The US Presidency 2020

[QV]

So are you suggesting Trump was likely. Ot very familiar with the nature of the offences for which Stone was sentenced, and which he then commutes? That sounds implausible. In any case you’re trying to distract with the usual Obama-oriented “Whataboutism”. Nothing Obama did or didn’t do changes the fact that Trump commuted the sentence of someone who witness tampered, obstructed, and lied to Congress in an investigation about Trump. So yeah. Doesn’t actually sound like you applied much if any scrutiny at all.

If you ignore or are silent on the significant malfeasance of Trump's opponents your minor complaints about Trump will lack legitimacy.       

 

 

[QV]

I would draw a distinction between being ‘smart’ and being possessed of the legal authority or political power to grant pardons, commute sentences, outright forbid subordinates from testifying, or otherwise cajole, coerce, or incentivize people to refrain from cooperating with, or outright obstruct congressional and criminal investigations. These are not powers most people have access to. Most people faced with judicial processes have to count on the facts and legal evidentiary exclusions being on their side. That is not a handicap the president suffers from.

During the Mueller probe. the White House Counsel Don McGahn cooperated extensively.  In fact he (the lawyer) was worried it would set a precedent for future presidents.  Trumps other legal team; John Dowd, Ty Cobb, pushed to fully cooperate.  In fact their strategy was to cooperate fully in order to get it over with quickly knowing Trump had not done anything wrong.  The amount of documents turned over and staff who cooperated is unprecedented.  John Dowd has had a lot to say in interviews about the Mueller probe and the length to which Trump directed them to fully cooperate. 

 

[FJAG]

During the Mueller probe. the White House Counsel Don McGahn cooperated extensively.  In fact he (the lawyer) was worried it would set a precedent for future presidents.  Trumps other legal team; John Dowd, Ty Cobb, pushed to fully cooperate.  In fact their strategy was to cooperate fully in order to get it over with quickly knowing Trump had not done anything wrong.  The amount of documents turned over and staff who cooperated is unprecedented.  John Dowd has had a lot to say in interviews about the Mueller probe and the length to which Trump directed them to fully cooperate.

Our ruling
Barr said, "The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation."

Trump declined an in-person interview that Mueller’s team sought for more than a year. In response to Trump’s refusal, Mueller’s team agreed to accept written responses. But those contained more than 30 instances in which Trump claimed not to remember the information being sought, and Mueller ultimately concluded the responses were "inadequate."

In addition, the president tried on multiple occasions to shut down or curtail the investigation itself, including ordering White House counsel to fire Mueller, a directive that was refused.

We rate this False.

See here for more on this response

Let's just leave it with the fact that people really are polarized on this issue and many, many more issues.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

The White House fully cooperating does not equate to Trump personally subjecting himself to an interview against his legal advice, especially since we now know the predicate for this whole investigation was false (hence Durham).  Yet they still provided loads of documents and access to staff, an unprecedented level.   

AG Barr has had a stellar reputation his entire career.  This is his second time as AG and only now Trump's opposition and media state he is interfering, making false statements, etc.  Just like the false Russia collusion narrative perpetuated by the media and opposition, this is part of the political campaign to delegitimize Trump and his administration, including AG Barr and anyone else (Flynn) who dares to serve under the current POTUS.

It's pretty dangerous when institutions like CIA, FBI, DOJ take part in activities that could be considered seditious.  They need to remain absolutely apolitical. 

   





 

 

[Blackadder1916]

I'm sure Obama was intimately familiar with all 1,715 commutation and 212 pardon cases during his term.  Especially the 539 commutations and 64 pardons in his last week in office.  Most of these people were drug dealers. 

There was a brief thread about Obama commutations back in 2016.

Rehashing the reasons for the large number of drug offenders in his "program" (yes, it was an organized program) would derail this thread but this is an example of the commutations granted.

Not wanting to take a side about the ethics or efficacy of this program, or even really wanting to dig through the massive list, but the pedantic gene does compel me to provide this example of one of the firearms offenders "released".

Alfonso Allen

Offense:
Conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 851; distribution of cocaine base (two counts), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base and marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 851; possession of a short barreled shotgun in furtherance of a felony drug offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)

District/Date:
Southern District of Florida; August 25, 2009

Sentence:
Life plus 120 months’ imprisonment; 10 years' supervised release

Terms of grant:
Prison sentence commuted to a term of 360 months' imprisonment, leaving intact and in effect the 10-year term of supervised release with all its conditions and all other components of the sentence.

Now, while Alfonso may be a thoroughly despicable scumbag, we don't know the minutiae of his offences, however, his criminal activity had him convicted in 2009 and (likely because of mandatory minimums) sentenced to life imprisonment to be followed by a further 10 years after completing that life sentence (of course we don't know the details of concurrent/consecutive, how the US Federal justice system calculates the number of years in life, parole, etc . . . ).  His grant given in August of 2016 commuted his sentence to 360 months (30 years) - if he serves a full sentence he will get out in 2039.  Commutation doesn't mean a pardon or immediate release.

