Posts tagged with "Special Counsel Robert Mueller"

Above, former President Donald Trump. (Photo source: Doug Mills for The New York Times)

Judge dismisses Donald Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

September 12, 2022

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a sprawling lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump earlier this year—calling the former president’s complaint a “political manifesto” rather than a viable lawsuit, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The suit had alleged that Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats illegally linked Trump to Russia.

In a written order issued late on Thursday, September 8, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in West Palm Beach, Florida, said Trump’s various legal theories in the case, including racketeering and conspiracy, “are not only unsupported by any legal authority but plainly foreclosed by binding precedent.”

“Mr. Trump “is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm; instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote.

Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, said the former president’s team would immediately appeal the decision.

“We vehemently disagree with the opinion issued by the Court today. Not only is it rife with erroneous applications of the law; it disregards the numerous independent governmental investigations which substantiate our claim that the defendants conspired to falsely implicate our client and undermine the 2016 Presidential election,” she said in a statement.

Trump’s lawsuit, originally filed in March, alleged that Democrats tried to rig the 2016 presidential election by accusing him of colluding with Russia. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages of at least $24 million, asserting that Trump was “forced to incur expenses” including “defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses.”

The defendants in Trump’s lawsuit included former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, Representative Adam Schiff (D-California), and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the author dossier leaked in early 2017 claiming that then-President-elect Trump had conspired with Russia to steer the U.S. election.

“In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot—one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy,” the complaint says. “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.”

Clinton’s lawyers called the lawsuit a fundraising ploy.

“Whatever the utility of Plaintiff’s Complaint as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit, and should be dismissed with prejudice,” Clinton’s lawyers said in a May court filing.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found repeated contacts between Russia-linked entities and Trump campaign officials before the election, but did not establish that anyone affiliated with his campaign knowingly conspired with Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.

Research contact: @WSJ

Above, Attorney General Bill Barr dropped charges against Flynn. (Photo source: defconnews.com)

Trump calls Michael Flynn ‘a hero’ after DOJ drops charges

Leave a reply

May 11, 2020

Thanks to Attorney General Bill Barr, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may now be free and clear of the federal charges to which he pleaded guilty in December 2017—and President Donald Trump is a happy man.

After Barr’s Department of Justice dropped charges on May 7, Trump—who has said that he would be open to bringing Flynn back to the White House—showered praise on his former aide, calling him “an innocent man,” “a great gentleman” and “a hero,” according to a report by Forbes.

Indeed, the president has been a strong supporter of Flynn throughout the three years that the case against him has been on the books : In February 2017, after just weeks on the job, Flynn was (reluctantly) fired from his post at the White House after he gave false statements about his relationship with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to Vice President Mike Pence, FBI investigators, White House aides, and the media.

Flynn admitted to talks with the ambassador prior to Trump’s inauguration, during which he had promised to ease Russian sanctions instituted by the Obama administration, the news outlet noted. In pleading guilty, Flynn said “I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right …. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Nevertheless, after the Justice Department moved to drop charges against Flynn for lying to the FBI (and others in the administration) about Russian contacts, Trump celebrated the news and launched into a rant about the Justice Department under President Barack Obama—saying the department’s investigation into Flynn was treasonous, Forbes reports.

Treason, which carries a penalty of death, has a strict definition: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.”

However, Forbes said, Trump hurled insults at the former administration, calling them “dishonest crooked people” and “human scum,” while also claiming the media is “very complicit” and that people who won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting are “not journalists, they’re thieves.”

Indeed, according to Forbes, Trump and Flynn’s team have latched on to newly unsealed documents that they claim showcase corruption in Flynn’s charging. Handwritten notes from the FBI detail how they will conduct an interview with Flynn in 2017. “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ and have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] and he admits it, document for DOJ and let them decide how to address it.”

The notes also say, “If we’re seen as playing games, [White House] will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games ….We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing. I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

What will happen next? Judge Emmet Sullivan, the presiding judge on the case, is no pushover. While the DOJ has dismissed its charges, Sullivan knows that Flynn pleaded guilty—and may be unlikely to let him off so easily. He is also is not likely to introduce the equivocal and inconclusive new documents at this juncture.

Stay tuned.

