee the future which he then insanely attributes to Barr’s inclusion in his letter.

It doesn't matter that Mueller's legal interpretations were bogus. He didn't have to answer to a judge.

This was a political attack by Mueller and his team, aimed at inflicting the maximum damage on Trump's presidency. Its goals were: 1) to continue the "investigation" as long as possible to damage the President's image and to undercut any attempts to charge the Obama / Hillary / Deep State spies, leakers, and perjurers, and 2) to bait Trump into doing something they could plausibly call obstruction.

With Rosenstein unwilling to put any boundaries on Mueller's activities, the only way to end his quasi-legal reign of terror was by replacing the Attorney General.

“The article’s author attributes to Barr the ability to either know Mueller’s theory of investigation of Obstruction, or an ability to absurdly foresee the future which he then insanely attributes to Barr’s inclusion in his letter.”

Thank you for proving to us you did not read the article through (or at least you lack basic comprehension skills).

It is clear in the article (below where you got the above references) that the author says his insight on this matter does away with the above options you state, in favor of a simple, likely way it could best fall together: Trump lawyers talked with Barr about what they were arguing against Mueller over. That, and the stated obstruction questioning wording, which was actually made public at the time, would have easily allowed Barr to not have to divine the future, but simply understand the predicament the lawyers were having.

By being outside of both Trump and the AG office, he was able to argue a position with Rod, then take advantage of the firing of Sessions to assume the AG role and shut down the now very apparent bad interpretation through which the investigation had been run.

Swordmaker comes through again!