Tag Archives: William Barr

legal news, national news, political news

Release the findings sooner, not later

The reports out of Washington now tell us that Attorney General William Barr is going to release special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on collusion in “weeks, not months.”

That is a good thing. Although I would prefer the reports would have said “days, not weeks or months.”

I won’t join the chorus that sings the tune that Barr might be running interference for the guy who appointed him, Donald Trump. I still believe the attorney general is enough of a stand-up guy to do the right thing.

Mueller’s 22-month investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians ended with a determination that the campaign did not collude. It has sparked shouts of joy among Republicans and groans of dismay among Democrats.

We don’t yet know for ourselves what Mueller has determined. All we’ve seen and heard so far is Barr’s interpretation of what Mueller found. I want to see the real thing, as much of it as possible, with own eyes. I want to digest those findings for myself.

I want AG Barr to disprove fears of many critics that he’s a Trump toadie who is doing the president’s bidding. He did take an oath to defend the Constitution and did not swear any particular loyalty to the president of the United States.

As for any possible GOP resistance to releasing the findings to the public, I only can ask: If those findings shore up what we’ve been told already, that Donald Trump is in the clear, isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to see those findings as quickly as possible?

national news

Oh, yeah! The Russians attacked our electoral system!

What has seemingly been lost in all the hubbub over special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that Donald Trump did not “collude” with Russians is this important morsel . . .

Mueller has joined other U.S. intelligence officials in affirming that the Russian government did attack our electoral system in 2016. Yep, they did it.

Mueller, a former FBI director and a prosecutor with decades of experience looking at national security matters, determined that the Russians orchestrated a campaign to disrupt our electoral process. They used social media hacking and disinformation to roil the U.S. political tides in Trump’s favor. They didn’t want Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election and they did what they could to prevent it from happening.

I won’t yet suggest that their efforts were determinative, but they damn sure intended for them to sway the result.

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report devotes a significant section to “Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Barr outlines the two major efforts that sought to sow discord in the United States. Mueller, though, “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” according to the attorney general.

So, with that comes another question: Will the president of the United States now offer a full-throated condemnation of Russian leadership, including his pal Vladimir Putin, and warn them about future serious sanctions this nation will take if they continue to embark on these missions of mischief?

If you want an example of threats to our national security, Robert Mueller has peeled more layers off an effort that occurred right under our noses.

If only the major beneficiary of that scandalous behavior, Donald Trump, would admit what the rest of the world knows.

legal news

No collusion? OK, but let’s look a bit closer at obstruction

I get that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign did not collude — in the eyes of the special counsel — with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

The president is right to proclaim “complete exoneration” — on that point! I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.

Is it too much to ask, nonetheless, for a more thorough look at the issue of whether Trump or his team obstructed justice? I think it’s a fair request.

Congressional Democrats are clamoring for more information on the obstruction matter. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s findings takes note that Mueller did not “exonerate” the president on the obstruction of justice issue, even though Trump said he did. Well, Trump is known to, um, bend the truth a bit . . . you know?

Mueller reportedly found evidence on both sides of the fence. He learned there was evidence that the president did obstruct justice, but that it didn’t rise to the level of criminality. OK, let’s see what he found.

The attorney general hasn’t yet made that call. It is believed he’ll take his time deciding whether to release that portion of Mueller’s findings to Congress and to the public.

I am one of millions of Americans who wants to know what Mueller learned and on what basis he determined that he could not prosecute Donald Trump for obstructing the search for the truth regarding the Russian attack on our electoral system.

national news

Support Mueller’s work, however . . . let’s see more of it

I feel the need to reiterate with emphasis: I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings regarding the president of the United States, that he didn’t “collude” with Russians who hacked our electoral system in 2016.

I trust Mueller as a man of high integrity.

However, all the work and the public expense that went into Mueller’s findings compel the attorney general to release the bulk of that effort to the public.

AG William Barr’s four-page summary of what Mueller has concluded reportedly has created an ebullient mood in the White House. At one level, I, too, am glad to know that Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes related to collusion with Russian government goons.

