Connect with us


Here’s How William Barr Dodged The Rules To Avoid Charging Trump Over Mueller Report



The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into President Donald Trump, his Organization, his White House, his administration, his close circle and his White House seemed  like it was going on for many lifetimes. It certainly feels like much longer than two years ago that the Justice Department (specifically, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) found itself forced to commission the former Director of the FBI to set up a probe to investigate Trump.

Now, though, at long last, the investigation has come to an end and the report has exited Mueller’s office and headed into the hands of Attorney General William Barr. In an actual democracy, this would be a good thing, as it would mean that Trump and his family and closest associates could be arrested and charged, and the proper criminal investigations into their activities in the run up to the 2016 election could begin, most likely having the ultimate result of some prison sentences and, at the very least, the full truth of what happened back then.

However, as we are slowly and painstakingly learning, the America of today is not a democratic one. Bill Barr released his summary assessment of the report in which he claimed that there was no evidence of Trump committing a crime. Unsurprisingly, it did not take long for legal experts to realize that it takes a huge amount of skirting the rules to come to that conclusion, which Barr is only doing because he is a very, very close friend of Donald Trump. One such expert, Marcy Wheeler, has exposed how he did it:

In [his assessment of the report], Barr doesn’t mention the scope of the activities that Mueller considered evidence of obstruction of justice. He notes that, after laying out a case for and against accusing the President of a crime, Mueller’s report, states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein] only considered whether Trump was covering up his involvement in the hack-and-leak operation. It doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of. They didn’t consider whether Trump obstructed the crime that he appears to have obstructed. They considered whether he obstructed a different crime. And having considered whether Trump obstructed the crime he didn’t commit, rather than considering whether he obstructed the crime he did commit, they decided not to charge him with a crime.

Let’s just hope the American public remembers this in November next year.





Copyright © 2018 Blue Side Nation