When will Americans read the complete unredacted Mueller report about Trump?

In response to a court order, the Justice Department has released a 2019 internal memorandum to then-Attorney General William P. Barr concerning whether the evidence gathered by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III would justify charging then-President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice. 

As Mueller noted in his report, the prospect of charging a president with obstruction raises difficult issues. But this newly released memo is not a serious attempt to grapple with those issues. It’s a whitewash — a failed effort to provide legal cover for Barr’s foregone conclusion exonerating the president. And as the statute of limitations clock continues to tick away, we still don’t have an honest assessment from the Justice Department regarding Trump and obstruction.

When will Americans read the entire report?  Copies of the January 6th report are best sellers so just imagine how fast the unredacted Mueller Report would be gobbled up.

Mueller infamously declined to make a prosecutorial judgment on this question, based on the long-standing Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. 

In the memo, dated two days after Mueller sent his 400-plus page report to Barr, senior Justice Department officials Steven A. Engel and Edward O’Callaghan urge Barr to make that judgment himself and declare there was insufficient evidence of obstruction. Barr did just that in a misleading letter to Congress released that same day.

Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart would like a word. Both were convicted of obstructing investigations that ultimately did not result in other criminal charges — and that is not at all unusual. 

At the time of the obstruction, of course, a defendant does not know whether criminal charges ultimately will be brought. And people obstruct investigations for all kinds of reasons — including that the results might be politically damaging or embarrassing — even if they don’t fear criminal liability.

But the bigger flaw in this argument is that the obstruction itself might be the reason there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. According to this memo, if you are good at obstruction and succeed in thwarting the investigation, you get a free pass not only for the underlying conduct but also for the obstruction itself. That is not the law.

Engel and O’Callaghan also claim Mueller had a flawed view of obstruction because he believed that otherwise lawful acts — such as firing the FBI director — could constitute obstruction if done with corrupt intent. They argue this is incorrect, and that obstruction charges could not properly be based on conduct that is “lawful on its face.”

Wrong again. Obstruction charges often apply when otherwise lawful acts are done with the corrupt intent to obstruct. If I shred my personal files because my office is cluttered, that is perfectly lawful. If I shred those files because they have been subpoenaed by a grand jury, that same conduct is now obstruction of justice, based on my corrupt intent.

The memo also suggests Trump’s actions were not obstruction because they were motivated by his belief that the Mueller investigation was unfair and was interfering with his governing agenda. No doubt all public officials under investigation feel the same way. But that is no defense. Just as believing he won the election would not justify Trump unleashing a mob on the Capitol, being unhappy about the Mueller investigation would not justify obstructing that investigation.

But the strongest evidence of the memo’s true purpose is its suggestion that Barr himself decided the obstruction question. Engel and O’Callaghan argue it would be contrary to DOJ policy to leave that question unresolved. But if that were truly the concern, the best solution was obvious: Barr could have ordered Mueller to make that call. The very purpose of a special counsel is to take such decisions out of the hands of political appointees. Mueller and his team lived with the investigation for nearly two years and were in the best position to reach a legal conclusion about Trump’s conduct. Barr’s failure to ask Mueller for his view and decision to claim that role for himself suggests he knew he would not like Mueller’s answer.

Before he was even appointed as attorney general, Barr wrote an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department arguing that Mueller’s obstruction theories were “fatally misconceived.” There was never any doubt about where Barr was going to come down on the obstruction question, and the flimsy analysis in this memo does nothing to further illuminate the issue. Merrick Garland’s Justice Department could still take an independent look — and potentially prosecute — but time is running out.

Randall D. Eliason a Washington Post contributing columnist, teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School

Republican hypocrisy is over the top out of control given the former guy's criminal activity

Echoes: The Washington Post Opinions
Republicans’ response to the Mar-a-Lago search is disturbing and dangerous! In fact, the "trumped up" rhetoric has already caused the death of a cult acolyte of the former guy, who was killed in Cincinnati when he tried to enter an FBI building.   

“Lock her up, lock her up.”

Potentially in violation of the Espionage Act for retaining illegal documents at his Mar-a-Lago evil palace.

