Attorney General Barr States Mueller ‘Could’ve Reached A Decision’
Many of you may have heard or watched former Special Prosecutor Mueller in his eight minute press conference, one in which he refused to take any questions, state the following:
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a present president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view. That too, is prohibited.
The special counsel's office is the department of justice, and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy make several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.
Yesterday morning Attorney General William Barr was interviewed by CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford during an exclusive interview in Anchorage, Alaska. Interesting to note that Mueller decided on the day that AG Barr was as far away in the United States as he could be, Alaska, to hold that press conference. In that interview AG Barr was asked if Mueller could have reached a decision on obstruction, AG Barr stated:
I personally felt he could've reached a decision…The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity…But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons.
Interesting is it not, if Mueller could have reached a decision why did he not? Perhaps because he knew the evidence he had was flimsy at best or for some other reason, a reason we do not know because he refused to take any questions. For those who believe he did not have to take any questions then why have a press conference in which you state:
it is important that the office's written work speak for itself… There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our finding, and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose the words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony, I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
As he said in his own words he has nothing new to say or testify to that is not already in the report. Perhaps he had ulterior motives, why hold the press conference then?
If he would have made a decision it would have then been left up to AG Barr to decide what to do next. In fact former President Clinton was charged with a crime while the Special Prosecutor’s office was under the same opinion as Mueller was.
In Mueller’s prepared statement he said the U.S. Constitution "requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." Due to that statement many Democrats running for the presidency as well as some who are not believed that the special counsel's remarks were a call to action for the Democrats in Congress to start an impeachment hearing. AG Barr’s response to that was, he did not know what Mueller was "suggesting" in his statement and:
The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress
Another interesting point.
Ms. Crawford then asked AG Barr about accusations from the Democrats and their cohorts in the media that he has been shielding the president from scrutiny since taking office. AG Barr said he certainly expected the whirlwind of criticism, which he then stated that it "goes with the territory of being attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time."
He then said the following:
The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance…And I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically.
Refreshing to hear someone in our government make the statement that law, facts and substance still matters.
What is really going on here, perhaps the Democrats do not believe they can beat President Trump in the next election so they need to attempt to remove him to have a chance to win.
Declassify as many documents as possible concerning the origins of the spying by former President Obama’s administration and let us see the really truth, no matter where it takes us.