And comparatively, at the same point in their respective presidencies (first four years) Trump has granted clemency more often (25 pardons. 11 commutations) than Obama (22 pardons, 1 commutation). https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics#obama

 

[FJAG]

The White House fully cooperating does not equate to Trump personally subjecting himself to an interview against his legal advice, especially since we now know the predicate for this whole investigation was false (hence Durham).  Yet they still provided loads of documents and access to staff, an unprecedented level.   

AG Barr has had a stellar reputation his entire career.  This is his second time as AG and only now Trump's opposition and media state he is interfering, making false statements, etc.  Just like the false Russia collusion narrative perpetuated by the media and opposition, this is part of the political campaign to delegitimize Trump and his administration, including AG Barr and anyone else (Flynn) who dares to serve under the current POTUS.

It's pretty dangerous when institutions like CIA, FBI, DOJ take part in activities that could be considered seditious.  They need to remain absolutely apolitical.

When I read Barr's record, it's not so stellar. See here for issues respecting his first term. That said, everyone's career is stellar until they decide or are talked into becoming partisan hacks.

I do agree 100% with your last paragraph. Up until this last administration I always believed that all three agencies were evenhanded. Unfortunately considering that the President keeps firing Inspector Generals willy nilly every time they look into corruption or abuse issues initiated by his administration one can only hope that the dangerous trend to "stacking the deck" in these agencies will end after the next election.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Since Barr used the word "fully", all fact-checkers had to do was find one counter-example.  So that's the pedantic crowd satisfied that the highest possible standard was not met, as if it ever would be.

For those who follow US politics even a little bit, the contrast between the Trump administration's cooperation with the Mueller investigation and the stonewalling routinely offered by prior administrations is night and day.  It has been commented on at length by people from many viewpoints on the political spectrum/map.

 

[FJAG]

Since Barr used the word "fully", all fact-checkers had to do was find one counter-example.  So that's the pedantic crowd satisfied that the highest possible standard was not met, as if it ever would be.

For those who follow US politics even a little bit, the contrast between the Trump administration's cooperation with the Mueller investigation and the stonewalling routinely offered by prior administrations is night and day.  It has been commented on at length by people from many viewpoints on the political spectrum/map.

Clinton testified at his inquisition. Nixon certainly stonewalled his process relentlessly. So the jury's mixed on where the Trump administration falls in place. Maybe once we see the unredacted Mueller Report we'll know better.

Feeling a bit anti-Trumpish today because of this:

Washington (CNN)On Monday afternoon, President Donald Trump was asked about his insistence that the only reason that coronavirus cases are spiking across the South and Southwest was an increase in testing. His answer was, uh, something else.

Here's the exchange:

Reporter: President Trump, you've said many times that the number of coronavirus cases is going up because testing is increasing.

Trump: That's right.

Reporter: Do you acknowledge that it's going up for other reasons too; for example, that it's actually spreading? And what are you going to do to stop the spread?

Trump: Well, you know that we have one of the lowest mortality rates anywhere. If you know, [former Vice President Joe] Biden and [former President Barack] Obama stopped their testing; they just stopped it. You probably know that. I'm sure you don't want to report it. But they stopped testing. Right in the middle, they just went, "No more testing," and on a much lesser problem than the problem that we have, obviously with respect to -- this is the worst thing that's happened since probably 1917. This is a very bad -- all over the world. It's 188 countries right now.

But, no, we are -- we test more than anybody, by far. And when you test, you create cases. So we've created cases. I can tell you some countries, they test when somebody walks into a hospital sick or walks into maybe a doctor's office, but usually a hospital. That's the testing they do, so they don't have cases, whereas we do -- we have all of these cases. So, you know, it's a double-edged sword.

See here

TOTAL CASES
3,355,457
58,858 New Cases*

TOTAL DEATHS
135,235
351 New Deaths*

*Compared to yesterday's data

CDC

:facepalm:

 

[Good2Golf]

What testing was Trump referring to Biden and Obama stopping? ???

 

[Mick]

An appearance of impropriety is just that - appearance, with or without actual impropriety.  What it chiefly affects is "output legitimacy"* (a perception that a result was come by fairly, as compared to "input legitimacy" which means the rules were followed as written).  Something can have 100% input legitimacy and still test terribly for output legitimacy when the public looks at it; that damages the integrity of "the system" and should be avoided.  Some of Mueller's team were more than just mere donors.  Investigating a political campaign and administration is more sensitive than looking into whether some staffer leaked sensitive information, and needs to "look" highly legitimate.  Simply citing legal scripture won't do.  It would not have been hard to find some people who were not particularly politically active, who had no messy cases behind them, or who made up a balanced set with respect to their traceable political connections (such as donations).  Nevertheless, that worked in the administration's favour: when the report turned up empty on collusion, zealots could not plausibly argue that the team was biased in favour of the administration (efforts to play up Mueller's Republican background fell flat because of the overwhelmingly Democratic composition of the team). 

