Was Mueller pressured to end his investigation?

[kentuck]

There are a lot of questions with the dropping of the Barr Report today.

Did Barr's conclusions match the conclusions of Robert Mueller? From the little that we have gleaned from Bill Barr's letter today, their conclusions do not match?

Does the Special Counsel law require the Report to go to Congress?

Did Barr and Trump communicate while Trump was in Florida?

Why wasn't Mueller included in the final conclusion by Barr and Rosenstein?

It smells like a can of worms has been opened.

[RHMerriman]

1. And every single one of your questions is ripe for investigation by:

And every single one of your questions is ripe for investigation by Congress and a host of state and local agencies, much less the media and Trump's political enemies, inside and outside the GOP...

[brush]

32. Yep, Barr gets in and, presto, the investigation is over...

without Jr. or Jared, who we all know are sleazy and guilty as all hell, never having been questioned.

The fix is in.

[FBaggins]

2. He couldn't have been

Part of the regulation is not just that the AG must tell Congress of any prosecutorial decisions and why Mueller did or did not prosecute... he also has to provide Congress with a list of anything Mueller wanted to do that got overruled by the AG (or acting AG).

That list has already been provided and there's nothing on it. No way that Mueller would stay silent if Barr certified that he didn't pressure him but actually did.

[Jarqui]

5. That isn't what Barr assured

https://www.apnews.com/719fb6dc299f43339ead6af26626459d

In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with “a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General” or acting Attorney General “concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3). There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.

So there wasn't a specific proposed action.

Barr had already taken the position that Mueller's efforts on obstruction were misguided
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11952157
so that part of the investigation was effectively dead when Barr got nominated. He is the Special Counsel's unrecused boss.

Maybe something like this happened:
Barr: "Have you got unreasonable doubt on Russian collusion yet?"
Mueller: "Not yet. We're working on it"
Barr "What steps are left for the Russian collusion part?"
Mueller "We're working our way up the responsibility tree with indictments and trying to flip"
Barr "The DOJ can do that. What else ?"
Mueller "... we're chasing down a number of leads from all the evidence we've gathered .. "
Barr "The DOJ can do that too"
Barr "Ok, Bob, let's wrap this up. Trump's all over me. Report on my desk in four weeks, ok?"


Trump to Giuliani "... start leaking to the press Mueller's wrapping up ..."

[FBaggins]

7. Of course it is

Mueller was either done or he wasn’t. Barr can’t tell him to wrap it up if he disagrees without it ending up as part of that certification.

[kentuck]

8. Unless he ordered him to turn in the work he had already finished?

And then used it to end the investigation?

I'm sure Mr Mueller will speak up some time in the near future.

[FBaggins]

9. That's just what the rule was created to catch

Your last sentence demonstrates why this is just the denial/bargaining talking. What possible benefit would Barr gain from saying he didn’t influence the end of the investigation when Mueller clearly isn’t going to lie to protect the claim?

[kentuck]

10. It is about what Mueller wrote, not about what he might say to disagree with Barr.

Mueller wrote that Donald Trump "was not exonerated of obstruction of justice". How do we explain that away?

[FBaggins]

12. What's to explain away?

Prosecutors rarely exonerate (unless they can prove that someone else is guilty I suppose). They either charge because they think they can prove a crime... or they don’t.

Exoneration is just what the accused claims when no charges show up.

As evidence - consider Comey’s Clinton press event. He concluded that she WAS outside of the law... but that no prosecutor would bring charges. In this case, Mueller can’t even demonstrate that obstruction occurred.

The confusion in this case is that obstruction of justice isn’t what most people assume it is. Once he concluded that the underlying crime didnt occur, proving obstruction became almost impossible

[DeminPennswoods]

15. That's not true

The quote in Barr's letter says there is evidence both implicating and exonerating Trump of obstruction. But it does not say there is a preponderence of evidence one way or the other nor does the letter say Barr's decision was based on a preponderence of evidence exonerating Trump.

I would guess the SCO took the neutral position because of DoJ's internal policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. To me, that says there was more evidence of obstruction than not.

[FBaggins]

18. Criminal prosecutions are not based on the preponderance of the evidence

Again... if he couldn’t conclude that any collusion occurred, then it would be next to impossible to convict on obstruction.

This is the one favor Mueller gave us, because impeachment is by whatever standard Congress wants to use. So at least the list of seemingly-obstructive conduct will make it to Congress

[triron]

23. Mueller was obstructed big time in the collusion investigation. Trump had a hand in that.

How is this not obstruction? If I obstruct investigators from proving murder and they are thus unable to prove it
how is that not criminal obstruction (even though they know I got in the way). If it's not, then guilty parties should feel free to obstruct, no matter how blatant.

