Nadler seeks Barr testimony on Mueller report, challenges call to clear Trump on obstruction
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
foxnews.com
Nadler seeks Barr testimony on Mueller report, challenges call to clear Trump on obstruction
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler declared Sunday that he’ll soon seek testimony from Attorney General Bill Barr, as the powerful Democrat openly challenged Barr’s determination that Robert Mueller’s investigation did not produce evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice.
For his part, Trump declared a “total exoneration” based on the report, a summary of which Barr transmitted Sunday. Barr’s letter includes clear language that the Mueller probe did not find evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election.
However, Mueller did not draw a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice, saying the report does not conclude he committed a crime and also “does not exonerate him.” In turn, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded the evidence from the case “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
That line swiftly prompted complaints from Democrats – while also giving them an opening to challenge Barr, despite facing what amounted to a victory lap from Trump, his legal team and his political allies over a report that largely supported their “no collusion” mantra.
“In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before @HouseJudiciary in the near future,” Nadler tweeted.
Nadler also said on Twitter there “must be full transparency” on what Mueller uncovered “to not exonerate the President from wrongdoing.”
“DOJ owes the public more than just a brief synopsis and decision not to go any further in their work,” he said.
Nadler further said that since Mueller did not exonerate Trump on the issue, “we must hear from AG Barr about his decision making and see all the underlying evidence for the American people to know all the facts.”
The comments from Nadler underscore that Democrats have no intention of accepting Barr’s summary report as-is -- amid numerous calls for the full report's release -- or putting the collusion and obstruction issues to rest, as they continue to pursue their own congressional investigations.
Democrats on the same committee also said Sunday that it, “Seems like the Department of Justice is putting matters squarely in Congress’ court,” after the release of the report.
Barr released a summary of Mueller’s findings on Sunday in a letter to leadership of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The special counsel’s investigation, which lasted for nearly two years, did not find evidence that any members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.
But after months of speculation regarding whether the president obstructed justice, beginning when he decided to fire former FBI Director James Comey, Barr revealed that Mueller, after making a “thorough and factual investigation” into the matters, “ultimately decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”
This kicked the determination to the Justice Department.
“After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues, consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decision, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,” Barr wrote, adding that the decision was “not based on the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.”
Barr explained that the government would “need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.”
“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense,” Barr wrote.
Nadler’s committee is already leading an investigation into “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump,” which he announced earlier this month. Nadler requested documents and records from 81 individuals and entities connected, in some way, to the president.
Meanwhile, other House Democrats have aggressively ramped up their own Trump-related investigations, which are expected to include a network of committee probes and high-profile hearings that are likely to last well into the 2020 election year.
At this point, the House Intelligence Committee is probing the president’s foreign business dealings and Russian election meddling. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., is probing Trump’s foreign business dealings as well.
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
Interesting development. The premise is that the call is Congress's to make, not the Attorney General. All previous cases of presidential obstruction of justice were handled by Congress.
Congress cannot charge the President with obstructing Justice. That's not how our system works. They can only impeach and remove him.
Congress can allege he "obstructed justice" as an article of impeachment, and has before where the President committed an underlying crime. We know Trump didn't do that.
What's the theory? That Trump, an innocent man, "obstructed justice" by not interfering and allowing Mueller to do whatever he wanted?
Sure.
If the Democrats want to impeach for that, they are more then welcome to. Might as well claim his height counts as "obstructing justice." Or having two hands counts as "obstructing justice." Democrats can call whatever they want "obstructing justice" but it has no legal meaning.
Once Mueller certified that Trump didn't stop him from pursuing any avenue of investigation, it was game over for the obstruction nonsense.
exactly.
but they need something to hold on to. (false hope is better than no hope at all)
I wonder how the left will react once the arrests begin? (should be fun to watch.)
cheers
My understanding is that MUELLER wrote in his report that he had both pro and con arguments for obstruction of justice against Trump, but concluded it was not his role to make the decision. If he had pro arguments, and could not reach a conclusion, obviously the concept that
was inoperative. If your point is correct, Mueller could have simply said as much. The opposite argument is that Mueller intended to leave this issue up to Congress, as it has been dealt with in the past, and Barr exceeded his role. I heard it reported that Barr DID NOT run his summary past Mueller first.
Until Mueller says he agrees with Barr totally, Nadler has a good point.
Per Mueller, Trump did not interfere or limit Mueller's (or Comey's for that matter) investigation. That would have been the best argument that he obstructed justice. Since he's an innocent man who didn't interfere, it's not going anywhere, because it will be impossible to prove evil intentions behind legal acts.
opposite argument is that Mueller intended to leave this issue up to Congress and Barr exceeded his role.
Congress has zero power to criminally charge anyone for anything. That's not how our system works. It makes laws. It can investigate, but it lacks prosecutorial power. It's exclusively up to the Executive branch (Barr) to make that choice.
Congress can only impeach and remove. That's it. as it has been dealt with in the past
By all means, show me where Congress criminally prosecuted someone of its own accord.
Funny how Mueller is no longer to be trusted after he (and Comey) allowed Hillary sycophants to work on two investigations. Also, Mueller's entire staff was a Obama and Hillary booster club; but ignore that as well.
By all means call in Mueller, Barr, and throw in Comey, Lynch, Page, Strzok, Carter Page, Steele, Hillary, Fusion GPS, and anyone else the Republicans want as well (for second and third round of questioning in some cases. Should be fun trying having them trying to remember their lies from the original questionings in order to avoid perjury charges). The Dems think this will be a one sided grilling? Abuse of power, over reach, and the legality of the FISA wire taps can all be brought up as well. Let the thousand investigations begin; it will be fun watching the left try and cover for the witch hunt- and justify criminal indictments gained off of information that arose from illegal FISA wire taps; and a bogus Steele dossier. Maybe all of the wonderful allegations of the Mueller team's witness tampering can be brought forward as well?
