Mueller March Madness! No new indictments, no collusion, no obstruction charges, but no obstruction exoneration either. Upsets, favorites, and Cinderellas … all depending on your political point of view.Please click through and read the whole thing, and give me your thoughts.
The 4-page summary letter of the Mueller report already has been subject to copious punditry, but very little has been said about the law regarding obstruction of justice. Many will criticize the attorney general as being politically motivated for not proceeding on obstruction charges, but his letter tracked the Supreme Court’s limitations on obstruction of justice prosecutions.
In light of a long line of Supreme Court precedent that has limited various obstruction statutes, even reversing convictions, the decision has legal support. To successfully bring obstruction charges, a prosecutor would have to prove that a defendant did more than lie, get others to lie, or even destroy documents.
The special counsel “did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” While the report “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Instead it left “any legal conclusions … to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.”
Attorney General William Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, then “concluded that the evidence developed … is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” The reasons cited in the short letter include:
- “the President was [not] involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference”;
- he did not act “with corrupt intent”; and
Of course none of us knows yet what facts the special counsel found. And it sure sounds like there is quite a bit of evidence “on both sides.” But even assuming some really bad facts for the president, the attorney general made the cautious — and most likely the right — legal decision not to go forward based on recent Supreme Court cases on obstruction.
- there was no “nexus” with the president’s conduct “to a pending or contemplated proceeding.”
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Monday, March 25, 2019
“Barr and Rosenstein likely made correct legal decision on obstruction”
That’s the title of my piece in The Hill, examining the obstruction of justice statute and recent Supreme Court cases restricting prosecutors from attempting to broadly use it. The intro:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm impressed. To reach his conclusion, he digested the report and all the underlying evidence in less than 48 hours.
331
Your comment is fake news
331 before u uncritically repeat a democratic talking point...which is pehaps why this story was so hyped from the get go....think about it. Barr was confirmed Feb and it was announced he was not recusing early march. Do the math LOL
yes. you never see republicans using talking points
6:17 - I don't understand your comment. Barr wrote an unsolicited memo last year saying no obstruction. He then took less than 48 hours after receiving report to reach that same conclusion.
once again, very disappointed in DOM
As per usual, DOM takes the knee-jerk position that prosecutors have too much power instead of evaluating the actual facts/evidence presented (which is impossible to currently do).
The issue isn't DOM - it's Barr.
11:59 -Instead of making a personal attack on DOM why don't you respond on the merits?
1000
Let me break it down for you. The thrust of your "48 hours" complaint is that barr rushed to judgment without sufficient time to understand the voluminous evidence. This is an absurd point, here is why. Barr did not recuse like sessions did, meaning he *supervised* the investigation, and was entitled to briefings, review of underlying evidence, etc from day one on the job (and after deciding not to recuse). You seem to presume he had no idea of the nature of the evidence until the formal report, required by regulation, was delivered. That is an incorrect assumption. You can bet since this was the most important investigation at DOJ, barr likely spent the majority of his time *since the recusal decison* getting up to speed, meeting with Rosenstein Mueller and who knows who else. He also considered the judgment of Rosenstein, who has been on the case for years, who also concluded no obstruction. The substance of your point is silly. If you dont think im right, just wait until barr testifies and they ask the 48 hours question and he explains.
I see you now add, somewhat relatedly, that barr wrote a memo on obstruction. The common theme of your comments is you cannot understand why trump is getting off, so you reflexively must attack the decisionmaker. Perhaps there is another explanation for the state of the universe that you might consider *just possible*: trump did not obstruct justice.
Put aside Barr for a moment...what about the fact that rosenstein also concluded no obstruction? What do you have to say about that? He is also a political stooge?
Consider not continuously doubling down. It may just be what you had hoped is not true.
Isn't Rosenstein that same guy who wrote the letter that advocated for Comey's firing? And now he's opining that firing Comey wasn't obstruction. That seems like a conflict.
Who was the Judge who testified in Esformes?
Hey 2:54 PM;
This is a lawyer's blog. Having an idea that conflicts with ideas others have is not a conflict. Having shares of stock in a corporation before the court is a conflict. Being married to a lawyer on the other side of the case is a conflict. Being a Justice and having a son working for the German Bank laundering a litigant's ill gotten gains is a conflict. Believing an intellectual proposition like, "if the President does it it's not a crime," is not a conflict.
Go away.
4:37 - not sure when're you're going with that last one: believing an "intellectual proposition" like "if the president does it it's not a crime" may not be a conflict but it would make you someone who isn't particularly attached to the rule of law or a limited executive, which are pretty fundamental to our republic.
Post a Comment