The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution is the strongest statement therein that powers not expressly granted the State are retained as rights of the People. The State has misconstrued, misrepresented, ignored, and denied the People's rights by elimination of protections reserved alone to them, not recognized by the Supreme Court, the Legislative, and worst the Executive Branch in the illegitimate exercise of draconian powers which unlawfully disparage the inalienable rights of the People.
During a briefing at the Justice Department about three weeks ago, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III made a revelation that those supervising his work were not expecting, a person familiar with the matter said: He would not offer a conclusion on whether he believed President Trump sought to obstruct justice.
The decision — which a Justice Department official on Monday said the special counsel’s office came to “entirely” on its own — left a gap ripe for political exploitation.
After accepting Mueller’s report, Attorney General William P. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who were among those briefed March 5, made the call Mueller would not, determining that the evidence was insufficient to allege that Trump had obstructed justice. The decisive maneuver, outlined in a letter Barr sent to lawmakers this week, sparked allegations that the two Trump appointees had rushed to a judgment no one asked them to make, and it is likely to be a key battleground in the intensifying political fight over the conclusion of Mueller’s work.
A day after Barr revealed Mueller’s principal conclusions — namely, that the special counsel did not establish any coordination between Trump and Russia on election interference, and found a mixed bag on the question of obstruction — Democrats attacked the attorney general and issued an April 2 deadline for him to turn over a copy of the report, while Republicans said Trump should be given an apology.
Some current and former law enforcement officials, meanwhile, said privately they were puzzled as to why Mueller ended his work without a firm recommendation on obstruction. Trump, who had repeatedly derided the investigation as a “witch hunt,” said Monday, when asked if Mueller had acted honorably: “Yes, he did.”
What we know about the Mueller report
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference is over. Here’s what we know.(JM Rieger/The Washington Post) . . . .
US Attorney General’s William Barr’s summary of Robert Mueller’s Report was not written and released on March 24, 2019, as the White House wants us to believe. It was argued, written and pre-tested on June 8, 2018, in an unsolicited application for the job of US Attorney General that “Bill” Barr wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Assistant AG Steve Engel, but clearly meant for the eyes of “Individual One,” Donald Trump. . . .
President Donald Trump.Michael Reynolds - Pool/Getty Images
Attorney General William Barr will send the special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday.
Graham said Barr told him he would send the report to the White House first in case it wants to claim executive privilege over any parts.
Mueller's full report is likely to contain crucial details about the motivations behind the myriad contacts and meetings President Donald Trump's associates had with Russians, as well as Trump's repeated deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump's defense lawyers have previously said they want a chance to review and "correct" the Mueller report before it's made public.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr told him he would send the special counsel Robert Mueller's final report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, in case it wants to claim executive privilege over any parts.
Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, also said Barr told him it would most likely take "weeks, not months," to make a version of Mueller's final report public.
Barr on Sunday released his own summary of Mueller's report, saying it did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Barr said Mueller declined to come to a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice in the investigation and instead laid out all the evidence prosecutors had collected before handing in his findings to Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Barr and Rosenstein said there was not sufficient evidence to determine whether Trump obstructed justice. Their conclusion alarmed legal experts, who said Barr's past comments on the obstruction inquiry may have compromised his ability to make impartial decisions about that aspect of the investigation. . . .
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
After some good news for the Trump administration in the Mueller report, Congress has yet to have its say on the matter.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
Image
After some good news for the Trump administration in the Mueller report, Congress has yet to have its say on the matter.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
On its face, the letter that Attorney General William Barr sent to Congress on Sunday afternoon, summarizing the key findings of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, is good news, not just for President Trump.
According to Mr. Barr’s four-page summary, Mr. Mueller and his team were unable to establish that anyone connected to the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government when it interfered to help Mr. Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign.
This should provide some relief to all Americans who have harbored fears that a presidential candidate was conspiring with Vladimir Putin to subvert American democracy. Mr. Mueller — who never once responded to the shameless stream of insults Mr. Trump has hurled at him over the last two years — is as careful and thorough an investigator as there is. His investigation lasted almost two years, issued more than 2,800 subpoenas and roughly 500 search warrants and heard from a similar number of witnesses. If he couldn’t find any links, it’s doubtful anyone could.
What this outcome is not, however, is a “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” as Mr. Trump unsurprisingly spun it. Mr. Mueller explicitly declined to exonerate the president on the matter of obstruction of justice — a crime that constituted one of the articles of impeachment for both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. After examining Mr. Trump’s actions and weighing “difficult issues” of law and fact, Mr. Mueller punted. “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” the report states.
Mr. Barr wasn’t as cautious. Less than 48 hours after receiving Mr. Mueller’s report, the attorney general briskly decided that Mr. Trump had not obstructed justice. Why not? Because there was no underlying crime to obstruct, Mr. Barr said, and anyway, most of Mr. Trump’s behavior took place in full public view, had no connection to any legal proceeding, and wasn’t “done with corrupt intent.” How did Mr. Barr make these determinations so quickly? On what evidence in the report did he base it?
Recall that Mr. Barr got his current job only after Mr. Trump shoved out his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, for not showing him enough personal loyalty and shutting down the Russia investigation at the start. Among the reasons Mr. Barr may have appealed to the president was an unsolicited memo he sent last year to the Justice Department, taking the position that Mr. Mueller should not be allowed to question Mr. Trump about obstructing justice, and that the president could not be guilty of obstruction unless there were an underlying crime to obstruct.
In other words, Mr. Barr did exactly as Mr. Trump hoped he would. But there’s a reason obstructing justice is a crime on its own. The justice system doesn’t work when people lie to authorities, no matter why they do so.
Mr. Barr’s curious views on obstruction are just one reason that Mr. Mueller’s full report must be made available, immediately, to both Congress and the American people. . . .
By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report.
By Neal K. Katyal
Mr. Katyal is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.
Image
Attorney General William Barr said that Robert Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice.CreditCreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.
First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.
But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.
The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?
Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law. . . .
Despite what the attorney general’s letter to Congress states, his argument clearing the president of obstruction goes against established law and is profoundly dangerous.
