There are a lot of issues with the conclusion of the special counsel probe into what Trump called the “Russia thing.” I will discuss a few of mine.
The special counsel was tasked to determine whether people in Trump’s campaign conspired with Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election and whether Trump or others were guilty of obstruction of justice (in the pursuit of this work).
Attorney General William Barr told us Sunday that Mueller found the Trump campaign innocent of conspiracy (collusion) with the Russians and did not make a recommendation about the obstruction issues. However, Barr made the decision—announced Sunday—that neither Trump nor his associates would be charged with obstruction.
Trump had publicly stated that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him. Many had wondered how Barr would specifically help the President. We found out Sunday. Without authority, Barr declared Trump innocent of obstruction of justice.
To those paying attention, this was not a surprise. Barr had obviously campaigned for the position of Attorney General last June in a long memo objecting to the Mueller probe. In his 19-page memo, he viciously criticized Mueller, providing legal talk for what Trump had been arguing.
Among other things, he argued that Trump did not obstruct justice because Mueller had made up a crime to investigate. Therefore the President should not have to answer questions from the Mueller team.
And the rest is history as they say. Trump nominated Barr, and the Republicans approved him, with most Democrats voting no. Then Barr declared Trump innocent.
Another issue that disturbs me is the generally accepted idea that a president cannot be indicted.
Barr argues that this issue was not at play in Mueller’s non-decision and Barr’s decision. But we wonder.
The no-indictment rule is not in the Constitution. It is not in an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not in a statute. And it is not in an agency regulation. It is merely a Department of Justice memo prepared back in the 1990s after the Starr investigation.
Recently Ken Starr, the prosecutor in the Bill Clinton case, said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He and his team concluded that President Clinton was subject to indictment and criminal prosecution, although an imprisonment punishment might have to wait until after he leaves office.