Research contact: @Forbes

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). (Photo source: Emily's List)

Elizabeth Warren has a plan: She wants to pass a law clarifying that presidents can be indicted

Leave a reply

June 3, 2019

Would Special Counsel Robert Mueller have charged President Donald Trump with a crime if Justice Department policy had not prevented him from doing so? On Friday, May 31, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said the answer was “yes,” according to a report by The New York Times.

But Senator Warren—who is among the more than 20 party hopefuls seeking the nomination for president—predictably enough, has a plan for that.

She has proposed legislation aimed at ensuring that “no President is above the law.” Indeed, in a story posted on Medium, she has made her vision clear: “If Donald Trump were anyone other than the president of the United States right now, he would be in handcuffs and indicted …. Mueller’s statement made clear what those of us who have read his report already knew. He’s referring President Trump for impeachment, and it’s up to Congress to act.”

Now, Warren has called on Congress to pass a law clarifying that the DOJ can, in fact, indict the president of the United States, while also renewing her call to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, the Times reports.

“But impeachment isn’t supposed to be the only way that a President can be held accountable for committing a crime,” she said. “Congress should make it clear that Presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice. And when I’m president, I’ll appoint Justice Department officials who will reverse flawed policies so no President is shielded from criminal accountability.”

This is not a new stand for Senator Warren, who declared herself in favor of impeachment about a day after the Mueller report was released on April 18. She also was among several candidates who leveled sharp criticism at Attorney General William Barr for his handling of the report’s release, the news outlet noted.

She renewed her criticism of Barr on May 31, saying he had “disgraced himself by acting like Trump’s personal defense attorney” while also pledging to “appoint an Attorney General who will protect the rule of law.”

She reminded Americans, “No matter what he may think, Donald Trump is not a King. No President is. And our democracy only works if everyone can be held accountable.”

Research contact: @SenWarren

Special Counsel Robert Mueller said he could not exonerate President Donald Trump. (Photo source: Department of Justice)

Mueller: ‘No confidence’ that Trump didn’t commit obstruction of justice

Leave a reply

May 30, 2019

If the House Judiciary Committee wants Robert Mueller to testify about his investigative report in front of live cameras and the American public, the panel will have to subpoena him, the special counsel made clear at a news conference on May 29.

He also made it abundantly clear that the investigative team could not exonerate President Donald Trump of criminal obstruction of justice —but also could not charge him with it under Department of Justice rules.

Appearing at an 11 a.m. media event staged at the DoJ, Mueller announced that he was wrapping up the investigation, closing the Special Counsel’s Office, and resigning from the agency to return to private life.

During his brief statement, Mueller said that he had nothing to add to what had been written in the 448-page report—and confirmed two conclusions of his team’s investigation: First, he said that there was interference by a foreign enemy in the 2016 election, “As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

“The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber-techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks,” Mueller noted, adding, “ The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.”

Second, he addressed obstruction of justice by the Executive Office, commenting, “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.”

The second volume of the report describes the results and analysis of the special counsel’s obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

Mueller then went on to confirm what President Donald Trump, Attorney General Bill Barr, and the G.O.P. have denied to date: “As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

He said that, although the investigative team could not clear Trump of obstruction of justice, they also could not charge him with a federal crime while he is in office. “That is unconstitutional,” Mueller explained.” Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

Indeed, the special counsel said, “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider … 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.”

Mueller concluded by saying, “I will … [reiterate] the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

Research contact: @RepJerryNadler

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. (Photo source: PBS.org)

Over and out: Rod Rosenstein leaves the DoJ

Leave a reply

May 13, 2019

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—whose double-dealing on behalf of the Trump administration only was revealed during his final weeks at the Department of Justice—left the agency on his own terms on Friday, May 10, BuzzFeed reported.

Rosenstein oversaw Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election—and was assumed by the public to be a staunch defender of the probe, which had the president and his staff and family in its sights.

However, recently the public learned that the deputy AG was more focused on protecting his job security. Indeed, he had promised the president,“I can land the plane [safely],” in reference to the investigation. What’s more, word has come out that Rosenstein avidly followed up on White House leaks on behalf of Trump.

When Rosenstein was confirmed in April 2017, then–attorney general Jeff Sessions had already recused himself from the Russia investigation, putting Rosenstein in charge of the most politically fraught criminal investigation in decades from day one.

Trump never acted on what is by now a documented urge to get rid of the official overseeing Mueller’s work. Instead of being forced out as Sessions was after the midterm election in November, Rosenstein on May 9 got what Sessions did not, BuzzFeed reported: a glowing farewell ceremony in the Justice Department’s Great Hall, complete with a tribute video.