I cite the merriam webster definition of 'obstruction of justice'.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/obstruction%20of%20justice

[FBaggins]

27. How is obstruction not obstruction?

When you word it that way... what can be said?

Seriously. A dictionary definition can't help in this case. There is a legal definition and...

"the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,"

Without an underlying crime... obstruction is almost impossible to prove.

[Jarqui]

11. Barr most certainly can shut it down under the law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.8

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

Barr "Sorry Bob, I've cut the budget. Wrap it up."

[FBaggins]

13. He absolutely CAN, but that's not the point

What he can’t do is shut it down if Mueller disagrees... without putting that into the notification.

[Jarqui]

17. That's hard because of the nature of the beast

If they knew all the answers, the investigation would be over.

Extending the budget on obstruction of justice was pointless in the AG's mind because
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/politics/bill-barr-comey-obstruction/index.html

Mueller obviously didn't agree. But Barr was well within his rights after a couple of years to shut that portion down and get mutual agreement under the circumstances from Mueller because he'd kick the snot out of Mueller if he whined about it. It is the AG's call. They agreed to disagree and end it.

For Russia, they didn't know all the answers. So what concrete steps would Mueller be taking to determine if he could get proof beyond reasonable doubt after nearly two years plus FBI investigation time? Basically fishing and trying to shake down people they're prosecuting - getting them to flip - something vague like that. So Barr would hit him on specifics of what was left. "You've had two years , Bob. What is left for you to examine?" Mueller's vague. Barr cuts his budget. Game over.

When Barr was nominated, Mueller had to see the writing in the wall. Barr is partisan. Mueller not so much so. When Whittaker didn't pan out, Trump got his man to shut it down.

[FBaggins]

19. Sorry... that speculation is entirely unsupported

There’s no way for him to shut it down and keep the secret that he did so.

There is zero evidence of anything but that Mueller decided that he’s done.

[triron]

24. That's a very bold statement to make. Hope Nadler's efforts show you are likely incorrect.

[FBaggins]

28. It isn't bold at all

I'm not the one making up imaginary conversations between the AG and Mueller that, presumably, Barr is stupid enough to think wouldn't come out.

All I've said is that there isn't any evidence at all to support the speculation.

[Jarqui]

25. There is not a lot of evidence otherwise.

Apparently, Mueller never reviewed the letter.

There wasn't a specific request by Mueller turned down to report.

The new AG could very well have reviewed what was going on in his department and exercised his authority - telling Mueller he needed to wrap it up.

We'll find out when Mueller goes before congress - which I presume under the circumstances, he will. It may well be in his report and Barr will say that wasn't an exceptional circumstance he was obligated to report - he was exercising his right as the new AG to shut it down.

Mueller would have to have something really compelling to justify carrying on. After two years, "more fishing for evidence?"

Early January, Rosenstein announces he's leaving the Justice Dept when Barr is confirmed
Barr is confirmed Feb 14th
Rosenstein is reported scheduled to depart mid March.

Stories were floating in the media that Mueller was winding down
They started on Whittaker's watch. Whittaker had floated chopping Mueller's budget.
They heated up when Barr came on board.

But how many leaks did we get from Mueller during his time there?
Very likely, someone else was spinning it.

A couple of days before the report, there was still stuff going on
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/17/mueller-probe-pursues-russia-collusion-leads-but-i/

I'm suspicious. I don't trust them

Maybe it was all above board and Mueller tossed in the towel. Or maybe not.

[triron]

30. Good synopsis.

I have lots of funny feelings that things don't add up. Sometimes intuition is wide.

[Jarqui]

31. That is the basis of where I'm coming from

Something does not add up here. Something is wrong.

We were lied to for more than two years about Russia and now, the new AG is not being forthright or straight with us.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-barr-summary-obstruction-conspiracy-close-reading.html

[Igel]

16. When was Barr appointed?

December 2018.

The fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2018.

Meaning that the special counsel would have had to notify the AG by 7/1/2018 that the investigation the status and provide a budget request for the following year.

At that point, prior to the start of f/y 2019, the AG would have made the determination and establish the budget.

Barr wasn't around at the time. Not his call. That would have been Session's. And it would have resulted in no budget for this f/y.

There's a budget for this year. It was established. I don't see where the budget can be altered later barring (so to speak) some extraordinary event.

[Jarqui]

22. As a new AG, he'd have the right to step in and assess the budget and take

whatever steps he deemed appropriate when he felt like it. He's not strapped to prior AGs in the administration of his department. Sessions was fired in significant part for recusing himself. The President of the United States wanted an AG to provide oversight to the Special Counsel.

