for Nearly two years, has identified the U.S. special investigator Robert Mueller in the Russia affair, to Donald Trump. Now Mueller’s is terminated part of the investigation. U.S. attorney General William “Bill” Barr, presented on Sunday his first summary and quoted directly from the first part of Mueller’s report: “The investigation has not shown that members of the Trump campaign have conspired with the Russian government on its activities to the choice of influence or coordinated”. This, despite the Trump-have received campaign “several offers of support from people with Connections to Russia,” added Barr.
U.S. legal experts and the opposition Democrats focused on Sunday and on Monday, however, relatively quickly to a decision on Barr’s for the second part of the Mueller report. The special investigators examined namely, whether Trump hindered the FBI investigation into the Russia-affair – for example, through the dismissal of then-FBI chief James Comey in may 2017. Mueller comes to no clear conclusion: “On the one hand, this report comes to the conclusion that the President has committed a Crime, on the other hand, he is relieved, too”, – quotes the Minister of justice from the report.
Barr then moved to the conclusion that it is in this connection now the US Minister of justice – i.e., himself – to decide whether trump’s behavior constituted a criminal Offence. After the reading of the Mueller report, and discussions with legal experts in the Ministry of justice, and he and his Deputy Rod Rosenstein had not come to a conclusion, “that the evidence is sufficient to show that the President of justice has committed disability”. Their main argument: Mueller found no evidence that Trump was involved in the Russian electoral influence. So, the President could not be assumed, that he want to take have to with “corrupt intent” to influence an ongoing investigation.
Each link in this chain of reasoning is now coming under fire.
Why he left open the question of whether Trump has made of the obstruction of Justice guilty? -Special investigator Robert Mueller after a visit to a Church in Washington. (24. March 2019) image: AP via Keystone
Why has like Mueller no decision on the obstruction of Justice? Like many other experts, is considering law Professor David Kris, the way Mueller did not, perhaps, of the internal Directive of the Ministry of justice that the authority charges against a President-in-office charge, and it concluded that it was unnecessary to decide the question, because from it one way or the other, no prosecution follows. “According to this approach, Mueller tried to uncover the facts, so that the Congress and the American people can make the decision,” said Kris on Twitter.
Some legal experts accuse Mueller, he had not done his work. The Kenneth Starr, the former “Independent investigator writes, for example,” behind the impeachment of Bill Clinton for Fox News. “Decodes” the hot, Rigid: “The special adviser has handed over the whole matter consciously the democratic-controlled house of representatives, which has already sharpened his knives.”
“The men of the year”: The Time magazine during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings. (28. December 1998) image: Time Magazine via AP/Keystone
That the Minister of justice Barr has made a decision for Mueller, has not commented on the more Rigid. In the case of other legal experts, in particular, the speed reduces wrinkles this decision for forehead. “That Barr came after a 22-month investigation, within 48 hours of a verdict, is extremely disturbing,” writes law Professor Neal Katyal the New York Times. Barr is no longer know as Mueller about whether Trumps intentions “corrupt” were: “how do Barr know? Has he ever tried to ask Trump about his intentions? What Prosecutor would take a decision on the intention of meeting someone, without trying at all, to speak with him?”
it Also criticised the fact that Barr and his Vice-Rosenstein could not judge the question in a neutral way. Rosenstein played in the termination Comeys a direct role: Trump relied on a Memo, rose stone, in which the Vice-Minister of justice, Comey agreed to a bad administration.
And Barr has expressed in the question already controversial before he was even Minister of justice. About a year and a half before taking office, he wrote a 19-page Memo to the justice Department, in which he argued that Mueller should not be allowed to determine against Trump for obstruction of Justice. “Barr’s bad reasoning in the four-page summary that is the conclusion that he has decided the question in advance,” writes former Federal Prosecutor Renato Mariotti for “Politico”.
Ultimately, Barr’s Argument is criticized, that obstruction of Justice is only possible if at the same time a crime was determined. “The surprise Martha Stewart and many other defendants, were convicted of obstruction of Justice, but not because of an underlying crime,” says Mariotti. “Simply put: It is a fragile Foundation to support the conclusion that there was no obstruction of Justice.”
How do we go from here?
Clinton-terrified is convinced that Barr is faithfully followed the rule book and so on. This means: It is swipe in cooperation with Mueller-protected information from the report and a censored Version to the Congress. But also Rigid and white: “The demands for a full disclosure of the Mueller report, are now reaching a peak during Barr receives demands for complete transparency, law and Tradition be damned.”
Other experts ask, however, exactly this transparency and based your claim on that legal tradition, which sees Starr in danger. The above-cited Katyal, who designed the legal basis for special investigators, after Mueller was appointed, says: “The legal basis of which it was written, in order to give the Public the assurance that justice prevails.” But that would be impossible, as long as two things remain secret: “first of all, what was the conclusion of the Mueller report, and what is the evidence for obstruction of Justice? And secondly, as Barr was able to come so quickly to his result?”
(editing Tamedia)
Created: 25.03.2019, 14:58 PM