Rosenstein sat on the stage, flanked by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Attorney General Bill Barr, as speakers praised his dedication to the department over three decades and his service over the past two years, the news outlet said.

Rosenstein didn’t directly reference the Mueller investigation in his remarks—Congress is in turmoil dealing with the aftermath of the conclusion of Mueller’s work, and Rosenstein could be called to testify—but he spoke generally about how the DOJ “stands apart from politics.”

“Government officials sometimes face pressure to compromise principles, perhaps even to trade virtue for the appearance of virtue. But we should exercise caution when uncomfortable circumstances tempt us to disregard timeless principles. It is most important to follow the rules when the stakes are high,” he said.

Rosenstein’s replacement, Department of Transportation official Jeffrey Rosen, hasn’t been confirmed yet—but is expected to be in place soon; the Senate Judiciary Committee voted this week along party lines to advance his nomination, and he isn’t expected to face any problems in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Research contact: @BuzzFeed

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler speaks before the panel's vote to hold the AG in contempt of Congress. (Photo source: Screen grab from CBS News)

Trump claims executive privilege over full Mueller report; House Judiciary votes to hold Barr in contempt

Leave a reply

May 9, 2019

At the instigation of the Justice Department on the evening of May 7, President Donald Trump claimed executive privilege over the full Mueller report.

The maneuver represented a last-ditch effort to shield hidden portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as the supporting evidence he collected, from Congress and the American people.

“This is to advise you that the president has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials,” a Justice Department official, Stephen Boyd, wrote Wednesday morning, referencing not only the Mueller report but the underlying evidence that House Democrats are seeking.

The assertion came as the House Judiciary Committee was set to vote on Wednesday, May 8, on whether the House of Representatives should hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for the same materials, The New York Times reported.

In response, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) commented in a formal release, “Tonight, in the middle of good faith negotiations with the attorney general, the [DoJ] abruptly announced that it would instead ask President Trump to invoke executive privilege on all of the materials subject to our subpoena.

“This is, of course, not how executive privilege works,” Nadler noted. “The White House waived these privileges long ago, and the department seemed open to sharing these materials with us earlier today. The department’s legal arguments are without credibility, merit, or legal or factual basis.”

He said that the move could have alarming and risky repercussions, remarking, “Worse, this kind of obstruction is dangerous. The department’s decision reflects President Trump’s blanket defiance of Congress’s constitutionally mandated duties.

“In the coming days,” Nadler continued, “I expect that Congress will have no choice but to confront the behavior of this lawless administration.  The committee will also take a hard look at the officials who are enabling this cover-up.  In the meantime, the committee will proceed with consideration of the contempt citation as planned.  I hope that the Department will think better of this last minute outburst and return to negotiations.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a blistering statement: “The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands,” she wrote, according to The Times.

She added: “Faced with Chairman Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.”

Shortly after 1 p.m. on May 8, after negotiations had once again tanked, Nadler said before the committee vote, “This is information we are legally entitled to receive and we are Constitutionally obligated to review .… The Trump administration has taken obstruction of Congress to new heights.”

The committee voted along partisan lines to hold Barr in contempt of Congress  (24 Democrats versus 16 Republicans). The contempt citation now will go before the full House chamber for a vote, where Democrats hold a 38-seat majority. The timing of that vote will be up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California),

Research contact: @HouseJudiciary

President Donald Trump (left) and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. (Photo source: The Daily Express UK)

Despite Trump’s tantrums, House Republicans want Mueller to testify

Leave a reply

May 8, 2019

The U.S. president frantically flailed out on Twitter again on May 6—insisting that there is no “need” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Why would the Democrats in Congress now need Robert Mueller to testify,” Trump tweeted. “Are they looking for a redo because they hated seeing the strong NO COLLUSION conclusion?”

However, even House Republicans say they’re eager for Mueller to testify about the findings of his investigation into links between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Politico reported.

Although Republicans have largely sided with Trump’s claim that Mueller’s 448-page report absolved the president of wrongdoing, the political news outlet said, the president’s GOP House allies say they want to hear from the former FBI director.

“I think Mueller should testify,” Representative Doug Collins (Georgia), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Monday with Politico. “There was no collusion, no obstruction, and that’s what Bob Mueller will tell everyone.”

