The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that 'yes,' he is willing to subpoena Attorney General William Barr to explain why he didn't charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice after he read Special Counsel Robert Mueller's long-awaited final report.
Democrats have long claimed Trump obstructed justice by asking his then-FBI director, James Comey, to back off a counterintelligence investigation into Gen. Mike Flynn, who had briefly been his national security adviser before his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. put a harsh spotlight on him.
They also see obstruction in Trump's decision to fire Comey later on, and his public acknowledgment that the FBI's pre-Mueller Russia probe was a principal reason.
In a brief press conference, New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler demanded the release of Mueller's entire report and blasted Barr as a partisan who had his mind made up about obstruction before his Senate confirmation last month.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, blasted Attorney General William Barr for deciding, along with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, not to charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice after Special Counsel Robert Mueller finished his long-awaited report
Barr wrote last year in a memo, long before Trump considered him as a possible attorney general, that presidents can't obstruct justice because they are in charge of the Justice Department
Barr, he said, 'auditioned for his role with an open memorandum suggesting that the obstruction investigation was unconscionable and that it was almost impossible for any president to commit obstruction of justice since he's the head of the executive branch.'
Barr did draw that conclusion in an unsolicited memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year, long before he was considered a potential replacement for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
'Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction,' he wrote then.
Nadler's remarks, briefly interrupted by a heckler who called him 'a loser,' steered clear of Russia talk but suggested a new focus for Democrats now that Mueller's report has cleared Trump and his campaign of the never-substantiated allegation that they colluded with Russia to impact the 2016 election.
Instead, obstruction is the new collusion.
Nadler said Barr's conclusions 'raise more questions than they answer, given the fact that Mueller uncovered evidence that in his own words 'does not exonerate the president.'
President Trump has been in good spirits since Friday's revelation that Mueller had finished his report and decided, after 22 months of investigating, not to charge him or anyone in his immediate orbit with any crimes
Barr wrote to Nadler and the three other leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary panels that he and Rosenstein jointly made the decision to end the probe without leveling an obstruction charge against the president.
The pair, he wrote, '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.'
Mueller, he wrote, 'recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference".'
That's a crucial point of law: Proving Trump obstructed justice, Barr explained, must include proving that he was suspected of a crime whose investigation could be obstructed.
Nadler, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, focused on Barr's previous statements about the concept of presidential obstruction.
'Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report,' they wrote.
Pelosi and Schumer made no mention of Rosenstein's participation in the decision-making.
Nadler hsa the power to call a vote on subpoenaing Barr if he declines an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Such a vote would likely pass along party lines.
Barr wrote to leaders of the two congressional judiciary committees that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein jointly made the decision not to charge the president with a crime
Robert Mueller attended church near the White House on Sunday after delivering his final report to Attorney General Barr
Defying a congressional subpoena could lead to the full House of Representatives finding him in contempt, a result that would come with a criminal referral – a request for prosecution – to the Justice Department, which Barr himself runs.
Former Attorney Genereal Eric Holder faced a similar situation in 2012, making him the first Cabinet member to ever face a criminal contempt citation from Congress.
Holder had refused to give the Republican-led House Oversight Committee documents related to the 'Operation Fast and Furious' gun-running scandal. Seventeen House Democrats voted to hold him in contempt.
The Justice Department took no action.
Link hienalouca.com
https://hienalouca.com/2019/03/25/obstruction-is-the-new-collusion-nadler-doesnt-mention-russia-but-threatens-to-subpoena-barr/
Main photo article The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that ‘yes,’ he is willing to subpoena Attorney General William Barr to explain why he didn’t charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice after he read Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves US News HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/25/00/11408900-6845727-image-a-17_1553474553958.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий