Why are Democrats likely to be just as disappointed by Mueller's full report?


After the investigation of Robert Mueller ended without any indictment of President Trump or his immediate entourage for conspiracy with Russia, and after Attorney General William Barr issued his briefing note announcing that Mueller was not Had found no collusion, Democrats hope that the release of the full Mueller memo will be detrimental to Trump. But they may be disappointed.

To be clear, last month I argued that Barr should release the full report on Mueller. This is a position also adopted institutionally by Tuesday Washington Examiner editorial, which allows a minimum number of redactions absolutely necessary. So, I'm very supportive of all of this, as well as the underlying documents and supporting evidence. Plus, I get understandable skepticism about Barr's letter. Since he was appointed AG of Trump, there is every reason not to want to take his summary at face value.

That said, I would be surprised that Mueller's full report radically changes anyone's conclusions about Trump-Russia's story.

To begin with, Barr's summary is also supported by the fact that we already know all the people who have been indicted by Mueller and that none of them is being prosecuted for collusion. He has not sued either Donald Trump Jr. or his son-in-law Jared Kushner. All the reports that we have read over the last two years about Trump's closure have implicated Mueller's slow construction of his case, with indictments getting closer and closer to the president. It did not work.

Then there is the question of obstruction, on which, according to Barr's account, Mueller was more equivocal. Barr writes: "The second part of the report deals with a number of actions of the president – most of which were the subject of public reports – on which the special council investigated as potentially raising concerns of obstruction of justice.After conducting a "thorough fact finding" "On these issues, the special advocate considered whether to assess conduct in accordance with the standards of the ministry governing the decisions of prosecution and declination, but ultimately decided not to pronounce a judgment of the traditional prosecutor. It has therefore not reached a conclusion – either in one direction or the other – Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out elements of evidence on both sides of the issue and leaves open what the Special Council regards as "difficult questions" of law and fact as to whether the President Actions and intentions may be perceived as an obstruction. e this report does not conclude that the president has committed a crime, nor does he exonerate him. "

Unless Barr invents this whole story, the fact that most of this evidence relates to actions that have mostly been publicly reported makes it likely the Mueller report that simply describes various Trump actions that we already know about. , and then present the arguments as to why this may or may not be an obstruction. This has essentially been the public debate over the past two years. For example, when Trump fired former FBI director James Comey, some people claimed that it was an obstacle, others argued that it was absurd, the president having the absolute power to dismiss the FBI director. I imagine that any report from the Mueller report will be pretty much the same.

Source link