Tag: Mueller Report

Categories
Quick Analysis

CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS: THE TOOTHLESS TIGER

This article was prepared exclusively for the New York Analysis of Policy & Government by the distinguished retired judge, John H. Wilson.

It has been a tough month for Attorney General William Barr.  

On June 11, 2019, by a vote of 229-191, the House of Representatives voted to hold AG William Barr in civil contempt of Congress.  At least, that is the breathless way House Resolution Number 430 has been reported in the media.  In reality, the Resolution authorizes “the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary…to initiate or intervene in any judicial proceeding before a Federal court to seek declaratory judgments and any and all ancillary relief…affirming the duty of…William P. Barr, Attorney General…to comply with the…subpoena that is the subject of the resolution…”

The measure arises out of the House Judiciary Committee’s on-going attempts to secure an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report from the Department of Justice.  The Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), went forward with the Resolution despite receiving an agreement from the Justice Department to provide Congress with more of the evidence upon which the Muller Report is based.  

The next day, On June 12, 2019, the House Oversight Committee voted to actually hold AG Barr in Contempt for his refusal to comply with another subpoena.    Ostensibly, the Committee is investigating the addition of a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 census, a hot-button issue for Democrats.  However, the issue of whether or not this question can be added to the census is currently before the US Supreme Court, with a decision due any day now (as of this writing).   

The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep Elijah Cummings (D-MD) refused to postpone the Contempt vote, even after being told that the Trump Administration had asserted Executive Privilege over certain documents considered protected by the Attorney-Client privilege. It should be noted that the Trump Administration has also asserted Executive Privilege over many of the documents sought by the House Judiciary Committee.    

Of more concern is the actual holding of AG Barr in Contempt of the Oversight Committee.  The Committee can now recommend to the full Congress that the Attorney General be held in Contempt of Congress.  What would happen next?  Congress can then make a referral of prosecution – to the Department of Justice.  Will AG Barr prosecute himself, or assign an Assistant United States Attorney to prosecute him?

The answer is, not bloody likely.

In fact, the Attorney General, and other Trump Administration officials involved in these Congressional investigations are but pawns in a war being waged against the President by Congressional Democrats.

One should order levitra shop uk only when one get aggravated by sexual urge & hence care must be betrothed to exercise the prescription only in that set of mind. During the lifespan, purchase levitra no prescription a man has to fight with several health conditions which affects his efficiency of leading happy life. Is the studio’s buy viagra without consultation djpaulkom.tv LLLT program appropriately priced? Understand that the use of laser hair treatment is not timely, it will lead to the occurrence of breaking out repeatedly. When consumed, it inhibits the enzyme known as cost levitra lowest PDE-5.

After the release of the Report of the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the reaction among leftists can be best described as…disappointed.  The New York Times reported that to liberals who had “built up fervent hopes that (the report) would bring Mr. Trump down…the report felt like a betrayal.”  The Washington Post’s Ronald Klain asserted that Robert Mueller had failed in his duty by not pursuing Trump and his family more vigorously, and then presaged the current rash of investigations with this concluding statement –  “If Congress allows his report to be the last word about accountability for the president and his people, it will fail its duty as well.” 

 One of the more interesting interpretations of the Mueller Report comes from Eleanor Stavinoha, who believes that “not only did the Mueller report protect the bourgeois state and its ability to reproduce the rule of capital, but the FBI was never going to threaten the state’s legitimacy in the first place.”  Her conclusion?  Capitalism is to blame for the Report of the Special Counsel.    (I’d explain her position further, but then you’d miss out on the fun of following the link and reading this outlandish piece of socialist rhetoric.)

Clearly, President Trump’s opponents had hoped to use the findings of the Mueller Report as the basis for the impeachment of the President.  But the unequivocal nature of the findings of a lack of collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 election, coupled with the equivocal findings on obstruction of justice make for an extremely weak case upon which to base an impeachment.

  Many bad things can be said about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  However, she has proven herself to be more politically astute than many Congressional Democrats.  While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) call for impeachment and removal, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly refused to join this chorus.   