Donald Trump’s supporters lobbed this rallying cry at Hillary Clinton in 2016, — hoping for the imprisonment of a political opponent for allegedly mishandling classified material. 

Now, however, some of the same people appear to believe that even a rule-of-law investigation of Trump for a possible violation of the same set of rules is out of order.

The FBI (legally!) executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida this week as part of what The Post reports is an investigation into the potential mishandling of White House documents. The National Archives discovered about seven months ago that the former president had taken more than a dozen boxes of files with him when he left office, some of them marked “top secret” — and suspected, it seems, that the documents he handed over to investigators this spring represented only a portion of the trove. 

Republicans went crazy over the (legal!) Trump probable cause search. Now they look idiotic.

A (cult) supporter of the former guy Trump (wrong-mindedly) drives past his Mar-a-Lago estate on August 8, in Palm Beach, Fla. (Wilfredo Lee/AP) IMO, this is a very threatening image.

Republicans are proclaimed outrage over the search, arguing that no president has ever been subjected to such a proceeding. 

They may be right. But then, no modern president has been the subject of as many and varied investigations as Mr. Trump — who invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination 440 times, in one of the inquires, in New York, on Wednesday.

Of course, criminal investigations of presidents shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. The warrant was quickly made public; but, only a sealed affidavit can tell the full story about the evidentiary basis for the search. The improper retention of records is a serious offense that shouldn’t be dismissed, but it is so far unclear whether Mr. Trump’s retention of these records constituted a violation of national security, a threat to democracy, or any other grave abuse. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland, then, found himself in a tricky position: Eventually he might be summoned before a  potential GOP-controlled congressional committees and ordered to explain himself for allowing the FBI’s actions — a job that will prove more difficult if the inquiry doesn’t lead to criminal charges or evidence of major wrongdoing- like a violation of the Espionage Act!

Republicans are behaving with gross irresponsibility: from talk show hosts urging violence that seems all-too-possible after the events of Jan. 6, 2021, to Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and former Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon (aka, "passed over for advancement" in the US Navy) comparing the FBI to the Gestapo, to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) (aka "Charlie McCarthy's evil twin") declaring the Justice Department in “an intolerable state of weaponized politicization.” This rhetoric is disturbing and dangerous — not to mention hypocritical. 

In fact, it is Trump’s administration and acolytes who sought to weaponize the Justice Department, and it is they who today are attempting to turn what to all appearances is a legitimate inquiry into a political circus.

Trump's political wall is his "Dumpty-Trumpty" challenge

George Conway assessed the quickly gathering legal challenges Donald Trump is facing after FBI agents searched Mar-A-Lago two days before he was forced to testify in a New York investigation of his business practices.  RawStory report by Travis Gettys: 

Watch the George Conway YouTube interview here:

The former president pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than 400 times Wednesday in his deposition before New York's attorney general, as his allies fanned out across the media suggesting that FBI agents planted unspecified evidence during the hours-long search of his home, and Conway told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Trump's situation was grim.

"I think the walls are closing in on him," Conway said. "There are so many different investigations. There's also civil suits that are chasing him down. I think, bit by bit, we're finally going to see the processes apply to him. He had his deposition taken yesterday by the New York attorney general. There are some civil depositions coming up, and he is being forced, essentially, to put up or shut up in these investigations. Yesterday, he, you know, took the Fifth 440 times, which is basically the most respect I think he's ever shown for the Constitution of the United States."

"But the Georgia case, I think, is particularly one to keep looking out for," Conway continued. "It's the one that sort of seems to be moving
ahead the most quickly, but I think this documents investigation is one that we haven't heard the last of. I mean, [Washington Post columnist] David [Ignatius] is absolutely right about the innate cautious and by-the-book nature of Merrick Garland. I think that he is handling this absolutely perfectly. I don't think the Justice Department should be saying anything more than it already has said, which is basically nothing about this, because that's what the rule of law requires. That is what grand jury secrecy requires."

"The whole point of this exercise is that nobody is above the law," he added. "The law applies equally to you and I, to the rich and the poor, to ex-presidents and just regular citizens. 