Choosing team members to avoid the appearance of impropriety would not be improper; it would protect the actual and perceived integrity of the investigation.  If Mueller didn't consciously screen his picks for appearances, he was foolish.  Political affiliation is certainly taken into account at DoJ; usually an incoming administration fires all the political appointees and replaces them.  This periodically repeated exercise is greeted with outrage when a Republican does it (I remember the gnashing of teeth when Bush replaced Clinton) and silence when a Democrat does it (as when Obama replaced Bush).

Redactions: the "deliverables" were to include an accompanying "map" identifying which parts of the report had to be redacted, so that it could be properly redacted and released for consumption (public version, and less redacted congressional version) as expeditiously as possible.  Because Mueller - or his team - failed to do so, someone else had to.  That delayed release of the report.  That gave Barr the opportunity - he thought it a necessity, given the public interest in the report - to produce a short summary of what was coming.  That was a self-inflicted wound by Mueller's team.  A first impression lasts; they wanted the whole thing to land with a massive bang and that was cut out from under them.  Too clever by half.

Mueller complained about Barr's summary (eg. "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance").  Again: a self-inflicted wound, if he wanted the document to make its public debut with full impact.

There are some things Mueller could have ended quickly.  Justice needs to be timely as well as have the perception of legitimate conduct.  The legitimacy of government has to be protected.  Suspicion of Trump's involvement with Russia could have been flatly contradicted much sooner.  The Flynn and Page investigations should have ended before they became the national embarrassments and threats to integrity (mainly of the FBI) that they are; presumably Mueller and his team had access to all the information that continues to slowly escape efforts at containment.  Mueller was the lead; presumably he and his team knew better than anyone else how much of the media speculation was pure bullshit and was damaging whatever passes for the "national interest" in respect of the integrity of the presidency.

Common sense: if the Obama administration couldn't find anything of grave substance while controlling the full apparatus of the presidency from June 2016 to January 2017, nothing of grave substance was likely to be found.  A broad, drawn out (two year) investigation just looks like a partisan fishing expedition to throw up FUD.

[Add *: the Stone pardon is an example of something that has input legitimacy, but pretty much zero output legitimacy.]

Thanks for your response - there's a lot to cover here, so I'll try to keep it in order.

Perceived input or output legitimacy aside, I would argue what really matters is throughput legitimacy.  What malpractice was committed in the process of the investigation?  If you think Mueller ought to apologize for the mere "perception" of impropriety, that's a tough sell.  Mueller is not a politician, and despite being assigned an investigation with virtually unavoidable political implications, it would seem to me that he as a Republican working with a team of registered Democrats took partisanship out of the equation.  The mere perception of impropriety is a far cry from actual, demonstrable impropriety.

Are FBI agents asked about their political leanings when investigating politically sensitive cases?  Is it even legal, under federal law, to screen bureaucrats and civil servants based on which party they are registered with?  Don't confuse political appointments within the DOJ, DOD etc, with lower-level career bureacrats, lawyers, agents.  The bureaucracy is apolitical, despite the fact that those who comprise it are free to register and vote as they please. 

>"it would not have been hard to find some people who were not particularly politically active"...

Are you suggesting that the DOJ start investigating the political donations of personnel, and that those findings should impact investigations, and affect careers?  Is this standard practice in any liberal democracy?

Do you have examples of evident individual political bias committed by members of the team?  Or is it merely your perception based on the known political affiliations of members?

Again, I ask, in the bureaucracy of a liberal democracy, how does one vet subordinates based on their political leanings or party affiliation?  Examples please.

Mueller and his team were not appointed by the president to further his administration's agenda, while senior executives are; it is a false equivalency to attempt to equate a Special Counsel (appointed by the deputy AG) and his team (and career bureaucrats) with the higher -level appointees that typically change with each administration.

Redactions: where is it stated that the Special Counsel is responsible for redacting the report submitted to the AG, and what purpose would it serve?  The Special Counsel does not release the report to the public, or congress.  The AG does.  It is not the Special Counsel's responsibility to redact ANYTHING for public consumption, as that falls completely outside his purview.

It is ENTIRELY the AG's prerogative to summarize and / or release the report to the public, redacted or not.  Not Mueller's.  I've cited 28 CFR 600 as well as the AG's written order authorizing the SC investigation.  What informs your assertion that Mueller has any legal authority to redact / release his report, or that he is required to provide a roadmap for said redaction (and failed to do so)?  I'm legitimately curious.

The report was submitted by Mueller on 22 Mar 2019, and Barr's summary was sent to the judicial committee leaders on 24 Mar 2019, detailing "principal conclusions" as understood by Barr.