Mueller, though, has concluded that the president is not “exonerated” from questions about obstruction of justice. So, let’s see the whole thing, shall we?

I have no intention of impugning Mueller’s integrity. I have sought to defend this good man, former FBI director, a combat veteran of the Vietnam War against attacks by those on the right — starting with the president of the United States. I do not believe there is anything in the details of what he uncovered that will change my view of Mueller and the effort he put forth in making his determination.

Americans just have the right to see his findings in as much detail as possible for themselves.

national news

We need to see more of what Mueller found

A four-page summary authored by the U.S. attorney general isn’t enough.

Americans need to see — to the furthest extent possible — more of what special counsel Robert Mueller III found that led him to clear Donald Trump of colluding with Russians or of obstructing justice.

Don’t misconstrue my point. I accept Mueller’s findings. He worked tirelessly along with his team of prosecutors to get to the truth behind the allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government operatives. He has determined that there is insufficient evidence to accuse the president or his campaign of collusion. Nor does he have enough evidence to accuse him of obstructing justice.

AG William Barr, though, did say that the lack of a formal criminal complaint on obstruction of justice does not “exonerate” the president.

So, let’s look at the supporting documents that Mueller used to make his determination. Congressional Democrats want the public to see them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it an “urgent” matter.

There appears to be some “evidence” of obstruction, just not enough to file formal charges, Mueller concluded. I get that.

I also want to see the rest of it. Or at least as much of the rest of it that won’t tar individuals who aren’t charged with wrongdoing. We don’t need to see national security-sensitive information, either.

Many Americans have been waiting for a couple of years to know what the special counsel has concluded. We have heard the executive summary as delivered by the attorney general.

There’s more to learn.

national news

‘No collusion, no obstruction’

I said I would accept whatever conclusion that special counsel Robert Mueller III reached regarding whether Donald Trump “colluded” with Russians who attacked our election in2016.

He has delivered his verdict: There is no evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice.

I accept his findings. I do so not because I am happy about what the special counsel has determined. I accept it because I believe implicitly in Mueller’s thoroughness, his integrity, his professionalism.

Do I believe this is the end of the line for those who still question the president’s motivation? Does this mean there’s nothing to questions about whether Trump is profiting from dealings with foreign leaders and governments? Uh, no on both counts.

But . . . Mueller’s findings, which he delivered to Attorney General William Barr this past Friday, have cleared the president of criminal behavior as it regards collusion or obstruction of justice.

On that score, I welcome the news that the president of the United States did not work in tandem with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

However, my acceptance of Mueller’s findings notwithstanding, I want to challenge the assertion that Trump made that the authorities need to look at “the other side.” He means Democrats and their 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. President, they have looked carefully at Clinton, at Democrats and others on their side of the aisle. The FBI drew the same type of conclusion that Mueller has just delivered: no criminality.

There’s more investigating to be done, by Congress and by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

Mueller’s work is done. Good. He’s earned some time off.

I’ll just add that although he says there was “no collusion” or “no obstruction,” Mueller has not — contrary to what the president has said via Twitter — provided “total exoneration.”

More to come.

national news

‘No indictments’ do not mean ‘no trouble’

It’s a quiet Sunday in our house and I am waiting for William Barr to spill the beans on what Robert Mueller found out in his investigation into Donald J. Trump and “The Russia Thing.”

I’ll add this point and then I will be quiet until we hear from the attorney general.

Special counsel Mueller’s decision against recommending any new indictments against the president or his team does not signal the end of potential legal or political jeopardy.

Thus, the president’s Republican friends are dancing and prancing prematurely. It might be that their touchdown dance might be warranted. Then again, Mueller might have delivered the Mother of All Scolding to his good friend William Barr, who then will tell the public what the special counsel has determined.

I am staying tuned.

national news

Waiting for that proverbial big shoe to drop

While the nation — perhaps the world — awaits word on what Robert Mueller III concluded in his exhaustive investigation into alleged collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians, it is good to understand what we do not yet know.

