Judge Orders Release of DoJ Memo Justifying Not Prosecuting Trump

Interesting. The memo is the one AG Barr referenced in his pre-Mueller Report summary, prior to the release of the report itself. Seems the Judge is questioning Barr's interpretation of the DoJ opinion.

Judge orders release of DOJ memo justifying not prosecuting Trump - POLITICO

 

interesting, can't wait to see what Barr said, but hid away the DOJ memo afterwards

 

We saw the documents just a names blacked out.... But hey I can't wait for lefties to eat even more crow put it out let's see those crimes they've been promising since his inauguration.

 

we already caught Barr lying the first time, sure will be more of the same

 

Well...what he said is already out there...the memo Mueller disagreed with. Barr referenced a DoJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion in his summary. Judge Jackson, who has read the OLC memo, is now saying he seriously misinterpreted it and that it should be released for the public to judge. I think she's referencing the following statement in the Barr memo: "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Departmental officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, 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. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

Judge Jackson appears to be referencing a memo provided by the Office of Legal Counsel, in DoJ, to AG Barr, and is disagreeing with Barr's interpretation, which may or may not agree with his and Rosenstein's conclusion. Some questions arise: 1) Did Rosenstein receive and read a copy of the OLC memo? 2) Did the OLC memo address the DoJ policy regarding the indictment of a sitting president? Barr says he didn't address that issue, but did the OLC address it? Barr's memo doesn't answer the question. 3) Did the OLC memo discuss the level of evidence existing evidence rose to? DoJ policy standard seems to be a level "beyond reasonable doubt." Did the OLC express any opinion on this?

Sounds as if the memo needs to be released, as well as questioning the authors of the memo, Barr, Rosenstein, and possibly Mueller. What's the downside for Barr? The possibility of obstruction of justice on the part of himself.

 

correct, that is what I mean, see Barr's book report of the memo compared to the actual memo

 

Should be interesting.

 

You must read with Dirty Donald colored glasses if you read that as justifying not charging him.

 

Is this "Trump Russia Collusion" conspiracy theory or is this the phone call with Ukraine where Biden extorted the nation for Hunter to get his $1.5 Billion?

Democrats <--- Authoritarian Fascists. That is who the party has become.

 

FYI you need a link.

 

The memo probably excoriated Muller for delegating the day to day operation to such a partisan as Andrew Weissman, and Weissman's inability to find fault with people leaking to major media outlets unsourced reports thus violating Trumps right to due process.
Barr probably toned it down to help the FBI's already sullied reputation.

 

Politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-obstruction-justice-doj-485360

 

Doubt it...but we should know in a couple of weeks.

 

Judge orders release of DOJ memo justifying not prosecuting Trump
A federal judge has ordered the release of a key Justice Department memo supporting former Attorney William Barr’s conclusion that former President Donald Trump should not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice over episodes investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued that ruling in a withering opinion that accused Barr of being “disingenuous” when describing Mueller’s findings and found that the Justice Department was not candid with the court about the purpose and role of the 2019 memo prepared by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-not-prosecuting-trump/ar-BB1gmgoN?li=BBnbcA1

So many lies from Lying Donnie: Yes, Comrade Donnie's campaign DID collude with the Russians and Comrade Donnie DID obstruct the investigation of his campaign's involvement.

 

Andrew Weissman is one of the biggest pieces of crap to ever be allowed into the DOJ. The DOJ knew that and let him stay anyways.

That scumbag ruined Arthur Andersen and cost 85,000 their jobs, 4 people their freedom, and 2 people their lives on his purely vindictive attack that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned after all the damage was done.

Once he was on the investigation, every honest person knew it was an attempt at tyranny, but even that prick couldn't come up with anything significant.

 

Pretty much score settling from a rogue judge. Does he think Barr is going to re write it? The district judge "thinks" Barr was not "candid". BFD.

BTW, does your strict version of justice apply equally to Hunter Biden?

 

That's ridiculous. The attorney general is the appointed general of the DOJ. He's the one who makes the ultimate decisions on whether or not to prosecute. This is now the judiciary interfering with the former executive branch(from which the DOJ is a part of.). The Biden DOJ will happily oblige, but the Trump DOJ would've entered a motion for pause and court review, because the judge here is clearly going out of line.

Even if, for argument's sake that Barr misinterpreted the OLC memo, the decision still lies with him/Rosenstein and not the OLC or even the Mueller team. Be assured, this judge wouldn't have done this were Trump still President(because a Trump DOJ would have contested this violation of separation of powers.)

 

That's an argument, but let's see what the OLC recommended. While we're waiting, let's see where it says in the Constitution a sitting president can't be indicted.

 

Why didn’t Barr’s DOJ arrest and charge Hunter Biden? Probably because he knew there was no evidence of criminality.

 

Hunter Biden is irrelevant to the criminal behaviors of Crooked Donnie. The known facts are clear: Comrade Donnie's campaign DID collude with the Russians and Comrade Donnie DID obstruct the investigation of his campaign's involvement.

 

The constitution doesn't say that of course, because a sitting President(any sitting President) is still human, bound by the same "contract with America"(see: Texas V United States, I just went over that case on a different manner.) In which the then-SCOTUS ruled that Texas was eternally bound to the union, and that if it were otherwise then the US would have launched a war of aggression on a 'foreign state'

There are certain privileges and exceptions when becoming President(IE: Military operations within the bounds of the law, they obviously cause death but we don't charge any President with 'murder'). So the question becomes whether or not any of the President's actions violated the law, and whether or not those actions were not in line with the privileges of the Presidency itself.

There's also the very knotty question of whether Trump's actions were actually in line with the obstruction of justice charge itself(I argue that it wasn't, the Muller/Weissman team was being very liberal(to the point of obnoxiousness) with its interpretation of the clause. I mean, twitter, really? A lot of the arguments wouldn't hold water, and most of which reasonable doubt could easily be attained.

And since it can be attained, that meant the chances of a conviction even *if* it went to trial were minimal.

 

You wrote this while refusing to read the content of the previous posts, right? Since your this far in denial, let us know when you hit Egypt.

 

your last paragraph essentially says that "it doesn't matter" if Barr overstepped his authority. Sorry, but that dog won't fly in court. Barr's open display of bias towards the executive branch won't help his case if this review gets interesting....and there is no executive privilege to hide behind.

 

What clause? We'll see once the memo is released. However, I trust the Judge knows more about law than either you or me, so there is probably a conflict, to some degree, between Barr and the OLC, that has some merit. How much merit is TBD. Neither Trump as President or Barr as AG have absolute powers.
Also...don't forget Grand Juries. We know the Special Counsel was working with them in regard to indictments made. Did Barr mislead a Grand Jury? TBD.

 

ENRON destroyed Arthur Anderson, not Weissman. What Court decision is it that you are referring to? I believe Weissman had returned to private practice and was asked by Mueller to join there Special Counsel's team.