Here's a couple of articles that discuss how an AG can mess with the Special Counsel
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-mueller-factbox/factbox-can-the-new-u-s-attorney-general-shut-down-the-mueller-probe-idUSKCN1ND00S

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/special-counsel-mueller-is-not-immune-from-political_us_591ef2abe4b0b28a33f62b4e

And the big one is: what is the recourse? You think the GOP controlled Senate will remove Barr because he shut down a "witch hunt" (to use their words - not mine)?

He can do it and probably just did.
He nuked obstruction of justice because he felt like it.

"Show me your cards on Russia, Bob ... you don't have enough .. you're done"
Game over.

[Hoyt]

3. Democrats need to see the report. I doubt Barr will withhold it unless he has totally lied.

If he didn't lie abou Mueller's report, we are close to beating a dead horse.

We need to concentrate on the election, at this point, where voters will ultimately decide.

[customerserviceguy]

21. Very true

And another thing, every minute of news devoted to dead-horse investigations is a minute less for the eventual Democratic nominee to be heard.

Trump totally sucked the oxygen out of the room for his GOP opponents. He's a master at hogging the spotlight, whether for good or evil. He would love to play the same game with us.

[triron]

26. Bet he tries to. We will see.

It may get leaked nevertheless.

[toddwv]

4. "Was Mueller pressured to end his investigation?"

No pressure required. Barr could just shut down the investigation in a "de facto" manner by refusing any and every request by Mueller and his team.

[triron]

6. I believe there are all kinds of devious ways that would not be technically illegal.

[Igel]

14. Um, sort of.

Did Barr's conclusions match the conclusions of Robert Mueller? From the little that we have gleaned from Bill Barr's letter today, their conclusions do not match?

The first conclusion is a quote from the report: Russian collusion, no. Now, there's a lot behind that, but since the collusion was a quote--possibly a short, incomplete quote, but a quote--I don't see that changing.

The second conclusion derives from the non-finding of the Report. It was a loose end. No "traditional decision" was a problem, and the reasons seem, well, reasonable. Agree or disagree, the process is probably an appropriate one--consult around. It's likely that this was discussed over the last month. And it's also likely, to my thinking, at least, that a yes "obstruction of justice" charge could have been a political zoo we would have liked but which would have resulted in nothing but chaos with a clear political benefit--and a real disaster for anything less complete political warfare and slash-and-burn politics. Which, of course, would be near and dear to Putin's little coal-lump of a heart. Agree or disagree, Mueller, for whatever reason, didn't decide to make a decision and have it overridden. There are apparently quite specific requirements for an obstruction of justice charge, and the need to actually empanel a jury that didn't already believe they knew the verdict would be a problem.

On the other hand, we've been shouting "collusion!" for years so that, I think, is an appropriate topic for a one-sentence summary. "Obstruction" is a fall-back.

Does the Special Counsel law require the Report to go to Congress?


It's a rule or regulation, not a law. Some of the report has to go, and the letter says why it might take a while. It's limited by all sorts of constraints. They're listed in the letter, and not unreasonable. The kind of thing which, if Barr ignored, we'd impeach him over for dereliction of duty; but which, since he's going to try to do, we can accuse him of foot dragging over.

Did Barr and Trump communicate while Trump was in Florida?

Don't know, don't care. Much of the full report will be made available to others, so lying on the brief letter would be a "yuge" mistake. The only "rule" that he couldn't give Trump a "sneak peak" was one made up on the fly by the madam chairman. Try to find it elsewhere and you won't.

Why wasn't Mueller included in the final conclusion by Barr and Rosenstein?

Because he had his say in the main report. He opined and rendered his best verdict. Going back and saying, "Um, help us re-do this" might be taken as overriding his decision not to reach a decision. But I suspect they discussed things in the recent past. They may have even discussed things yesterday or this morning. But if Mueller did his job adequately, there's no point asking him for anything but points of clarification. Because it's hard to be that perfectly clear, even in writing, and not have editing errors or discontinuities. I doubt he wrote each word himself.

It smells like a can of worms has been opened.


Anything that wasn't resoundingly exactly what we wanted would have been a can of worms. Anything that was what we wanted would have been a can of worms. That there are warms all over the place cannot be a surprise. The cynic in me is convinced that many would have wanted an even bigger can of worms full of large, tooth-bearing carnivorous worms unleashed. Sort of the T. rex of worms.

[Cold War Spook]

20. I trust Mueller.

A Marine with a Purple Heart and a Bronze Medal with the "V" for combat in Vietnam who resumed combat command 1 month after being shot in the thigh. That alone is enough for Trump to hate him. These type of people don't cave.

[democratisphere]

29. Sure smells like it.