Mueller reacted to that 4 page summary a day later on 25 Mar 2019. How is this reaction a "self-inflicted wound"?  Mueller had neither the authority to redact his report, nor the ability to release it, according to federal law.

I'm very interested in your perspective - could you please provide some evidence or information to back up your claim that the release of the report was delayed by Mueller's actions (failure to redact or "improper redaction roadmap"), and that the summary was just Barr helpfully filling the void left by Mueller's failure to redact?  Your claim that Mueller bungled the release just doesn't track for me.

Again, The AG is required by law to provide a summary to the judicial committees, and it it his prerogative, not the SC's to release / redact the full report.

The redacted report wasn't released until 18 Apr 2019.

I agree with you that justice needs to be timely.  I would submit that a (less than) 2 year investigation relating to the legitimacy and security of American democracy is reasonable.  To rush the investigation could lead to mistakes, or even ... a perceived lack of output legitimacy.

I agree that the legitimacy of government must be protected.  A fair and complete investigation, free from political interference only serves to contribute to that legitimacy.  Mueller's mandate was to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute, based on what his investigation uncovered.  He had no mandate and no requirement to address or manage the media and their coverage of elements he investigated.  It could be argued that much of the media narrative has been fuelled by Trump's many statements to the media, and thousands of tweets emanating from the White House.  How many press conferences did Mueller hold?  How many tweets were released by his team?

Common sense: do you apply a 6 month time limit on all investigations?  If nothing of import is found, shut it down?  Prosecute what you've got, and move on?  Makes more sense to me that as the investigation progressed, more information/ evidence was uncovered, thus requiring more investigation.  Are you of the opinion that the Durham investigation should be turfed by November?

Thanks.

Edited for spelling / clarity.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The jury isn't mixed. 

I've read two opinions written by people involved in the Bill Clinton investigation that led to his impeachment.  They claim they had to fight for every piece of information.  I suspect they exaggerate (not literally every piece), but I take their point to be that the administration resisted almost all requests for information.  By contrast, the Mueller investigation was provided nearly everything it requested (documents, access to interview administration members), short of an opportunity to question Trump directly - and there was no shortage of people freely offering advice that it would be a mistake for Trump, as notoriously combative and incoherent as he is, to submit to anything that could lead to even an accidental misstatement to an investigator.

The major stonewall of the "most transparent in history" administration (Obama) was the "Fast and Furious" scandal (as a part of which AG Holder was found in contempt of Congress).

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What testing was Trump referring to Biden and Obama stopping?

Most likely the CDC's instruction in 2009 to halt H1N1 testing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not sure what "throughput" legitimacy would be, other than the diligent application of input legitimacy (the rules everyone agreed to or at least acknowledged in advance, applied fairly).  I stress this idea (as I have in other threads) because what holds our institutions together is trust.  "Rule of law" is basically that we have input and output legitimacy (we have rules, we know them in advance, we believe they are reasonably fair, we apply them without exception or favour).  Set aside either part (mostly, ends-justify-means indifference to the rules) and people feel cheated, which is unhealthy if we want a civil rather than fractious society, or at least to stop making it more fractious than it already is.

An infamous comment tweeted by Bill Kristol illustrates what I believe to be an egregious error: "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."  My view is that there is no such reasonable choice; the system includes the means to deal with Trump (election, Congressional oversight and legislated constraints, term limit) and no-one should be willing to blow it up for short-term satisfaction or grievances.  So, apply the rules and preserve output legitimacy to preserve the institutions.

My answers to "should we consider political leanings" questions are "no", unless the questions are subject to "...when investigating presidential campaigns during an election, and with regard to the outcome of that election".  Then my answer is "yes".  Let's stick with what is at issue here - investigations which must reach inside a presidential campaign - and not detour into political litmus tests for everyone and everything.  If we disagree that US presidential campaigns are exceptionally sensitive places for people with opposing political affiliations to be digging, fine.  For my part, it will not do to have an administration investigate, on weak pretenses, the campaign of the challenging party, especially with evident disregard for rules and customary practices (evidence which continues to emerge), or without structuring the investigative teams to mitigate suspicion and claims of partisan bias.  Mueller chose his team.

"The bureaucracy" is supposed to be apolitical, but "the bureaucracy" is not apolitical.

AG Barr asked Mueller to prepare whatever it was that Barr wanted in the form of redactions, I presume during the 05 Mar 2019 meeting.  He didn't have to ask for that.  He could have just accepted the report, issued his summary statement, held the report for redactions, and then made the general release.  He could have accepted the report, held it for redactions, and then released it.  He could have accepted the report and not released anything at all.  Those who want to find fault with Barr will find it wherever they want: for anything other than immediate unredacted release, for delayed redacted release, for issuing a summary statement while making everyone wait for the redacted release, for not issuing a summary statement and making everyone wait, period.

