Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Perspective: How the Mueller Report Can Still Threaten Trump's Legitimacy
this is excellent
Link to tweet
In the Wash Post Outlook section this Sunday I argue that the Mueller Report may be more damaging to Trump than we know. A version has now been posted online
Link to tweet
Outlook Perspective
How the Mueller report can still threaten Trumps legitimacy
The special counsel likely wrote it as a facts-only road map for congressional investigators.
By Walter Dellinger
Walter Dellinger, a partner at OMelveny & Myers and the Douglas Maggs emeritus professor of law at Duke University, was assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.
March 29
President Trump and his allies are ridiculing the critics who anticipated that the report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III would reveal devastating information. But those who vested Muellers Russia inquiry with their hopes may yet be proven right.
All we can do right now is speculate about a report that only a few people have seen, at least until the redacted version comes out in April. But even based on what little we know Attorney General William P. Barrs summary, the indictments and court filings that came from Muellers team its premature to write off its 400-page findings . Muellers office may have properly drafted a detailed and damning account of Trumps obstruction of justice and simply cast it as a set of facts, a road map for the analysts who must decide what to do about it: members of Congress.
If Mueller believed it was inappropriate to pronounce on the presidents guilt after all, the Justice Department has a long-standing policy against indicting a sitting president he could still be following the example of Leon Jaworski, the Watergate independent counsel who decided against indicting President Richard Nixon, but instead submitted to Congress an extensive accounting of all the facts surrounding his efforts to shut down the investigation. Jaworskis testimony skipped all the adjectives and adverbs. It simply told the story and allowed the branch of government tasked with oversight to do the rest.
What Mueller may not have anticipated (and perhaps could not have avoided) is that Barr would improperly declare the presidents guilt or innocence. But that doesnt mean Mueller came up empty-handed.
[Trump is never satisfied with just winning. He has to flaunt it, too.]
....
Walter Dellinger, a partner at OMelveny & Myers and the Douglas Maggs emeritus professor of law at Duke University, was assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration. Follow https://twitter.com/walterdellinger
How the Mueller report can still threaten Trumps legitimacy
The special counsel likely wrote it as a facts-only road map for congressional investigators.
By Walter Dellinger
Walter Dellinger, a partner at OMelveny & Myers and the Douglas Maggs emeritus professor of law at Duke University, was assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.
March 29
President Trump and his allies are ridiculing the critics who anticipated that the report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III would reveal devastating information. But those who vested Muellers Russia inquiry with their hopes may yet be proven right.
All we can do right now is speculate about a report that only a few people have seen, at least until the redacted version comes out in April. But even based on what little we know Attorney General William P. Barrs summary, the indictments and court filings that came from Muellers team its premature to write off its 400-page findings . Muellers office may have properly drafted a detailed and damning account of Trumps obstruction of justice and simply cast it as a set of facts, a road map for the analysts who must decide what to do about it: members of Congress.
If Mueller believed it was inappropriate to pronounce on the presidents guilt after all, the Justice Department has a long-standing policy against indicting a sitting president he could still be following the example of Leon Jaworski, the Watergate independent counsel who decided against indicting President Richard Nixon, but instead submitted to Congress an extensive accounting of all the facts surrounding his efforts to shut down the investigation. Jaworskis testimony skipped all the adjectives and adverbs. It simply told the story and allowed the branch of government tasked with oversight to do the rest.
What Mueller may not have anticipated (and perhaps could not have avoided) is that Barr would improperly declare the presidents guilt or innocence. But that doesnt mean Mueller came up empty-handed.
[Trump is never satisfied with just winning. He has to flaunt it, too.]
....
Walter Dellinger, a partner at OMelveny & Myers and the Douglas Maggs emeritus professor of law at Duke University, was assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration. Follow https://twitter.com/walterdellinger
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 900 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Perspective: How the Mueller Report Can Still Threaten Trump's Legitimacy (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2019
OP
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)1. This is an excellent analysis.
What in the report might challenge Trumps claim that he has been exonerated? The initial portion could document the intervention by military agents of a hostile foreign power in an American presidential campaign. Yes, we already know the outlines of this attack from the allegations in Muellers grand jury indictments of Russian operatives. But it would nonetheless be startling to read a coherent account of this brazen attack on democracy. The counterintelligence portion may prove deeply embarrassing to those who argue that Muellers investigation should never have existed. Will those critics really maintain that Congress and the American people should be kept in ignorance about such an attack on the United States? This section may also establish that the media obsession with Russia-gate was entirely proper, indeed essential.
Muellers appointment also required him to study any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. The absence of indictments of Trump campaign officials has left many of Trumps critics feeling crestfallen and many of his defenders feeling vindicated. Both responses may be an overreaction. Barr says, The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. And, yes, none of Trumps campaign officials will serve time for complicity with the Russians.
But that hardly means theres no damaging information about them. The standard by which Mueller measured provable criminality appears (appropriately) to be quite demanding. According to Barrs letter, Mueller determined that what was needed to establish coordination was an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. This standard might preclude indictments where campaign officials knew of Russians interference and even welcomed it, but where the special counsels office could not expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an actual agreement between the campaign and the Russian government. Even in the absence of indictments in connection with complicity, simply narrating the Russian attempts, and what the Trump team knew about them, would highlight the presidents utter failure to fashion an adequate defense of American democracy.
The most damaging aspect of the report would be a thorough account of Trumps efforts to obstruct justice. The known facts (firing an FBI director who refused to pledge loyalty and cease an investigation; the demand that an attorney general unrecuse himself to protect the president; the call for an investigation of the father-in-law of a witness against Trump; the dangling of pardons before witnesses) are all bad enough. The report probably contains others. Dont forget the allegation that Trump asked the CIA director and the director of national intelligence to push the FBI director to end his investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. Dont forget: The famous smoking gun Oval Office tape that forced Nixons resignation had him ordering the CIA to persuade the FBI to end its investigation of the Watergate break-in.
The rest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-the-mueller-report-can-still-threaten-trumps-legitimacy/2019/03/29/839457b6-51a7-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.bb498d47cbe6
Muellers appointment also required him to study any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. The absence of indictments of Trump campaign officials has left many of Trumps critics feeling crestfallen and many of his defenders feeling vindicated. Both responses may be an overreaction. Barr says, The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. And, yes, none of Trumps campaign officials will serve time for complicity with the Russians.
But that hardly means theres no damaging information about them. The standard by which Mueller measured provable criminality appears (appropriately) to be quite demanding. According to Barrs letter, Mueller determined that what was needed to establish coordination was an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. This standard might preclude indictments where campaign officials knew of Russians interference and even welcomed it, but where the special counsels office could not expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an actual agreement between the campaign and the Russian government. Even in the absence of indictments in connection with complicity, simply narrating the Russian attempts, and what the Trump team knew about them, would highlight the presidents utter failure to fashion an adequate defense of American democracy.
The most damaging aspect of the report would be a thorough account of Trumps efforts to obstruct justice. The known facts (firing an FBI director who refused to pledge loyalty and cease an investigation; the demand that an attorney general unrecuse himself to protect the president; the call for an investigation of the father-in-law of a witness against Trump; the dangling of pardons before witnesses) are all bad enough. The report probably contains others. Dont forget the allegation that Trump asked the CIA director and the director of national intelligence to push the FBI director to end his investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. Dont forget: The famous smoking gun Oval Office tape that forced Nixons resignation had him ordering the CIA to persuade the FBI to end its investigation of the Watergate break-in.