We don’t know whether special counsel Mueller found any sort of collusion between the Trump team and Russians who hacked into our election system. It’s good to understand that “collusion” is not a crime. Therefore, Mueller isn’t going to charge anyone with committing a criminal offense if they winked and nodded at Russians who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton, Trump’s 2016 presidential opponent.

Nor do we know whether the president — in Mueller’s eyes — “obstructed justice” when he fired FBI director James Comey in the spring of 2017 because he was conducting a probe into that “Russia thing.” Again, there might not be any criminality involved with Comey’s firing, but there might be an intent that Mueller has identified.

Mueller has been mum on every aspect of his investigation. Thus, we don’t know if he’s going to give Trump the kind of tongue-lashing that Comey gave to Clinton when he concluded the FBI probe into her use of private e-mail servers while she was secretary of state. Do you recall how Comey said Clinton was guilty of “extreme recklessness”? It gave Republican opponents of Clinton plenty of fodder to toss at her while she sought the presidency in 2016. Will there be a similar scolding in store for the president when we see what Mueller has concluded?

It has been said in the past 24 hours that “We don’t know what we don’t know.” To put it another way, it is good to keep our traps shut and stop speculating about what Mueller has delivered to Attorney General William Barr.

Mueller had a narrow mandate when he accepted the special counsel job two years ago. It was to determine the extent — if any — of collusion between Trump’s team and the Russians. His work is done. We don’t know what he has concluded.

Is this the end of it? Does the president now slip/slide away out of the grasp of prosecutors? Umm. No. He’s still got Congress that will be hot on his trail. And let’s not dismiss those prosecutors in New York who are looking at other matters not connected to the Russians.

Mueller’s findings are still to be revealed.

Let’s just wait. Shall we?

national news

No high-fives, or condolences just yet

To those who support Donald Trump and those who oppose the president, I want to offer a word of caution for plainly different reasons.

The Trumpsters out there are high-fiving each other over Robert Mueller III’s submission of a report to Attorney General William Barr; he did so without recommending any further indictments into his probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians who attacked our electoral system.

They’re repeating the president’s mantra: no collusion.

Whoa! Hang on here, man!

We don’t know anything of what the special counsel’s report says.

The anti-Trump factions are expressing some level of disappointment. They wanted Mueller to deliver some heads — and maybe even some genitalia — on a platter when he turned in his report to Barr. That didn’t happen. Mueller didn’t recommend any more indictments.

To both warring camps I want to offer the same words of caution. It is premature to gloat or glower over what Mueller has completed.

We do no know a thing!

Are we clear? Good!

Join me in waiting for the AG to let Congress know what Mueller has submitted. I guarantee you that a federal government branch with 535 blabbermouths in both legislative chambers cannot possibly keep a secret.

Once they know . . . we’ll all know.

national news

Would the AG dare keep this report secret?

I’ll admit readily to being wrong more than I am right.

Still, I have to wonder about the concerns of those who believe Attorney General William Barr might keep Robert Mueller’s findings secret, that he won’t allow any release of his findings to the public that has a legitimate right to know what the special counsel has determined.

We hear the gripes from folks who suggest that since Barr is a Donald Trump appointee that he will run interference for the president. Mueller spent two years examining allegations of collusion and conspiracy, not to mention obstruction of justice involving the president’s campaign and Russians who attacked our electoral system.

I have faith that Barr is going to do right by the public. He will hear the calls to release the results. Trump says he’s fine with the public knowing what Mueller has determined; then again, the president might change his mind . . . you know?

I believe William Barr is a stand-up guy who will heed the calls from leaders of both political parties. They want the results released. Members of the public want them released, too. After all, Mueller spent millions of dollars of our money to get to the root of the questions that have swirled all over the Trump administration.

Yes, I could be wrong. I recognize that I am far from the political center of gravity. I am just one American living out here in the middle of the country trying to make sense of what is happening in our nation’s capital.

I cannot believe the AG is arrogant enough — or stupid enough — to keep these results a secret.