What Nancy Pelosi understands, and the more radical members of her caucus do not, is that an impeachment of President Trump cannot be successful.  As the Mueller Report itself states, “unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”  Further, “although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.”   

As every Criminal Lawyer knows, including the attorneys on Speaker Pelosi’s staff, to establish a crime, the prosecution must establish that a person had an intent to commit a crime (unless the crime is one of strict liability, such as Statutory Rape).  If President Trump was not involved in an underlying crime (ie, an attempt to illegally influence the outcome of an election), then his motive for trying to halt the investigation was equivocal at best.

The lack of a clear criminal intent in the President’s actions makes both prosecution for a crime and impeachment problematic at best.  Speaker Pelosi also understands that exoneration after impeachment could strengthen the President’s hand, and make defeating him in 2020 less likely.

Hence, Congressional investigations are the answer – the equivalent of the “death by a thousand cuts.”  Chairman Nadler knows that the majority of the materials he is requesting from the Justice Department are Grand Jury Minutes that are protected from release by federal law – yet, he demands their release from AG Barr.  Chairman Cummings knows that the citizenship question will be decided by the Supreme Court – yet still he demands attorney/client privileged documents and his Committee holds the Attorney General in Contempt.

“The Congress will continue to investigate,” Speaker Pelosi has vowed.  In the meanwhile, Attorney General Barr better get used to being held in contempt by this Congress.

Photo: Official photo of William Barr (DOJ)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Mueller Report: End or Beginning Part 2

Conclusion of an analysis by the distinguished retired judge John H. Wilson

D. Can President Trump be prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice?

While it is highly debatable whether these actions constitute the crime of Obstruction of Justice, what is not debatable is that the President, while in office, cannot be prosecuted.  The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion, cited in the Mueller Report, which states that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”  While the Special Counsel accepted this restriction, the Report notes that “a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible,” and “a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” 

In his now infamous letter, Attorney General William Barr made it clear that “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.”  This decision was based upon a lack of criminal intent on the part of President Trump – “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.”  It was also made “without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.”

  Recently, a petition signed by, at last count, just over 800 former federal prosecutors, states that “each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”  Interestingly enough, this group of experienced lawyers do not state anywhere in their position paper which specific statutes they believe the President violated – there is only a general statement that Mr. Trump’s actions constitute “obstruction of justice.”  

Setting aside the obviously political nature of this petition (this author has been unable to locate a similar petition regarding the decision of AG Loretta Lynch to not prosecute Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), the only real recourse left for those who disagree with AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein’s assessment is the one currently being championed by Congressional intellectuals like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (D-NY) – impeachment.

E. Can President Trump be impeached based upon the findings of the Mueller Report?

 Under Article II, Sec 4 of the US Constitution, “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  It is important to understand that a “misdemeanor” is not only a violation of a minor criminal statute –  “John Randolph Tucker explained that it was ‘a synonym for misbehavior’; and Webster’s original dictionary defined it as ‘ill behavior, evil conduct, fault, or mismanagement.’” 

Currently, an Article of Impeachment is pending before Congress – House Resolution 705, sponsored by Rep. Al Green (D-Tx).  However, the sole ground for impeachment stated in this bill accuses the President of a “high misdemeanor” – “his bigoted statements (have) done more than simply insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the American society by attempting to convert his bigoted statements into United States policy.”  This allegation relates specifically to the so-called “Muslim ban” on immigration from certain countries associated with terrorism activities; barring transgendered persons from serving in the military; comments made during the Charlottesville riots; and disparaging comments about third-world countries.

High blood pressure is often caused by bad lifestyle habits that are also responsible for erectile dysfunction problem acquisition de viagra cute-n-tiny.com in males. This turns the temperature privileged the scrotum upsurge. cialis for cheap price Ladies may characterize sexual arousal in light of mental and enthusiastic, and shop link 100mg tablets of viagra in addition natural variables. Take 1 viagra sale http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/tiny-sugar-glider-on-a-toe/ around 1 hour (60) prior minutes sexual action.

 Obviously, this bill, pending since January of 2018, is going nowhere.  But clearly, Articles which allege that the President used his authority to attempt to convince members of his Administration to halt an ongoing investigation are far more serious, and could potentially form the basis for a “misdemeanor,” ie, “ill conduct…mismanagement.”

