Shady Nadler to Call AG Barr for Testimony After Mueller Throws Stink Bomb at Innocent Trump With Refusal to Exonerate on Obstruction

Special Counsel Robert Mueller unequivocally cleared President Donald Trump of allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, but Mueller tainted Trump by not clearing Trump of obstructing the probe into the Russia allegations even though he chose to not charge Trump with any crime.

Mueller put off an official finding on obstruction, leaving that to Attorney General Barr, knowing full well as a former FBI director that neither he nor Barr could prove an obstruction charge against Trump. By doing so, Mueller spitefully smeared Trump and created an impression of Barr taking a political decision to protect Trump. Mueller also knowingly threw a lifeline to Democrats still hoping to impeach Trump.

Mueller did this knowing that Trump was an innocent man railing against a politically inspired investigation intended as a coup to unlawfully remove him from office.

 

The media and Democrats in Congress have picked up Mueller’s smear and are repeating the ‘no exoneration’ claim, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler D-NY) announcing he will be calling Barr to testify before Congress.

“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 in the near future.”

Full Nadler comments on Barr letter via Twitter.

“Barr says that the President may have acted to obstruct justice, but that for an obstruction conviction, “the government would need to proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct”.”
(This is a lie. Barr does not say the president may have acted to obstruct justice)


But Special Counsel Mueller clearly and explicitly is not exonerating the President, and 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.”

There must be full transparency in what Special Counsel 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.”

Special Counsel Mueller worked for 22 months to determine the extent to which President Trump obstructed justice. Attorney General Barr took 2 days to tell the American people that while the President is not exonerated, there will be no action by DOJ.”

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 in the near future.”

Reporters piled on:

Excerpt from the Barr letter to Congress summarizing the Mueller report and Barr’s findings on obstruction.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. 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 decisions, 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. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.[1]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a 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.

You Might Like