This morning I watched a "report", more properly considered propaganda, on Barr's testimony to the Senate committee. In that report was a clip of Barr flatly stating "That isn't a crime". The tone of voice and look on his face underscored his weariness of having to explain to these "representatives" what does and does not constitute criminal behavior under the law. For far too many people, particularly on the left, that which they dislike is "criminal" for which "something has to be done".
On this same report was a guest who opined, incorrectly, that Trump, in seeking to remove Mueller was committing obstruction of justice. Why? Because Trump was trying to remove "the accuser". which if she had her law correct would indeed be obstruction of justice by means of witness intimidation or tampering. The problem is that is not what happened. Let me explain.
In the American system of law, a person is considered innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty after the consideration of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In this system, a person (sometimes a group) may inform the authorities of some crime. Let's say murder for this example. Person A may say that person X killed person B. The authorities cannot simply go and arrest person X just because person A said so. The authorities conduct an investigation. The probable cause being the initial statement on person A. The authorities may, for example, try to locate the body of person B. Say that the body of person B has been found dead. The police have reasonable grounds to say a crime has occurred. They also have reason to question person X. Why? because evidence of an actual crime has been found and there is testimony that person x may be involved. Here's the thing though, person X doesn't have to cooperate. The US Constitution's 5th Amendment allows that a citizen cannot be compelled to testify against himself (pleading the fifth). In other words, non-cooperation is specifically allowed for by US law and is not grounds for criminal prosecution. It is the burden of the state to prove it's case against any target.
Lets say that the case goes to trial. If the accused attorneys feel that the judge (or any jury member) has a conflict of interest or bias against the accused, he may ask that the judge be recused or jury member dismissed. Hence it is known that it is the right of the accused to not be subject to biased proceedings. It is not "obstruction of justice" to request these things. So let's return to Trump.
Unlike Nixon's Watergate, there was no crime being investigated by authorities. Nor was there a substantiated crime to investigate to base an investigation of. So the very first problem is that the authorities were set upon a citizen with no legal grounds to do so. But surely the Russian Meddling(tm) was "the crime".
If "meddling" in US elections by foreign actors was the actual concern of the authorities then Podesta would be in jail right now. Also a number of
Mexican officials would be in jail (or expelled from the country) right now. The Clinton campaign would be in the dock for having collaborated with a foreign agent,
Christopher Steele, to influence the 2016 election. However; none of these things, which have been established by evidence, resulted in the targetted investigation or prosecution of individuals and groups.
The Russian meddling "crime" consisted of:
1) Fake Twitter and Facebook profiles that supported and were against
both candidates.
2) Supposed "fancy bear" hacking of DNC officials.
You'll note that none of the media discuss how the Russian Meddling supported
Black Lives matter[
2]:
Furthermore, it was clear that Mueller's team was composed of persons
who were biased against Trump:
The president is ignoring one important fact: Robert S. Mueller III, who heads the team, is a longtime registered Republican. He was appointed by another Republican, Rod J. Rosenstein, whom Trump nominated as deputy attorney general. But publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found...
Mueller's critics, too, already had ammunition to criticize the investigators as biased, after messages were released showing two top FBI officials involved in the case — agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page — exchanged texts disparaging Trump.
Over 2/3 of the investigators were persons predisposed to be against the "target" of the investigation. 1/2 of whom put their money where their mouths were and donated to the Clinton campaign. And two individuals carrying on an affair and discussing "insurance plans" regarding the election. And yet with this clearly biased team, they could not come up with an actual criminal charge against the president.
All the charges that came out of the investigation were either process crimes (People lying or whatever due to the investigation) or financial crimes that preceded the Trump campaign and had nothing to do with it.
Going back to the murder hypothetical, there is no way a competent lawyer would see people with such conflicts of interest seated on a jury or being a judge and NOT move to have all of those persons removed. But the president has an ace up his sleeve that a lawyer in a court does not. The president of the United States has the
constitutionally granted power to fire justice department officials.
Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is given the authority to appoint – with the approval of the Senate – “Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”
Congress is also allowed, by law, to “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
And
And in 1926, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft said in Myers v. United States that “the President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.” Subsequent court decisions narrowed this power somewhat for certain officials outside of the Cabinet. But few people doubt today that a President can remove a Cabinet officer.
Hence that Trump asked Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane to "get rid of" Mueller is not obstruction of justice because he has the lawful power to make such requests. Furthermore had he
intended to do so he could have called Mueller into his office and fired him on the spot and broken no laws whatsoever. Now it would have
looked bad but not all things that "look bad" are criminal. Which brings us to Barr's comment: "That isn't a crime".
To support the Democrats push to criminalize legal behavior or to punish legal behavior because it is done by someone they do not like is a return to lynch law.
Barr ought to be applauded for standing on the law and the law alone. What Democrats want is for Barr to make up law like the Supreme Court and lower courts have been doing. But since Democrats are so concerned with people who attempt to "obstruct", Barr should start going after the persons who lied to the Senate during Kavanaugh's confirmation. He should find out who supplied the Steele dossier and prosecute
all involved for their abuse of the FISA courts for political gain.
