[View here as a Twitter thread]
Barr released a four-page summary of Mueller’s report. It’s short, easy to read, and here.
From P. 2: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” That quotation comes from the Special Counsel (Mueller).
Also from Mueller: While the investigation does not conclude that Trump committed a crime, this is not an exoneration.
The Special Counsel determined two main Russian attempts to influence the election: To sow social discord, and computer hacking.
There are no sealed indictments.
Special Counsel referred several matters to other offices for further action.
As far as obstruction of justice, Special Counsel decided “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement” about obstruction and hence did not reach a decision. Special Counsel set out the evidence on both sides.
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That quotation is also from the Special Counsel.
Rosenstein and other DOJ officials decided not to prosecute obstruction of justice after “applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions.” This was partly because evidence didn’t establish that Trump committed an underlying crime related to the Russian election interference (which goes to motive to obstruct).
Basically, what Barr is saying is that (in his view) there’s isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump obstructed justice. Special Counsel, on the other hand, declined to reach a conclusion.
ApexCat asked:
Yes, that is what Barr said. As a matter of law, this is wrong. Whether justice was obstructed has nothing to do with whether the person committed an underlying crime. As a practical matter, though, if indeed a Trump-Russia conspiracy can’t be proven, Trump’s defense would be that he wanted to shut it down because he knew he committed no crime. This is not a legal defense. But it might work in the Court of Public Opinion.
Remember, Special Counsel specifically said he did not exonerate Trump on the matter of obstruction of justice. That came from Barr. Some of Trump’s surrogates have also suggested that Trump can’t be accused of obstructing justice if he had legal authority to do whatever the obstructing action was. For example, he had authority to fire Comey for anything at all. Therefore–so goes the argument–this cannot be a crime. This is also not true as a matter of law. A legal action can be done with a corrupt purpose, and thereby become a crime. But this is what some people, like Alan Dershowitz, are arguing.
Barr’s summary and conclusion do not preclude Congress from stepping in, demanding to see the evidence, and reaching a different conclusion.
That’s why we have more than one branch of government. It keeps the executive branch from exonerating the head of the executive branch.
Under the Constitution, Congress makes the decision about whether the president committed impeachable crimes.
Yesterday on twitter I explained why, given that the Constitution lays out a procedure for finding a sitting president guilty of criminal or impeachable conduct, it made sense to me that Mueller would not indict Trump, even though many legal scholars argue that a sitting president can be indicted.
I’ve also talked about the fact that prosecutors have a very high conviction rate (better than 90%) because they don’t bring cases unless they are confident they can have evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is the disclaimer I’ve had on my Russia Investigation website all year:
This disclaimer cuts both ways. Not indicting (or impeaching, which is equivalent) does not necessarily mean a person is innocent. Some crimes (like bribery which requires quid pro quo) are hard to prove. Others, like conspiracy, are much easier.
I expect that the House will now demand the full report & evidence, conduct its own investigation, and reach its own conclusion.
We’re not finished yet.