The Dems lost big. Now they are desperately moving the goal posts to try and impeach Trump on something, anything. Good luck with that as it will never get through the Republican controlled Senate. Seems the left will learn nothing of the Republicans failed efforts to investigate Obama and Hillary repeatedly. Prepare for obstruction from the WH (following in Obama and Clinton grand tradition). Time to break out the popcorn and get comfortable to watch Democrats doing nothing while wasting tax payer money, and being proud of it.
It's not simply a premise. Constitutionally, that is the case. The AG has legal discretion in these matters and Congress does not get to overrule him. If Congress wants to take action, they are free to try to impeach. That obviously would fail.
I guess that the meme forget Trump University and the hundreds/thousands of cases that he's lost or settled...
Oh, and there is that big one against the NY Indian tribe...The NY lobbying commission fined him and his cohort, Roger Stone, $250,000 for lying about Indian tribes and supporting a malicious campaign against them all the while hiding that they were the sponsors of it...
There ya go, a bit more serious than jay walking, right 1st?
Some people have blinders on Kavika. They are "one issue" voters , and we all know what his is.
And, by golly, gee whizzzz, EVERYBODY knows your single minded stance also.
If you haven't noticed, Mueller was not tasked at looking into whether or not Trump put gum on the bottom of his desk.
No, Mueller's report was to find out and report on three things.
Per his letter of authorization, "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
Mueller completed his findings - none of which are/can be/will be related to your response.
Ya think?
It was a response to your meme...
Try thinking it through for a change.
As was the meme only addressing what the Mueller report "might" say. The meme, IMHO, is meant to say, "OK, you've read the report and, according to Mueller, I've been cleared of what he was tasked to do." But, the meme also shows that the Dem/Libs are going to keep digging and digging into other areas that are outside his term as President.
Has that ever happened to another President? Certainly not Nixon or Clinton. All of their "Illegalities" investigated dealt with times during their presidency. Hell, even Congress threw out the Paula Jones and other women's accusation stating that they were not pertinent to the "present" investigation of Clinton.
Just wish, and know we won't receive, a Congress (both sides) that would say, "OK folks, we've got to get back to our jobs of governing the country and quit the petty shyte".
Have you seen them, or are you working from an obviously partisan summary?
Are you still in la-la land? NO ONE has seen the report and you know that very well.
The Attorney General stated that the report was finished and, if you'll read the news instead of the funnies, you'll notice that all the news media is making the same conclusion - the report is finished.
Yet you are the one making conclusions based on it.
Now who's in la-la land? Please point out where I said it wasn't finished.
As I've always said, a sure sign that someone knows he has a losing argument, is when they resort to personal insults.
"Yet you are the one making conclusions based on it."
Show me please where I made any conclusions.
"Please point out where I said it wasn't finished." - "Have you seen them"
No personal attacks, but it's obvious that you haven't been reading the actual news stories - only the headlines or funnies or ads or stock market ratings - 'cause you made the statement of "obvious partisan summary" That "summary" is all that is required by Congressional standards until the AG and his/her staff review the entire document to determine what is releasable or not.
Anyone who reads/read the news would understand that.
Again you are arguing something I never claimed. maybe you should re-read my comment before responding. My claim is that the "summary" was partisan, my claim will be supported if Barr refuses to release the entire report to Congress.
What makes you think that Barr won't decide that any part of the report that contradicts his "summary" will be considered not releasable?
I am telling everyone now. Comment on the seeded article or risk deletion. I will flag comments that are too far off topic. "Crying" falls into that category.
The report exonerates Trump from colluding with Russia. What it doesn't do is exonerate him from obstruction charges. What the report presents is BOTH sides of the argument whether Trump obstructed justice or not. Barr was then forced to make a determination based on the law and on whether there was reasonable doubt regarding accusations that Trump obstructed justice. Based on the fact that the report gives BOTH sides of the argument, then Barr could only come to a single conclusion that there was not enough evidence that Trump obstructed justice and that any evidence that might be there did not meet the statutory bar needed to present such charges or prosecute a case on such charges as he stated at the end of his letter about obstruction charges.
The Democrats argument is that Barr exceeded his role. The place to present charges against the president is in Congress. We already know Barr would never indict him no matter what the evidence was, because he is the sitting president.
Nadler wants to see the evidence in Mueller's words, not Barr's, hence the call for Barr to testify as to how he reached his decision and based on what.
It is up to Congress to present those charges that is what Articles of Impeachment are, the presenting of charges against a sitting President or government official. Barr interpreted the report based on what the law stated as required by his job. Remember, Barr not only relied on the report but on both Mueller and Rod Rosenstein's interpretations of the report.
It does make it pretty hard to prove obstruction when you can't prove any underlying crime.
And what even be the nature of the obstruction? Firing Jim Comey? That didn't do anything, nor would they be any reason to assume that it would.
In spite of all the hand-wringing about trying to protect Mueller, Trump never actually did anything to him. He didn't fire him. He didn't limit his funding. He didn't put a time limit on the investigation. He just talked shit about the accusations, the accusers and everything that spun out of it - exactly the kind of behavior you might expect from someone who was pissed off about being falsely accused.
Yeah, amazing an innocent man would be mad that his Presidency was being subverted by politically motivated false accusations.
Innocent? How many times did he lie to the public saying he had no dealings with Russia?
Innocent is not the word that comes to mind about Trump.
Certainly no dealings with Russia that anyone has any reason to care about. Certainly no dealings with Russia that impacted the election. That's what we're all here for, right? That's what we're supposed to care about, right? I hope you're not trying to say that perfectly legal dealings are grounds for impeachment.