A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to see' it

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  2 weeks ago  •  25 comments

By:   Sonam Sheth, Business Insider

A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to see' it

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to see' it










Sonam Sheth
Tue, May 4, 2021, 1:32 PM











4f4bd9717eb88890b7cc0e3149752d13



Former Attorney General William Barr.   Drew Angerer/Getty Images
  • A federal judge ordered the DOJ to turn over an internal memo related to the Mueller investigation.

  • Bill Barr cited the memo as the basis for his decision to clear Trump of obstruction of justice.

  • "It is time for the public to see that, too," the judge said in Tuesday's ruling.

  • See more stories on Insider's business page .

A federal judge on Tuesday   ordered   the Justice Department to turn over an internal memo that Attorney General Bill Barr cited in 2019 as justification for clearing President Donald Trump of obstructing justice.

Barr said at the time that he'd come to his decision "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers," but he did not publicize the OLC's memo. In response, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the memo.

In Tuesday's ruling, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction contradicted his claim that the decision to charge the president was under his purview because the special counsel Robert Mueller "did not resolve the question of whether the evidence would support a prosecution."

Barr announced the decision in a four-page letter to Congress in March 2019 summarizing Mueller's findings in the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US election.


"The letter asserted that the Special Counsel 'did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,' and it went on to announce the Attorney General's own opinion that 'the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,'" Jackson wrote.


However, the OLC's memo "calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr's March 24 representation to Congress" and "raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court," the ruling said.

Jackson pointed out that Mueller himself   criticized Barr's handling of the public release of the report   and his description of the special counsel's conclusions.

On April 18, 2019, Barr "appeared before Congress to deliver the report," Jackson wrote. "He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in the March 24 letter 'in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.'"

"What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to Congress," she added, referring to the OLC memo.

She continued: "It is time for the public to see that, too."

Mueller's findings in the obstruction investigation were   widely discussed   when his final report was released in April 2019. He laid out   11 potential instances of obstruction   by Trump but declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Barr told reporters that Mueller's decision was not influenced by long-standing Justice Department guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted. He said that in fact, Mueller's determination - or lack thereof - was prompted by the inconclusive nature of the evidence.

But in his report, Mueller did not cite the nature, or absence, of evidence as the reason he did not come to a decision on obstruction. He did, however, cite the OLC's 1973 memo saying that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Moreover, the special counsel's team said that "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." The team continued: "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

Read the original article on   Business Insider









Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

However, the OLC's memo "calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr's March 24 representation to Congress" and "raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court," the ruling said.

Jackson pointed out that Mueller himself      criticized Barr's handling of the public release of the report       and his description of the special counsel's conclusions.

On April 18, 2019, Barr "appeared before Congress to deliver the report," Jackson wrote. "He asserted that he and the Deputy Attorney General reached the conclusion he had announced in the March 24 letter 'in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers.'"

"What remains at issue today is a memorandum to the Attorney General dated March 24, 2019, that specifically addresses the subject matter of the letter transmitted to Congress," she added, referring to the OLC memo.

She continued: "It is time for the public to see that, too."

Mueller's findings in the obstruction investigation were    widely discussed    when his final report was released in April 2019. He laid out    11 potential instances of obstruction    by Trump but declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment."

Barr told reporters that Mueller's decision was not influenced by long-standing Justice Department guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted. He said that in fact, Mueller's determination - or lack thereof - was prompted by the inconclusive nature of the evidence.

But in his report, Mueller did not cite the nature, or absence, of evidence as the reason he did not come to a decision on obstruction. He did, however, cite the OLC's 1973 memo saying that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.

Moreover, the special counsel's team said that "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." The team continued: "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 weeks ago

the mueller report needs to be declassified and the unredacted version released to the media.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Droopy Dog, otherwise known as trump's lapdog/consigliere LIED!

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
3  Ender    2 weeks ago

It was already decided that he was never going to be charged with anything.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3    2 weeks ago

Bill Barr's FOUR PAGE SUMMARY of Mueller's report was his resume for the trumpturd criminal enterprise 'administration'.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    2 weeks ago

so now you are claiming that Barr saw the report and wrote his summary before he was in the Administration.

sounds strange.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
3.1.3  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Huh? Bill Barr was the US Attorney General when the Mueller Report was released...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

it would really. really help you if you looked at what I responded to.

I didnt make the claim, some other poster did.

smh

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
3.1.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Then what in Hell is your point?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
"Then what in Hell is your point?"

She doesn't have one.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

Since you had trouble following the conversation, I think the point will be missed too, so why bother to explain the basics?

But in the hopes of enlightenment, here goes:

The claim was made (erroneously, of course) that Barr's summary was his resume for the Trump Administration. Typically, one submits a resume when looking for a job, not presenting it to your employer well after you have already been hired.

