Your pain isn't like anyone else's, and science is homing in on better treatments. Read about the newest ways to break pain's grip.

Reply
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
54
Views

Re: It's Congress' decision.

54 Views
Message 1 of 4

gruffstuff:  Whether Trump obstructed justice isn't the attorney general's call to make. It's Congress' decision.

 

 

Exactly. It's the constitutional duty of congress to conduct oversight of the Executive branch and unless they have the full report they can't carry out that duty. It's their call, not Barr's.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
54
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
57
Views

Re: It's Congress' decision.

57 Views
Message 2 of 4

Perhaps in light of all that has come out, they (Congress) should look at what appears to be another "loop hole" in weather a President/Vice-President can be indicted, no????

 

Perhaps this is just a "let's leave it alone" category to always have the protection for the two party system? 

 

Just asking!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
57
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
81
Views

Re: It's Congress' decision.

81 Views
Message 3 of 4

Here is Diane Feinstein's today's letter to Barr, copied to Lindsey Graham.

 

Feinstein Calls for Release of Full Mueller Report, Underlying Evidence           

March 25, 2019

 

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr:

 

            Yesterday, we received your summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s nearly two-year investigation and comprehensive report. However, I have several questions and request a full copy of the report and underlying evidence on behalf of the Judiciary Democrats.

 

            Special Counsel Mueller spent nearly two years investigating, with a team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents and other professional staff. As you note in your summary, “[t]he Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign government for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”

 

            Congress must now determine the risks to national security, whether there was misconduct or abuse of power, whether existing laws are sufficient to deter and punish election interference, and what next steps are appropriate. A four-page summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s extensive investigation and report, with no underlying evidence or findings, is not adequate to accomplish our constitutional, legislative, and oversight responsibilities.

 

            There is no law, regulation, or DOJ practice that prevents production of information related to a closed investigation to Congress. In fact, Congress routinely requests, and receives, confidential information related to closed criminal investigations and counterintelligence matters as part of its oversight responsibilities. For example, over the past several years, Republicans have requested and received 880,000 pages, including substantial confidential and classified information related to investigations of Hillary Clinton. Republicans have also requested and received confidential material related to the Special Counsel’s investigation while it has been ongoing, including classified documents from the FISA court.

 

            We are willing to work with you to ensure appropriate protections are put in place to protect information that implicates legitimate privacy interests or endangers ongoing investigations or criminal cases from becoming public. But these considerations are not a reason for withholding the report or underlying documentation from Congress. To the extent you believe existing law constrains your ability to comply with this request, we ask that you immediately begin the process of consultation and accommodation so that there is no delay in reaching agreement.

 

           Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. Please provide the full report by Monday, April 1 and start producing the underlying documentation on that date.

 

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

CC: Senator Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AF2DA740-12C5-4164-9839-14C343AF...

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
81
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
92
Views
3
Replies

It's Congress' decision.

92 Views
Message 4 of 4

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/whether-trump-obstructed-justice-isn-t-attorney-general-s-call...

 

Whether Trump obstructed justice isn't the attorney general's call to make. It's Congress' decision.

 

The Mueller report didn't draw a conclusion about any obstruction of justice. Barr needs to show the evidence on which he based his decision.

 

Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of the “principal conclusions” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’ still-secret report, released on Sunday, engages in sleight-of-hand when finding that President Donald Trump did not engage in criminal obstruction of justice.

 

 

Mueller made no such conclusion. Rather, Trump’s hand-picked attorney general, William Barr, in consultation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, decided that the evidence found by Mueller was insufficient to convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.

 
 

Mueller apparently adhered to the principle of seeking “just the facts.” And facts matter: Neither Congress nor the public know the facts found by Mueller regarding obstruction of justice. A White House that famously promulgated a theory of “alternative facts” will find that the actual facts found by Mueller’s investigation matter.

 

 

Indeed, Barr’s letter acknowledges that Mueller “describe[d] the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any conclusion.” Thus, the validity of Barr’s conclusion that Trump should not be indicted for obstruction of justice can only be tested if the full Mueller report is made public. The House of Representatives could well reach a different conclusion based upon those facts in deciding whether Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.

 

 

The impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon adhered to the approach of investigating the facts and then allowing Congress to draw its own conclusions. A 410-4 vote by the House of Representatives in February 1974 authorizing the House Judiciary Committee to “investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds” existed to impeach President Nixon, after which an impeachment inquiry staff of the committee, on which I served, set to work. Under the leadership of John Doar, a distinguished former assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division in the 1960s, the inquiry staff provided 650 “statements of information” with 7,200 pages of supporting evidentiary material to the committee members in closed sessions.

 

 

In its final report following the adoption of three articles of impeachment against President Nixon, the Judiciary Committee emphasized that these 36 volumes of statements of information were strictly factual. “A deliberate and scrupulous abstention from conclusions, even by implication, was observed,” it wrote.

Although recitation of the facts was spare and unvarnished, the cumulative effect on the members of the committee convinced 27 of 38 of them to vote that Nixon had committed obstruction of justice, and 28 to vote that he had abused his power. Their measurement for impeachment was not the criminal standard cited in Barr’s letter of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rather, the committee members concluded — after serious deliberation and reflection — that President Nixon had committed high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment.

 

 

The Mueller report’s apparent similarity to the 1974 statements of information is striking: He developed and organized the facts, as the impeachment inquiry staff did, leaving it to decision-makers to reach their conclusions.

 

 

But that Barr has unsurprisingly reached one conclusion does not foreclose Congress from reaching the opposite conclusion. Whether Congress will have that opportunity depends entirely on whether Mueller’s report and the evidence underlying it will be made available to the House of Representatives.

 

 

Barr already is signaling that he plans to invoke a barricade to full disclosure: His letter devotes most of a page to the restrictions imposed on the disclosure of grand jury materials prescribed by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And, in truth, much of the evidence gathered by Mueller from 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and witness testimony could be designated as grand jury materials that Barr might seek to withhold from both Congress and the public.

 

 

But Judge John Sirica’s order in March 1974 allowing the Watergate grand jury to submit a report and evidence to the House Judiciary Committee establishes a precedent for the full release of Mueller’s report. In that case, the Judiciary Committee asked the district courtoverseeing the Watergate grand jury to authorize Congress to receive the grand jury report and related evidence.

 

 

In words as pertinent and powerful today as in 1974, Judge Sirica ruled that the grand jury secrecy rule did not prevent delivery of the grand jury report and evidence to the Judiciary Committee.“[W]e deal in a matter of the most critical moment to the nation, an impeachment investigation involving the President of the United States,” he wrote. “It would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling need than that of this country for an unswervingly fair inquiry based on all the pertinent information.”

 

 

Taking this cue, the 2019 House of Representatives would be well served to direct the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry. The special constitutional obligation of Congress to conduct impeachment provides the strongest argument for the courts to order the release of the full Mueller report, if Barr balks at doing so.

 

 

Importantly, the Founders believed that the impeachment power of Congress should be readily available if the president engages in acts — even if they are not criminal acts — that undermine the separation of powers or constitute a presidential abuse of power.

 

 

Even leaving aside the investigations of federal and state prosecutors in New York and elsewhere, President Trump is premature in claiming his exoneration by Barr’s letter. Congress, the public and history are entitled to decide if Mueller’s recitation of facts warrants the indictment or impeachment of President Trump for obstruction of justice.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
92
Views
3
Replies