Mar-a-lago is not your typical Florida ranch style house!

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) received a legal search warrant to enter Mar-a-lago to find and remove high security documents.  Agents entered peacefully and a receipt for all the items taken was given to the Trump attorney.

One of those protection people have is grand jury secrecy and the presumption of innocence. The reason why the Justice Department does not say anything about ongoing investigations, except in unusual circumstances or when indictments are there, is to protect the reputations of those that are the subject of investigation. If he really thinks that there is a witch hunt going on with these documents that were at Mar-A-Lago, he should tell us exactly what happened. Show us the search warrant. What was the government looking for? What did they take? He has a list of what they took, or should have a list, and that would tell us a great deal. But he doesn't want to say anything because he knows it's not going to be helpful to him, I'm sure. Just as actually answering questions from Letitia James yesterday wasn't going to be helpful to him."

Trump is a criminal who must be in prison

It’s difficult understanding why all the Trump people, and Trump himself, have not been taken to court. We’ve been told and shown for months, how Trump people lied in their attacking of the building, injuring 140-plus workers, terrifying thousands.

Echo opinion letter published in the Bozeman Montana in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle newspaper:

So, dear Merrick Garland, why do we wait? We’re hearing often about various law firms spending months being certain about ultimately hostile actions of Trump’s “army.”

Why, therefore, isn’t Trump in jail? Didn’t we think, and for some time, see, that it wouldn't take this long? He is, for starters, defendant in 29 lawsuits. Many investors did criminal investigations in addition to those attorneys obtaining his tax returns. At the very least, there’s often mention of his own understanding that prison awaits him.

“Why is Trump, the seditionist, still on the loose, instead of in prison, where he belongs? The Justice Department (Attorney General Merrick Garland!) should have indicted him months ago! 

Just look at the massive crimes committed by the former guy #dRump. What he’s doing to his Republican Party, is fascism!”

Reference Bill Kennedy: “Our then supposed National Leader presided over, aided and abetted, the worst violent attack on...our government in more than 150 years, thus recommending Trump as President is quality of both Treason and Sedition!”

Jamelle Bouie: “As with the entire effort to overturn the result of the election, Trump’s behavior was as clumsy as it was in earnest.”

Trump to Justice Department: “Just say the election was corrupt, and leave the rest to me.”

Trump being — as he was — an absurd figure, doesn’t mean we should treat his drives and desires as non-threatening; True when in office, and true now!

This Democrat in Montana, as I deal with (#SIASD!) Republican friends and strangers — will still delight in Trump’s knowingly eventual demise.

Dan Lourie, in Bozeman Montana

Supreme Court can't be impartial when Brett Kavanaugh labeled Democrats as political enemies

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/chief-justice-roberts-asks-federal-judges-to-handle-kavanaugh-ethics-complaints

Kavanaugh's lack of judicial demeanor will damage the Supreme Court's image because he acted out against perceived political rivals rather than defend his innocence during the Senate's public hearings. This is a dangerous situation.  Although Brett Kavanaugh apologized for his behavior in an opinion published in the Wall Street Journal, the highest court in our nation is now in a position where the judges' decisions will be perceived as being political.

Chief Justice Roberts asks federal judges to handle Kavanaugh ethics complaints- reported by Mark Sherman of the Associated Press and in the PBSNews

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts is referring ethics complaints against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to federal judges in Colorado and neighboring states.

The complaints deal with statements Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearings. They were filed originally with Kavanaugh’s old court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Roberts took no action on them while Kavanaugh’s nomination was pending. He received the first three of 15 eventual complaints on Sept. 20, a week before Kavanaugh’s angry denial of a sexual assault allegation by Christine Blasey Ford.
It’s possible the complaints will never be investigated if the lower-court judges determine they have no jurisdiction over a Supreme Court justice under the judiciary’s ethics rules. The judges may be forced to conclude “that intervening events have rendered the allegations moot or make remedial action impossible,” said Arthur Hellman, an ethics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Another ethicist, Stephen Gillers of New York University, disagreed that the complaints are moot. Kavanaugh remains a federal judge and the complaints “allege misconduct that occurred while Kavanaugh was on the D.C. Circuit and subject to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Any violation of the Code does not disappear because he is now on another federal court,” Gillers said in an email.