Representative Tom McClintock (R-California), another member of the same panel, said he has “a lot of questions” for Mueller. “So I hope that happens.”

Both House Republicans say their interest is less in Mueller’s report than in whether he has any insight into how the FBI launched an investigation of the Trump campaign in 2016. Trump has amplified those concerns, claiming he was targeted by Trump-hating FBI officials rather than the numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russia-linked figures.

“I think the president is just frustrated here, and I get that,” Collins added. “I’ve wanted Mueller to come before the committee all along. Then I can ask [Mueller] about how this investigation got started in the first place, what he was told about how it all began.”

Collins had previously urged Democrats to quickly call Mueller to the Capitol—even suggesting last month that they cut short a two-week recess to hear from the special counsel about his findings, Politico reports.

“I think we can agree this business is too important to wait, and Members of the Committee will surely return to Washington at such a critical moment in our country’s history,” Collins wrote at the time,—a plea that was rejected by the committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) as premature.

In private, several top House Republicans believe it would be a mistake for Trump to prevent Mueller from appearing before the Judiciary Committee. To these GOP lawmakers and aides, that would allow Democrats to focus on the issue of Mueller’s non-appearance rather than the findings in his report.

“Then the issue becomes ‘Trump is stonewalling,’ rather than ‘Mueller didn’t find anything,'” an aide to one senior Republican told the news outlet. “This will be a bad move.”

Research contact: @politico

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). (Photo source: Screen grab from Twitter feed)

Speaker Pelosi says AG Barr perjured himself before Congress—and reprisals are required

Leave a reply

May 3, 2019

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is outraged over the Attorney General’s obfuscations—in his written summary of the Mueller report; in his characterization of his communications with the special counsel; and in his congressional testimony.

Pelosi said on Thursday, May 2 that AG William Barr  had committed a crime by lying to lawmakers during his testimony on Capitol Hill, The Hill reported.

“What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That’s a crime,” Pelosi said during a press conference in the Capitol.

The remarks came as Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly lashing out at Barr for his handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s election interference.

Some lawmakers are pressing for Barr to resign; others have floated the idea of impeachment; and still others—chief among them, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler (D-New York)—are weighing whether to bring contempt of Congress charges against AG, who refused an invitation to testify before the House panel and its counsels on Thursday.

Pelosi, who has been cautious to date about escalating the standoff between her caucus and the GOP, declined to say how—or if—Democrats would challenge Barr’s actions, deferring those decisions to the committee heads. But she strongly suggested some response is forthcoming.

Pelosi cited a recent statement from Representative Nadler, which warned that “Barr’s moment of accountability will come soon enough.”

“I think that probably applies,” Pelosi said. Asked if jail time is appropriate for Barr, she again punted to the committees.

“There’s a process that’s involved here,” she said, according to The Hill. “The committees will act upon how we will proceed.”

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 1, Barr was grilled by panel Democrats, who accused him of misrepresenting the Mueller team’s findings for the political purpose of protecting President Donald Trump, the news outlet said.

The Democratic rebukes were fueled by revelations that Mueller had written to Barr on March 24 and called him directly on March 25, expressing concerns over the nature of the attorney general’s four-page summary of Mueller’s report.

In that letter, which became public just hours before Wednesday’s Senate hearing, Mueller said ““The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.”

Barr, after receiving the letter, testified to Congress that he was ‘”not aware”of any reservations from Mueller or his team regarding the summary letter.

According to the Hill, Pelosi said she “lost sleep” Wednesday night watching replays of Barr’s testimony.

“How sad it is for us to see the top law enforcement officer in our country misrepresenting—withholding—the truth from the Congress of the United States,” she said.

Asked directly whether Barr committed a crime, Pelosi didn’t hesitate.

“He lied to Congress; he lied to Congress. And if anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” Pelosi said.

“Nobody is above the law; not the president of the United States, and not the attorney general.”

Research contact: @thehill

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff (D-Caliofornia). (Photo source Committee to Investigate Russia)

Schiff says Barr misled the American public and ‘should step down’

Leave a reply

May 2, 2019

The attorney general of the United States is a liar and he should resign. So said the Chairman Adam Schiff  (D-California) of the House Intelligence Committee on May 1, following the release to The Washington Post of a March 25 letter written by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In that correspondence, the Russia investigator voiced grave concerns about the nature of the four-page summary of his team’s report written by AG William Barr and released the day before.

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote in the letter, which he also saved to his files for posterity.