Following along now? See the point yet?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

Why would anyone ask you for clarity on ANYTHING?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
Why would anyone ask you for clarity on ANYTHING?

You should probably ask your friend who did just that!

LMAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2  Dulay  replied to  Ender @3    2 weeks ago

The Judge stated that the redacted portion of the memo makes that clear:

From the ruling:

Moreover, the redacted portions of Section I reveal that both the authors and the recipient of the memorandum had a shared understanding concerning whether prosecuting the President was a matter to be considered at all. In other words, the review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given. 

Now the question is: Will Barr be prosecuted for lying to Congress?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2    2 weeks ago
Will Barr be prosecuted for lying to Congress

Not in this reality.  Imagine being so caught up in a delusional conspiracy  to think it possible.

Here's a pro tip. Business insider is not a source for informed legal commentary.  Rely on it for updates as to  what 70s sitcom stars are doing today.  

 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Not in this reality.  Imagine being so caught up in a delusional conspiracy  to think it possible.

Are you aware that Barr testified to Congress that he relied on OLC recommendations to decide not to prosecute Trump? 

Here's a pro tip. Business insider is not a source for informed legal commentary.  Rely on it for updates as to  what 70s sitcom stars are doing today.  

NOTHING in my comment has anything to do with the source of the seeded article Sean. Unlike YOU and all too many here, I actually review facts for myself and I READ the Judge's ruling, which should be obvious since I QUOTED from it. 

Oh and BTFW, the Judge also stated that the DOJ misrepresented the content of the redacted portion of the memo. So whoever wrote the filings is in deep shit from the Judge too. She is NOT happy about being lied to by the DOJ. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

LOCK HIM UP!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
Not in this reality.  Imagine being so caught up in a delusional conspiracy  to think it possible.

Are you claiming that Barr's on the record statements aren't a reality Sean? 

Why you think that it's a 'delusional conspiracy' to think that Barr could and should be prosecuted for lying to Congress? Is it your posit that Barr is a special snowflake immune to the rule of law? Or is it that you think that lying to Congress is acceptable as long as you're a Republican?

Maybe one of your upvote buddies can help you with a cogent reply. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

trumpturd and his consigliere feel they are above the law.

LOCK THEM UP!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
4  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

It is not worth the paper it is printed on.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

He worked for trumpturd, Not the People.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
6  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Mueller also said a sitting President could be indicted and the OLC opinion (which is only a guideline) could be abandoned, but this was not the case to do that.  Strange how that never get mentioned. 

Of course, indicating a President for a process crime when no underlying crime was committed would likely be impossible, so it's no surprise Mueller didn't even attempt to abandon the OLC guideline and why Trump hasn't been indicted for supposed obstruction after leaving office. 

I look forward to the memo and watching the same people who struggle with understanding  the Mueller report butcher Barr's memo in creative ways that bear no relationship to the English language or reality. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

"Mueller also said a sitting President could be indicted and the OLC opinion (which is only a guideline) could be abandoned, but this was not the case to do that.  Strange how that never get mentioned. 

Of course, indicating a President for a process crime when no underlying crime was committed would likely be impossible, so it's no surprise Mueller didn't even attempt to abandon the OLC guideline and why Trump hasn't been indicted for supposed obstruction after leaving office."

Well I'm sure you'll cite that information, if it's true.  

No underlying crime.  LOL!  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago
Mueller also said a sitting President could be indicted and the OLC opinion (which is only a guideline) could be abandoned, but this was not the case to do that.  Strange how that never get mentioned. 

It's NOT strange that never gets mentioned because it's bullshit Sean. 

Quote from Mueller's testimony: 

"The OLC opinion says that the prosecutor cannot bring a charge against a sitting president, nonetheless he can continue the investigation to see if there are any other persons who are drawn into the conspiracy."

So Mueller said the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed. 

Of course, indicating a President for a process crime when no underlying crime was committed would likely be impossible,

There is NO requirement in the statute that an underlying crime must be committed to predicate an obstruction of justice charge. 

In short, your second claim is bullshit too. 

so it's no surprise Mueller didn't even attempt to abandon the OLC guideline and why Trump hasn't been indicted for supposed obstruction after leaving office. 

Mueller had no authority to 'abandon' OLC guidelines and Barr gave him no latitude to do so. Then of course, it's now documented that Barr LIED to Congress about it. 

I look forward to the memo and watching the same people who struggle with understanding  the Mueller report butcher Barr's memo in creative ways that bear no relationship to the English language or reality.

Judging from you completely false claim about Mueller's statements, which BTW bear no relationship to the English language or reality, I doubt that you have a cogent understanding of the Mueller report.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Still waiting on that citation Sean.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








cjcold
JumpDrive


44 visitors