But Gillers said the complaints “may be found not to be meritorious in the end.”

The judiciary’s rules allow members of the public to lodge complaints about federal judges. They typically are dealt with by experienced judges in the courthouse or region where a judge serves. Judges who receive complaints have a range of options that include dismissing them out of hand, having local judges investigate them or asking Roberts, in his capacity as head of the federal judiciary, to assign the complaints to judges in a different part of the country.

Roberts assigned the complaints to the ethics council of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deal with the complaints, according to a letter posted Wednesday on the D.C. Circuit’s website.

The first public word of the complaints came Saturday when D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson acknowledged that complaints about Kavanaugh had been filed. They only “seek investigations … of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court,” Henderson said in a statement. Details of the complaints have not been made public.

Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, typically deals with ethics complaints, but he apparently stepped aside from complaints against Kavanaugh. Garland had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, but Senate Republicans never acted on the nomination.

Roberts’ letter was sent to Judge Timothy Tymkovich, the 10th Circuit’s chief judge. Tymkovich was on President Donald Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Republicans must stop their obstructive ways - vote Democratic in 2016!

Republican obstruction of progressive policies supported by President Obama have (a) repressed the poor (b) prevented health care for many who can't access Medicaid (c) prevented cost of living increases for Social Security (d) blocked dangerous Zika virus prevention and (e) held back improved retirement benefits for military retirees, and (f) did not support increase in the national minimum wage. Americans can't support Republican obstructionism anymore, because the backward policies are preventing the middle class from growing their retirement security and short changing military retirees.  Plus, stopped other initiatives.

The human cost of GOP obstructionism
By Melissa McEwan 
Republicans have worked to obstruct President Obama's agenda at every turn, and this has had devastating consequences for people across America.

Senator Mitch McConnell R-Kenntucky is the grumpy leader of Senate obstructionists

The GOP’s refusal to budge on Judge Merrick Garland is but one brick in a wall of legislative obstruction.

All these things left undone translate into millions of people whose lives have been negatively affected because of the GOP’s intransigence.

In a statement, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) spokesperson Sam Lau made clear the cost to people who depend on their government to get things done:

“It’s simply unconscionable that with Zika infections growing by the day, Republicans insist on playing politics with a public health crisis and will once again support legislation that restricts vital women’s health funding.”

When even a public health crisis cannot move Republicans to act, we are in dangerous times. Prioritizing partisan gamesmanship over the public good is anathema to good governance.

Even when issues have support from a majority of American voters, Republicans won’t budge. They long ago abandoned the idea of doing the will of the people, if that would require cooperation with President Obama and Democrats. (And please inlcude prevention of gun violence!)

Meredith Kelly of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wonders: “After repeated failures to deal with the Zika crisis, close the terror loophole, update the Voting Rights Act or pass a budget, what exactly do Republicans think makes their record so attractive to voters?”

Especially when that record doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Failing for 197 days and counting to approve emergency funding to fight Zika isn’t just a line item on an elected official’s record. It’s now more than 2,700 confirmed cases of Zika in the U.S.—2,700 people with Zika.

Failing to even consider The Families of Flint Act, despite the fact that “before Congress went on recess in July, nearly 70 Members of Congress spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives about the need to stay in Washington and pass legislation to help Flint,” isn’t just another line item. It’s leaving an entire city of people without access to clean water from their taps.

Failing to raise the federal minimum wage isn’t just another line item either. It’s leaving 3 million workers, who are working for the current federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour or less, in the untenable situation in which they cannot support themselves doing full time work.

Behind each of these issues are real people who are suffering the very real consequences of the GOP’s refusal to act.

This is obstructionism for obstructionism’s sake, with people getting badly hurt in the process.

It doesn’t need to be this way. Americans can fix the US Congress and prevent obstructionism. We must vote in 2016 to put all  Republicans out of office!