Given that President Clinton was impeached for making false statements, under oath, regarding his affair with a White House intern, the possibility of an impeachment of President Trump based upon the findings stated in the Mueller Report is substantial.

          F. Could President Trump be removed from office?

   Despite the very clear and unequivocal evidence that President Clinton had lied, the Congress still acquitted him.  As explained by University of North Carolina professor Michael Gerhardt, “impeachments require a significant amount of political will…an impeachment will take up a lot of a Congress’s time and energy, and congress members who support impeachment have a lot to lose and potentially little to gain by undertaking an impeachment.”  

Is there the political will to remove President Trump from office?  Several of the Democratic candidates for President, including Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) think so.  But in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not ready to take this step.  Instead, she is calling for aggressive investigations of the President, no doubt hoping for some better evidence.

This would explain the broad subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee, and the holding of AG William Barr in contempt for not appearing before the Committee and letting himself be cross-examined by staff members rather than sitting Representatives.    But as reported in Politico,  “Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team worry that such moves, while pleasing to a party base that loathes the president, would backfire and boost Trump politically.”

Alexander Graham Bell is credited with stating, “When one door closes, another door opens.”  The door may be closed on the Mueller Report – but the door stands wide open on the possibility of impeachment.

Photo: Official Congressional photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

Mueller Report: End or Beginning?

An analysis by the distinguished retired Judge John H. Wilson

There is a line in the Grateful Dead’s song, “Terrapin Station,” that applies to the release of the Report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller – “I can’t figure out, if it’s the end or beginning.”  Robert Mueller may have packed up his tent, but the Congressional circus has only just started.

                A. The Mueller Report on Russian Collusion.

It is well known that one of the major findings of the Report is that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”     This flies in the face of statements made by the Democratic Congressional leadership before the release of the report – notably people like Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who stated in December of 2017 “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning,” and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who said in November of 2018, “The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” 

To date, this writer is unaware of a single Democrat who has admitted to being wrong, or making an incorrect statement, regarding whether or not President Trump colluded with any Russians who attempted to interfere in the 2016 election.  In fact, when former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani demanded that CNN commentator Chris Cuomo apologize for “torturing (Trump) for two years with (allegations) of collusion,” Cuomo stated “not a chance.” 

 Regardless of any Democrat’s refusal to admit they were wrong, the fact remains – the Special Counsel, after two years of intensive investigation, could not find any evidence that President Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff, is a traitor.

Medicines Especially tell your doctor if you suffer https://pdxcommercial.com/property/brewery-pub-sale/ levitra purchase canada from any of the following symptoms before taking this medication must they that they keep it out of fear of public ridicule. It can be discount cialis online absorbed at anywhere, no need to search for water. Scholl’s Massaging Gel Insoles is also one of the cialis pills best ways to get a good picture of the child’s performance in multiple settings. Acai berry supplements are another buy levitra where immeasurable way that different people maneuver the fruits many benefits.

                B. The Mueller Report – Obstruction of Justice.

Instead, as I predicted just before the release of the Report, in my appearance on the Financial Survival Network with Kerry Lutz in April,  Congressional Democrats now pin their hopes of ending the Trump Presidency on the second finding of the Mueller Report – “if we had confidence…that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.  Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.  Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” 

The Mueller Report makes this conclusion at page 8 of Volume II of the report – yet, one page earlier, the Report states as follows: “unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in any underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”

                C. Legal Standards for an Obstruction of Justice Charge.

Obstruction of Justice under 18 USC Chapter 73 can take many forms, from Resistance to an Extradition Agent (Section 1502) to obstruction of the examination of a financial institution (Section 1517.  The three sections the Special Counsel believed could apply to President Trump’s conduct are 1503 (Influencing an officer or juror), 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees), and two subsections of 1512 (tampering with a witness, victim or informant).   In support of the application of these statutes to the President’s conduct, the Mueller Report details a series of unsuccessful attempts by President Trump to convince various members of his Administration to either remove the Special Counsel, or in the case of former US Attorney Robert Sessions, to “unrecuse” himself from supervision of the Special Counsel.  

The Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to Really Get the Entire Mueller Report

This article was prepared by the distinguished retired Judge, John H. Wilson.

After almost two years of investigation, the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning whether the President and his campaign staff colluded with Russian agents during the 2016 election was finally provided to the US Attorney’s Office late in March.  The Attorney General, William Barr, immediately released a short summary of the Report. In that letter, the Attorney General made two significant points: 1) ” The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,”  and 2) “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Since the issuance of the Barr letter, President Trump and his supporters have declared “total and complete exoneration,”   while some Democrats, like Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) have maintained that “undoubtedly there was collusion” regardless of what the Mueller Report states.  Rather than rely upon the letter issued by AG Barr, many in Congress are demanding the release of the entire report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

A controversy has now arisen over whether or not the entirety of the Mueller Report can be made public.  As of this writing, the AG’s staff is reviewing the Report, and redacting material that is based upon Grand Jury testimony.  These redactions are necessary under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E), which, as AG Barr states,  “generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution.”  The rationale for this confidentiality is also explained in the Barr letter – “This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.”

  Not satisfied by this necessary and legal procedure, Democrats in Congress are making obviously unreasonable demands for the release of the full Report, regardless of any confidentiality issues.  The 24 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have authorized Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to subpoena both the unredacted report and the underlying evidence.   Calling AG Barr a “biased defender of the administration,” Congressman Nadler has summarily dismissed the Attorney General’s letter.  Nadler has even gone so far as to call anything less than the disclosure of the entire Report and any underlying evidence a “cover-up.”

For their part, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee have called upon Chairman Nadler to seek the testimony of the Special Counsel himself if he wants to know what is in the Mueller Report.

Much of this posturing is unnecessary, and ignores the proper legal process.  If Congress wants to see both the unredacted report, as well as the Grand Jury testimony and evidence, there is a simpler, more direct way to secure that information.

It will help to reduce your stress as well as cognitive diseases. viagra no prescription It is available in 100 mg tablet form in multiple levitra sale flavors of jelly. Abstain from driving or working apparatus when taking this drug for medication, you need to tell your doctor about other drugs you take, like valsonindia.com viagra no prescription, and codeine. Transit address Did you ever think of International shopping can save you more money than shopping in your own country? Shopping is reflection of true self. sildenafil online purchase

 Robert Mueller empanelled a Grand Jury in July of 2017.  That Grand Jury was supervised by the District Court of Washington, DC.  Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E), “The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter.”  Further, under 6(F), “a petition to disclose a grand-jury matter…must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte—as it may be when the government is the petitioner—the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to: (i) an attorney for the government; (ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and (iii) any other person whom the court may designate.”

This means that anyone who wants the Mueller Report and all of the evidence the Report relies upon, need only make an application to the District Court of Washington, DC.

Of course, the likelihood that the Court would grant the application is low.  Recently, the DC Court of Appeals ruled in another request to make Grand Jury testimony public that “disclosure of grand jury records could have a ‘chilling effect” on what witnesses say in the secret proceedings.”  The denial came in a case where a researcher writing a book sought Grand Jury materials from 1957.  Even at that distance, the Court felt that “If a witness in (a) grand jury proceedings had known that the public might learn about his testimony in the future — and that his words could be immortalized in a book — then his willingness to testify ‘fully and frankly,’ could have been affected.”  

 Most members of Congress are lawyers, and if they are not, they have lawyers working on their staff.  Thus, most members of Congress would have some passing familiarity with the federal rules of both criminal and civil procedure.  Most then would also know the following; that under Rule 6(E), Grand Jury testimony is secret; that the proper way to get that information is to make a request under Rule 6(F) to the Court; and that the Court is not going to grant that application under most circumstances.

Employing this logic a few steps further, if we assume that most members of Congress are aware of the law, and of the facts outlined above, then it becomes clear that the calls by Democratic lawmakers for the production of the “entire” Mueller Report, including the Grand Jury materials, is nothing more than political theatre, and nothing less than bad faith.

Photo: Robert Mueller official portrait