“We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25,” Mueller continued, noting, “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

The special counsel went on to urge the attorney general to distribute the executive summaries of the report prepared in advance by his team. “Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would anser congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation,” he said.

Mueller also followed up his correspondence with a call to Barr, during which he expressed similar concerns.

However, not only did Barr refuse to release the executive summaries in a “piecemeal” fashion, but, according to a May 1 report by the Post, “he disclaimed knowledge of the thinking of Special Counsel Robert Mueller” during two separate, back-to-back hearings on April 9 and April 10.

“No, I don’t,” Barr said, when asked by Representative Charlie Crist (D-Florida) whether he knew what was behind reports that members of Mueller’s team were frustrated by the attorney general’s summary of their top-level conclusions.

“I don’t know,” he said the next day, when asked by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) whether Mueller supported his finding that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice.

Now, Schiff has a case against AG Barr:  “I think his statement is deliberately false and misleading, and yes, most people would consider that to be a lie,” Schiff said on CBS This Morning, as reported by The Hill.

“Look, there’s no sugar- coating this, I think he should step down,” Schiff said. “It’s hard, I think, for the country to have confidence in the top law enforcement official in the country if he’s asked a direct question as he was and he gives a directly false answer, so this is serious business.”

“After two years and work and investigation implicating the president of the United States, for the attorney general to mislead the public for an entire month before releasing that report is inexcusable.” 

Schiff is the highest-ranking Democrat on Capitol Hill so far to call for Barr to step down. He follows Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s call for Barr to resign.

Tuesday’s revelation upped the ante for Barr’s appearance Wednesday morning in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and led to a cavalcade of criticism from House and Senate Democrats, The Hill reported.

“The Special Counsel’s concerns reflect our own. The Attorney General should not have taken it upon himself to describe the Special Counsel’s findings in a light more favorable to the President. It was only a matter of time before the facts caught up to him,” Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Tuesday, demanding that Barr hand over Mueller’s letter to Congress by 10 a.m. on Wednesday.

According to Politico, in a separate statement on Wednesday, on CNN claimed Barr’s statements might be considered perjury “for an ordinary citizen.”

“It’s worse when it comes from the attorney general of the United States because it means the public cannot have confidence in what he says,” Schiff said. “It means that we cannot have confidence in how he administers justice.”

And in a separate tweet, Schiff wrote, “No one can place any reliance on what Barr says. We need to hear from Mueller himself.”

Research contact: @RepAdamSchiff

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. (Photo source: Weekly Standard UK)

Fears confirmed: Leaks from Mueller’s team attest that report was more damaging than Barr revealed

Leave a reply

April 5, 2019

We suspected it all along, but now, some of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators have asserted that Attorney General William Barr’s four-page letter on the conclusions of the Russia investigation failed to adequately lay out the most damaging findings of the report, The New York Times posted on April 3.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Barr and the Special Counsel’s Office—is who will shape the American electorate’s opinion of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history,k the Times said.

Some members of  Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report, but needs time to scrub out confidential information. However, House Democrats say that nothing needs to be redacted before they review the report.

What’s more, the special counsel’s investigators have told associates that they already had prepared multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Barr should have included more of their material in his  letter of  March 24 laying out their main conclusions.

However, the special counsel’s office never asked Barr to release the summaries, a person familiar with the investigation told the news outlet. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information—including classified material,  grand-jury testimony, and information related to ongoing federal investigations.

Barr also was wary, the Times reported, of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with the AG’s thinking. They pointed to the much-derided decision by James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.

Indeed, according to officials familiar with the attorney general’s thinking, he and his aides limited the details they revealed because they were worried about wading into political territory. Mr. Barr and his advisers expressed concern that if they included derogatory information about Mr. Trump while clearing him, they would face a storm of criticism the one that. Comey endured after the Clinton investigation.

Although it still is not clear what findings the special counsel’s investigators viewed as troubling for the president, Barr has suggested that Mueller may have found evidence of malfeasance in investigating possible obstruction of justice. “

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to let its chairman use a subpoena to try to compel Barr to hand over a full copy of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to Congress. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), clear on Wednesday that he did not trust Barr’s characterization of what Mueller’s team had found.

Republicans, who have embraced Barr’s letter clearing Mr. Trump, have accused the Democrats of trying to prolong the cloud over his presidency and urged them to move on, the Times said.

Research contact: @nytimes