Was Mueller's dodge on obstruction a blunder -- or brilliant?

[applegrove]

Was Mueller’s dodge on obstruction a blunder — or brilliant?

By Randall D. Eliason at the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/07/was-muellers-dodge-obstruction-blunder-or-brilliant/?utm_term=.ce397b446cc3

"SNIP......


Regardless, those two policies, taken together, led Mueller to conclude it would be improper to accuse the president. But that refusal to make a call on obstruction has led to widespread dissatisfaction and frustration. Remember, the evidence presented in his report was so overwhelming that more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors have signed a lettersaying anyone other than a sitting presidentwould have been charged with obstruction. Mueller’s report effectively accuses the president anyway, so why not be explicit?

What’s more, the policy against publicly accusing an uncharged person of a crime does not technically apply to the Mueller report. The special counsel regulations required Mueller to prepare a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. The report is not a public document like an indictment and so would not amount to a public accusation.

But here’s where the wisdom of Mueller’s approach begins to show. Recall that Attorney General William P. Barr, during his confirmation hearings, pledged to release as much of Mueller’s report as possible consistent with the “law and Department policy.” Had Mueller made a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” and accused the president of obstruction, then the report would become a more typical internal prosecution memo — the kind that never see the public light of day. The policy against publicly accusing those who have not been charged could have given Barr a ready excuse to withhold the report from the public, or at a minimum to redact a great deal of volume 2 that deals with obstruction of justice.

This easily could have led to a months-long legal and political battle, with only Barr’s “no obstruction” conclusion available to the public. We still might not know what is in Volume 2. Instead, Mueller’s approach left us with the best possible result, under the circumstances: Overwhelming evidence of obstruction with no plausible excuse for keeping that evidence a secret.


......SNIP"

[democratisphere]

1. Only time will tell.

[Hoyt]

2. Too bad he didn't "dodge" on conspiracy, cooperating with Ruskies. Mueller let trump & campaign off

on the major issue.

[applegrove]

3. He didn't have enough evidence of that.

[Hoyt]

4. Yep, at least 21 different aspects of potential conspiracy he said, "we identified no evidence,"

even saying Kush and Junior were too stupid to possess the intent necessary for conspiracy at the trump tower meeting.

Mueller spent a lot of time crafting findings that let trump, his family, and campaign officials off the hook. I think he knew Obstruction would not likely take trump down. Mueller gets no praise from me.

[Volaris]

5. Because of the obstruction they DID FIND.

If everyone had been open and honest about the crimes the boss asked them to commit, conspiracy would be a no-brainer here.

[uponit7771]

6. Blunder, Barr not releasing the report would've made Barr more criminal