Justice Department releases Mueller-era memo on Trump prosecution

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: Politico

The Justice Department has released a long-sought legal memo arguing that then-President Donald Trump’s actions during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation did not warrant prosecution for obstruction of justice, even if a president was susceptible to criminal charges while in office.

In the nine-page memo disclosed Wednesday, two of the most senior officials in the Justice Department advised then-Attorney General William Barr that Trump’s threats to fire Mueller and his various public and private outbursts against witnesses he viewed as hostile or unhelpful to him didn’t amount to the sort of case prosecutors would bring under their established standards.

“Having reviewed the Report in light of the governing legal principles, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, we conclude that none of those instances would warrant a prosecution for obstruction of justice, without regard to the constitutional constraint on bringing such an action against a sitting president,” the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Engel, and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan wrote in the March 24, 2019, memo.

The Justice Department fought release of the memo for years, arguing that it was part of a deliberative process advising Barr on what to do in response to Mueller’s report. However, judges concluded that at the time the memo was written, Barr had already decided not to charge Trump, so the issues hashed out in the memo were theoretical and not linked to any pending decision.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/24/justice-department-mueller-memo-trump-prosecution-00053612

[Botany]

1. We still need to see the complete and un-redacted Mueller Report*

* This I think covers much of it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/trump-russian-asset-election-intelligence-community-report.html

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. This memo is really dumb

Link to tweet

[Escurumbele]

3. Muller, continually threatening to fire you and your people IS "Obstruction of Justice", that you

saw of it as "non-threatening" behaviour is your personal opinion? that is another thing, but anywhere in the World that would be translated as "Obstruction of Justice".

What is wrong with all these people?

Muller, I am sure you know about this, but just in case:

The legal proceeding can be an investigation, a trial, or an inquiry in the pursuit of justice. To obstruct justice, a person must knowingly and/or willfully interfere with the pursuit of justice. This interference could be in the form of a threat to a witness, juror, or other legal officials.

So please, do not BS the country.

[Scrivener7]

4. Gosh! Barr's henchmen said not to prosecute tfg? I'm shocked, I tell you!

[Justice matters.]

6. Yep. And to think the taxpayers pay their salary + benefits...

[JohnnyRingo]

5. I need one reason why Barr buried this statement.

Something doesn't add up to me.

[PSPS]

7. "constitutional constraint on bringing such an action against a sitting president" Citation please?

[onenote]

8. Mueller cited this memo written by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2020

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

The author, Randolph Moss, was appointed to his position at the OLC by Clinton. He was subsequently selected to be a federal judge by Obama.

[LudwigPastorius]

9. Counterpoint to the OLC: Article II says "shall be removed", not "shall ONLY be removed".

And, it seems to me that the 25th Amendment covers a President who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".

The cause, whether that is due to physical or mental impairment, or due to being preoccupied with his defense against criminal charges, is irrelevant.

[onenote]

10. So does that mean Texas could come up with some bullshit charge and indict Joe Biden?

Sure, it might not stick, but do you want to trust the Texas judiciary?

[LudwigPastorius]

13. They could try.

At the least, such a move would eventually force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a criminal indictment and trial of a sitting president.

[Raftergirl]

11. Here is the memo.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/24/us/politics/justice-dept-memo-barr.html

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. I read the memo and it is poorly written and is wrong on the law

You do NOT need to be guilty of the underlying crime to b prosecuted for obstruction. I agree with Andrew Weisman

Link to tweet

[triron]

14. How could there have been no underlying crime?

I call bullshit. Aiding the Russian effort to screw with our election (2016) wasn't a crime??!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. Conspiracy is hard to prove

If you read the volume one of the Mueller Report, you would have seen the Mueller found TFG and Russia had mutual interests and Russia took steps to help TFG but there was no proof of a conspiracy that would support charges. The lack of proof of a conspiarcy was due in large part to the obstruction of justice that was described in volume 2.

Proof of a conspiracy takes proof of an actual agreement which often requires someone flipping. TFG obstructed the investigation to such an extent that there was no good proof of a conspiracy