[ad_1]
In an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Monday, enigmatic Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made waves of provocative comments that seemed to provide clues to the Department of Justice's approach to of the publication of any report of the investigation of the special advocate Robert Mueller in Russia.
One of the outstanding issues regarding the publication of the findings of the investigation concerns the President and the means to disclose the discovery of his potential wrongdoing, given that he is unlikely to be subject to indictment in the performance of his duties. As Washington Post Matt Zapotsky's report narrated, some of Rosenstein's comments seemed particularly relevant to this question:
We can not wait to see what went wrong and find the best way to solve it. One of the issues that the department is facing, and this is something we will be discussing nationally, is whether transparency is a good thing and a rash reaction to suggest that we be transparent. we do it in government, but there are many reasons not to be transparent about what we do in government. … The fact that the government collects information does not mean that this information is accurate. This can be very misleading if you are too transparent about the information collected by the government. So I think we have to be very careful about that. And it's against not commenting on a particular case. There may be legitimate reasons for making exceptions, but as a general principle, I believe that the Department of Justice is better served when people are convinced that we will operate – when we investigate American citizens in particular – we are going to do it with appropriate sensitivity to the rights of the unattached … The advice I have always given to my attorneys and officers with whom I worked during my law enforcement mandate was if we were not ready to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, we then have no reason to make allegations against US citizens.
Critically, he also made it clear that he had a lot of respect for the new Attorney General William Barr, on whom he said the country could count on acting properly. This is of paramount importance because Trump has repeatedly said that he wants, if possible, to intervene in the Mueller investigation, which made his choice in Barr an immediately suspect choice. But Rosenstein, who has appointed Mueller for the first time, occupies an almost unique position of independence from Trump, and his confidence in the current Attorney General speaks volumes.
Rosenstein also expressed confidence in the rules of the special councils themselves, noting that if Mueller (or any special council) was overruled by a key decision of the Attorney General, a report should be sent to Congress to explain why.
Unsurprisingly, Rosenstein's comments caused a sensation. Although he stated, for the most part, that he was not interested in any particular case, the principles he presented show how he reflects on some of the key questions for how to make public the conclusions of the case. Mueller investigation.
They also seemed, in particular, to reflect his persistent opposition to the decision of former FBI director James Comey to publish negative information about Hillary Clinton when the office closed its investigation into his e-mails.
But his comments on the fact that transparency is not always a good thing in law enforcement and that prosecutors should not make allegations unless they are ready to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt in court appear to be directly related to the outstanding issues. questions in the Mueller investigation.
"If you expect Mueller / the Justice Department to gladly publish a report that blames Trump or other non-charged persons in his orbit, please read these remarks from Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw the most of his investigation, Zapotopsky said.
"This is both 100% correct," said former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller said Rosenstein's words, "and in no way contradicts the need for the DOJ to present to Congress evidence of the wrongdoings of a sitting president, the only person against whom the DoJ says he can not plead in court" .
There seemed to be at least two different ways of interpreting Rosenstein's words. He could have indicated that people should not expect a damning report from the president about the president. Or he could say that, if Mueller presents such a case, he will be airtight and of the kind that exposes clear and demonstrable criminal activities. This ambiguity is almost certainly intentional on Rosenstein's part.
Although he noted that there might be exceptions to the general principles that he has described – and if a position calls for one, the Presidency does – we can be quite confident, Rosenstein was sending This message: At least for most people involved in the investigation of the special advocate, they will either be charged or Mueller will not say much about them. He will not divulge a host of disturbing, but not criminal, allegations against Trump's allies or other people around him. And while this may be disappointing for some, there are good reasons to value this adherence to the principle.
[ad_2]
Source link