My conclusion is that Barr wanted to get the report out as quickly as possible, in as complete a form as possible, subject to redactions.  Everything he did is consistent with that: asking for redactions to be identified in advance, issuing a summary of the key findings (including the gratuitous "not exonerated" editorial comment), getting the redactions done quickly.  The public report was not, according to most commentators, much redacted.  The version for Congress was less redacted.  The Democrats complained about the (grand jury) redactions; they could always have gone to court and asked for the redactions to be lifted; they never did.  I doubt their sincerity.

I don't think I ever claimed Mueller had authority to release the report.

Barr offered to let Mueller review the summary in advance; Mueller declined.  More evidence that Barr was being fair.

Among the the things that investigators' mandates generally do not include is a mandate to seek exoneration.  It's an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one, so investigators try to build a prosecution case.  They might turn up evidence that exonerates, but they aren't required to actively seek it.  Since they aren't expected to seek exoneration, I find it inappropriate that they chose to comment that they didn't find what they weren't required to search for.  Nevertheless, Barr included that bit about "not exonerated" in the summary.  More evidence that Barr was being fair.

One thing Mueller did well was clamp down the leaks.

>Common sense: do you apply a 6 month time limit on all investigations?

No.  What I mean is, common sense informs me that when they've had that long with all the tools and all that power and authority and failed to turn up anything, it means no-one is likely to ever turn up anything (except, of course, process and unrelated crimes if they have a mandate to dig as widely as they please for as long as they please, using any kind of coercion they please).

I don't see that as the investigation progressed, evidence and information accumulated to support the central proposition (some kind of election fixing conspiracy involving Russians and Trump campaign members, including Trump).  The fact that Mueller summed up with no charges against any Americans suggests they pursued a dry well for almost 2 years, in addition to all the information and evidence obtained since roughly June 2016.

>Are you of the opinion that the Durham investigation should be turfed by November?

No.  There aren't many leaks and there aren't many media figures on every night talking about some anonymously- or ex-administration-flack-sourced recent development that means The Bad Guy Is Done For Sure Now.  The most I've seen are claims that at least some indictments are supposed to be in the pipeline.  If that's true, it means Durham, unlike Mueller, is not working a dry well.

 

[QV]

One thing Mueller did well was clamp down the leaks.

:rofl:

Subtle sarcasm is the best sarcasm.

 

[Mick]

I'll try a different format to reply this time - I apologize if it's not an improvement.

I'm not sure what "throughput" legitimacy would be, other than the diligent application of input legitimacy (the rules everyone agreed to or at least acknowledged in advance, applied fairly).  I stress this idea (as I have in other threads) because what holds our institutions together is trust.  "Rule of law" is basically that we have input and output legitimacy (we have rules, we know them in advance, we believe they are reasonably fair, we apply them without exception or favour).  Set aside either part (mostly, ends-justify-means indifference to the rules) and people feel cheated, which is unhealthy if we want a civil rather than fractious society, or at least to stop making it more fractious than it already is.

Throughput legitimacy would be complimentary to input and output legitimacy.  It would apply to the process that occurs between input and output - the mechanics of the investigation and how the government apparatus i.e. Mueller and team conducted it.  Apart from the optics of having career investigators who happen to be registered Democrats - can you cite any partisan malfeasance or bias within their throughput, that taints the output?  Other than what you admit is the appearance of impropriety , is there evidence that Mueller or his investigators conducted themselves in a demonstrably partisan way, contrary to the rule of law?  The very issue we're debating is whether there is merit to Trump supporters feeling cheated.  I argue that the Mueller investigation was conducted within the mandate and scope it was given.  Other than "appearance of partisan impropriety" (not actual impropriety), I don't believe there is any actual evidence that input, throughput, or output is anything other than proper.  Can you give any other reason why you believe the process was improper, thus affecting the outcome?

An infamous comment tweeted by Bill Kristol illustrates what I believe to be an egregious error: "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."  My view is that there is no such reasonable choice; the system includes the means to deal with Trump (election, Congressional oversight and legislated constraints, term limit) and no-one should be willing to blow it up for short-term satisfaction or grievances.  So, apply the rules and preserve output legitimacy to preserve the institutions.

I have no problem with the above, but again, I don't see how Mueller failed to follow the rules, as laid out in federal law, and as authorized by the acting AG.  Apply the rules.  Check.  Preserve output legitimacy.  Check.

Again, it is not the Special Counsel's role to release or redact his report.  The conduct of the investigation has not been demonstrated to the be flawed.  The full and complete report was delivered the AG, as required by law.  Seems like the output is legitimate to me.

Apply the rules.  Again, I ask - which rule requires the SC to redact his own report?  I'd argue that had Mueller redacted his own report, that would be a clear violation of the law, and over-stepping his authority.  So much for legitimacy and following the rules.

My answers to "should we consider political leanings" questions are "no", unless the questions are subject to "...when investigating presidential campaigns during an election, and with regard to the outcome of that election".  Then my answer is "yes".  Let's stick with what is at issue here - investigations which must reach inside a presidential campaign - and not detour into political litmus tests for everyone and everything.  If we disagree that US presidential campaigns are exceptionally sensitive places for people with opposing political affiliations to be digging, fine.  For my part, it will not do to have an administration investigate, on weak pretenses, the campaign of the challenging party, especially with evident disregard for rules and customary practices (evidence which continues to emerge), or without structuring the investigative teams to mitigate suspicion and claims of partisan bias.  Mueller chose his team.

"The bureaucracy" is supposed to be apolitical, but "the bureaucracy" is not apolitical.

Let's be clear.  The issue here is the Mueller investigation, which occurred after the election, and after Trump was sworn in.  The election outcome is not in question.  The investigation did not have a mandate to unseat Trump, invalidate the election, or even charge the President with a crime.  In fact, the investigation abided by a 2000 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

The fact is, no such system exists in the United States that can screen potential investigators, lawyers, agents for political bias, perceived or otherwise, for politically sensitive investigations.  Would you not agree that the despite the hyper-partisan media and political hacks, most Americans, whether registered to a political party or not, are moderate?  How many federal employees would risk their careers (and disregard their oaths) in order to achieve partisan objectives - especially during an investigation with national security implications?

I agree with you that a presidential campaign is exceptionally sensitive.  Are you aware of any mechanism Mueller could have used to dampen any perception of partisan bias?  Is there any evidence that his team was assembled with political affiliation as a key criterion?

AG Barr asked Mueller to prepare whatever it was that Barr wanted in the form of redactions, I presume during the 05 Mar 2019 meeting.  He didn't have to ask for that.  He could have just accepted the report, issued his summary statement, held the report for redactions, and then made the general release.  He could have accepted the report, held it for redactions, and then released it.  He could have accepted the report and not released anything at all.  Those who want to find fault with Barr will find it wherever they want: for anything other than immediate unredacted release, for delayed redacted release, for issuing a summary statement while making everyone wait for the redacted release, for not issuing a summary statement and making everyone wait, period.

Again, can you provide any reference to explain "how" of even "if" AG Barr requested Mueller to redact his report?  As you previously pointed out, rule of law - following the rules - is paramount in maintaining legitimacy.  Why, and under what authority, would AG Barr request the author of the report to redact it?  Simply put, that's not in the rules.

I have not suggested that Barr has done anything improper whatsoever.  You, however, have asserted that Mueller or his team failed to properly redact the report:  "Mueller - or his team - failed to do so, someone else had to.  That delayed release of the report.  That gave Barr the opportunity to produce a short summary of what was coming.  That was a self-inflicted wound by Mueller's team."  Again, the report was delivered 22 Mar, and the summary 24 Mar.  Mueller responded 25 Mar.  I will say again: the responsibility to redact (or not) and release (or not) is the AG's alone.  Insinuating that the summary was a result of failure on Mueller (or team)'s part is not factual.  The requirement for the AG to notify congress is spelled out in federal law.  Barr followed the law.  So did Mueller, and its not helpful to imply that the release of the redacted report was delayed by Mueller or his team.

My conclusion is that Barr wanted to get the report out as quickly as possible, in as complete a form as possible, subject to redactions.  Everything he did is consistent with that: asking for redactions to be identified in advance, issuing a summary of the key findings (including the gratuitous "not exonerated" editorial comment), getting the redactions done quickly.  The public report was not, according to most commentators, much redacted.  The version for Congress was less redacted.  The Democrats complained about the (grand jury) redactions; they could always have gone to court and asked for the redactions to be lifted; they never did.  I doubt their sincerity.

I agree that the report was not heavily redacted.  Irrelevant with respect to Mueller, as that responsibility rests solely with the AG.  It should be noted however, that after promising on 18 Apr 2019 not to assert executive privilege over the report, Trump did just that on 8 May 2019, preventing congress from studying the unredacted report.

I don't think I ever claimed Mueller had authority to release the report.

Barr offered to let Mueller review the summary in advance; Mueller declined.  More evidence that Barr was being fair.

No, but you insinuate that the release of the report was delayed due to redaction failures by the Mueller team (see above quote), and that Mueller had complained about the delay.

Fairness isn't the issue here.  The issue is the credibility of Mueller and team, and whether or not his conduct serves to damage the integrity and legitimacy of the findings of his report.

Among the the things that investigators' mandates generally do not include is a mandate to seek exoneration.  It's an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one, so investigators try to build a prosecution case.  They might turn up evidence that exonerates, but they aren't required to actively seek it.  Since they aren't expected to seek exoneration, I find it inappropriate that they chose to comment that they didn't find what they weren't required to search for.  Nevertheless, Barr included that bit about "not exonerated" in the summary.  More evidence that Barr was being fair.

One thing Mueller did well was clamp down the leaks.

Fully agree with your comments re exoneration.  For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that Barr quotes the following "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" under the Obstruction of Justice section of his summary.  Again, in his report, Mueller also acknowledges that in accordance with DOJ OLC opinion, a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution.  Impeachment is the purview of Congress, not the Special Counsel.

No.  What I mean is, common sense informs me that when they've had that long with all the tools and all that power and authority and failed to turn up anything, it means no-one is likely to ever turn up anything (except, of course, process and unrelated crimes if they have a mandate to dig as widely as they please for as long as they please, using any kind of coercion they please).

I don't see that as the investigation progressed, evidence and information accumulated to support the central proposition (some kind of election fixing conspiracy involving Russians and Trump campaign members, including Trump).  The fact that Mueller summed up with no charges against any Americans suggests they pursued a dry well for almost 2 years, in addition to all the information and evidence obtained since roughly June 2016.

Well, I would argue that the Trump administration has the exact same set of powers at its disposal.  AG Barr notes in his 4 page summary that, "The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed."  The investigation not only focused on the Trump Campaign, but Russian interference writ large.

It is also worth noting that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos are all American.

Are you of the opinion that the Durham investigation should be turfed by November?

No.  There aren't many leaks and there aren't many media figures on every night talking about some anonymously- or ex-administration-flack-sourced recent development that means The Bad Guy Is Done For Sure Now.  The most I've seen are claims that at least some indictments are supposed to be in the pipeline.  If that's true, it means Durham, unlike Mueller, is not working a dry well.

Again, media conjecture aside, the fact that the Mueller investigation followed the rules, and stayed within its mandate, and resulted in indictments, convictions, and referrals to other investigative bodies seems to demonstrate that it accomplished what it set out to do.  Is there still any question that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

Finally, I'll reiterate that my curiosity is centered on why Mueller would need to offer any apology for the work he and his team carried out and delivered.  My impression has been (and continues to be) that Mueller is an honourable man who carried out his investigation with integrity.  You'll note that I don't offer the same defence for Comey.

The key questions that I still have are as follows:

1) is it demonstrable that Mueller took political affiliation into account when selecting his team?
2) is there evidence that the members of his team allowed partisanship to influence the performance of their duties?
3) what mechanism exists (or should be created) that would alleviate the perception of political bias in future campaign investigations?  i.e.how do you vet team members while respecting their constitutional rights?
4) where is it evident that Mueller caused a delay in the release of his report, and then complained about said delay?  Does it make sense for a Special Counsel to redact a report that another official is responsible for summarizing and potentially releasing?

As others have noted, I've also noticed a positive change in tone re interactions / debates on this site.  I'm enjoying contributing a bit more, after lurking for years.

 

[QV]

There is no doubt Russia tries to interfere in every election, as do other countries, as does the US. 

The question was: did Trump and his campaign collude with Russia to win the election?  And it turns out they did not.  They knew this before launching the special counsel.  We've come to learn the FBI/DOJ had no actual predicate to do many of the investigations they did.  The FBI/DOJ with CIA help knowingly used false information as the basis to launch a counterintelligence investigation against a political candidate.  They defrauded the FISA court.  And then after Trump won they continued this in the form of the special counsel investigation, which has a far broader scope.  The special counsel team nailed some hangers on with process crimes not related to Russia and they nailed some Russians with crimes related election interference, but they did not establish Trump et al colluded with the Russians.  The Flynn case is another debacle wrought with malfeasance on the part of the FBI/DOJ.

Mueller's deck was stacked with activist democrats.  It's been reported Andrew Weisman, who is close to the Clintons, handled staffing the team.  One example is Lisa Page who had to be removed once her extreme bias was revealed.     

I think it's important to consider this isn't about Republican vs Democrat.  This is really about (corrupt) establishment vs outsider.  There are plenty of Trump detractors in the Republicans.  Some tolerate him to get the judicial appointments and border controls etc while others actively work against him like McCain and Romney. The situation we have is all of Trump's chief opponents are 30+ years in elected office and they're blaming him for problems in the system.  Really, they don't want him to upset their apple cart.     

Just imagine if Clinton had won and then imagine what we wouldn't know today.
 

 

[Mick]

There is no doubt Russia tries to interfere in every election, as do other countries, as does the US. 

The question was: did Trump and his campaign collude with Russia to win the election?  And it turns out they did not.  They knew this before launching the special counsel.  We've come to learn the FBI/DOJ had no actual predicate to do many of the investigations they did.  The FBI/DOJ with CIA help knowingly used false information as the basis to launch a counterintelligence investigation against a political candidate.  They defrauded the FISA court.  And then after Trump won they continued this in the form of the special counsel investigation, which has a far broader scope.  The special counsel team nailed some hangers on with process crimes not related to Russia and they nailed some Russians with crimes related election interference, but they did not establish Trump et al colluded with the Russians.  The Flynn case is another debacle wrought with malfeasance on the part of the FBI/DOJ.

Mueller's deck was stacked with activist democrats.  It's been reported Andrew Weisman, who is close to the Clintons, handled staffing the team.  One example is Lisa Page who had to be removed once her extreme bias was revealed.     

I think it's important to consider this isn't about Republican vs Democrat.  This is really about (corrupt) establishment vs outsider.  There are plenty of Trump detractors in the Republicans.  Some tolerate him to get the judicial appointments and border controls etc while others actively work against him like McCain and Romney. The situation we have is all of Trump's chief opponents are 30+ years in elected office and they're blaming him for problems in the system.  Really, they don't want him to upset their apple cart.     

Just imagine if Clinton had won and then imagine what we wouldn't know today.

I would argue that if there truly had been a concerted effort deep within government to falsely accuse, plant evidence, coerce testimony, knowingly prolong dubious investigations, then why wasn't the Mueller investigation much more damaging to Trump?  The fact remains that Mueller was given a task by the DOJ.  He carried it out.  Had the team truly been biased, hyper-partisan, flouting the law, and carrying out illegal acts, wouldn't they have found a way to secure more indictments, convictions, and sow more uncertainty?  Rules were followed.

I'm sure the Durham investigation will shed light on the origins of the investigation.  In the meantime, I still have not seen any evidence that Mueller team members were "activist".  Is sending text messages to a colleague unduly "activist"?  Do you consider posting on this site to be activist?  One can still perform their duties dispassionately, while holding personal political views.  I would argue that most people on this site express personal political views to family, friends, coworkers, and yet are still able to perform their jobs.  What examples of "activism" have come to light?

Members were fired from the team to preserve the integrity of it.  If even the appearance of bias led to termination, obviously Mueller / DOJ officials weren't tolerant of partisan activity tainting the investigations.  Of course Inspectors General also exist, as well as internal offices of professional standards etc.

I'm not dismissing what you are arguing, but I don't believe the Mueller investigation was tainted, even though the circumstances leading up to it may eventually be shown to be improper.  We'll see what current investigations yield.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The first instance I could find of what seems to be at least a partial transcript of Barr's testimony is here.

"ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Feinstein, members of the committee. During my confirmation process there were two concerns that dominated, as I think you will all agree. The first was whether I would in any way impede or curtail Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and the second, whether I would make public his final report. As you see, Bob Mueller was allowed to--to complete his work as he saw fit, and as to the report, even though the applicable regulations require that the report is to be made to the AG and is to remain confidential and not be made public, I told this committee that I intended to exercise whatever discretion I had to make as much of the report available to the public and to congressional leaders as I could, consistent with the law. This has been done.

I arrived at the department on February 14, and shortly thereafter I asked it to be communicated to Bob Mueller's team that in preparing the report we requested that they make it so we could readily identify 6(e) material so we could quickly process the report for--

GRAHAM: Could you tell the public what 6(e) is?

BARR: 6(e) is Grand Jury material that cannot be made public. It's prohibited by statute. And I wanted that identified so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could. When I arrived at the department I found--and was eventually briefed in on the investigation--I found that the deputy attorney general and his principal associate deputy, Ed O'Callaghan, were in regular discussions with the counsel's office, had been, and they communicated this request and had discussions about both the timing of the report and the nature of the report.

On March 5 I met with Bob at the suggestion of the deputy and the principal associate deputy--Bob Mueller, I met with Bob Mueller--to get a readout on what his conclusions would be. On March 25--and at that meeting I asked--I reiterated to Special Counsel Mueller that in order to have the shortest possible time before I was in a position to release the report, I asked that they identify 6(e) material. When I received the report on March 22--and we were hoping to have that easily identified, the 6(e) material, unfortunately it did not come in that form, and it quickly became apparent that it would take about three or four weeks to identify that material and other material that would have to be redacted. So there was necessarily going to be a gap between the receipt of the report and getting the full report out publicly."

Color highlighting mine.  Are we done with redactions?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>is there evidence that Mueller or his investigators conducted themselves in a demonstrably partisan way

It's right there in front of everyone and has been repeated extensively.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

They weren't charged to find evidence to exonerate; they didn't come across evidence to exonerate; they had no business commenting on exoneration.  Someone had to think about putting that in the report; I can guess that many of the participants at some point read it.

"He might be guilty but we couldn't prove it" doesn't belong.  It especially doesn't belong in a report that they knew that the AG intended to release.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It is also worth noting that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos are all American.

If it wasn't clear from the context, I meant with respect to the central purpose of "colluding with Russians".

Regarding Flynn, Mueller must have known or could have known all the dirty details of how that unfolded.  My view is that the Flynn prosecution was so compromised by undue influence, bad intentions, and misconduct (or "mistakes" as everyone calls it now), that Mueller should have dropped it.  But if he had, it is unlikely all the dirt would have been dug.  I don't know whether that means that Mueller is a by-the-book straight arrow, or that he or members of his team insisted on collecting that scalp.  Regardless, kudos to Mueller for his left-handed contribution to unearthing scandal.