Russia Investigation:
Barr’s letter summarizing Mueller’s findings was released around 4:30pm Sunday afternoon. It says Mueller found no crime of conspiracy between Trump or his people and Russian government, and that while Mueller remained agnostic on whether obstruction occurred, Barr has concluded that there was no obstruction.
Here is how the New York Times covered this historic development.
By midweek, as the articles and think pieces poured in (without much hard news around the story), there is both a sense that Mueller really has put to bed the notion that Trump is in serious legal jeopardy over the Russia investigation, but also that Barr’s letter is less than trustworthy on it’s face. This analysis by Slate sums up this problem: “One reason to be suspicious of Barr’s conclusions is that in the course of the letter, he tweaks Mueller’s opinion to look more like his own. Mueller’s report, as excerpted by Barr, says “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Barr quotes that line and then, in the same sentence, concludes that “the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” But the excerpt from Mueller’s report doesn’t refer to an absence of evidence. It refers to a presence of evidence, and it says this evidence isn’t enough to prove a crime. Throughout the investigation, this has been a standard Republican maneuver: misrepresenting an absence of proof as an absence of evidence. Barr’s use of this maneuver in his letter is a red flag that he’s writing partisan spin.”
A former intelligence officer makes a similar point on Lawfare: “Barr’s letter quotes Special Counsel Robert Mueller as stating that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Saying that the investigation did not establish that there was collusion is not the same thing as saying that the investigation established that there was no collusion.”
On Mueller’s decision to write his report does not exonerate Trump: “Mueller isn’t prone to cheap shots; he plays by the rules, every step of the way. If his report doesn’t exonerate the president, there must be something pretty damning in it about him, even if it might not suffice to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
All of which suggests that we cannot know what Mueller actually thought about the investigation until we read Mueller’s report.
Trump and his team responded by vowing revenge on politicians and journalists who have hyped the Russia story over the past two years.
We have learned this week that Mueller briefed Barr and Rosenstein on March 5 that he would not make a call on obstruction. Thus the decision against obstruction in the Barr letter “sparked allegations that the two Trump appointees had rushed to a judgment no one asked them to make, and it is likely to be a key battleground in the intensifying political fight over the conclusion of Mueller’s work.”
Barr and Jerry Nadler spoke by phone on Wednesday. We learned that Barr will need weeks to prepare the report, and this miss the Tuesday deadline Nadler had given. That Barr will not commit to giving an unredacted report. Barr did disclose the length of the report to Nadler, but Nadler says he is not authorized to release the number. He did suggest it is less than 1,000 pages.
There was still evidence that the legal matters that began under Mueller were ongoing. On Wednesday a prosecutor for the mystery foreign company case said in court that Mueller’s grand jury was “continuing robustly”
On Thursday we learned that the report is more than 300 pages, which “suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages he sent to Congress.” DOJ is still saying that Congress will get the redacted report before the White House.
Democrats are building a strategy to call Barr’s actions a cover up if Grand Jury information is not included in what is sent to Congress. According to one staffer: “We do not want anything in the words of the attorney general. We want to see Robert Mueller’s words.”
Republicans continued to push the narrative, which began with the Barr letter, that the entire Russia investigation was a political hit job. All nine GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee signed a letter calling on Schiff to resign, saying he has been exposed “as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information, having damaged the integrity of this committee, and undermined faith in U.S. government institutions.”
Barr sent another letter to Congress on Friday saying that the Mueller report would be released by mid-April. We finally got a ballpark figure on page length. First it was said that it was more than 300 pages, and then “nearly 400 pages” not including tables and appendices. In his new letter, Barr explains what his first letter was intended to be: “My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel’s investigation or report. As my letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the public provided, pending release of the report, a summary of its “principal conclusions” [sic] — that is, its bottom line….I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the report or release it in serial fashion.”
This is how Wheeler characterizes what Barr is doing: “At least it shows he’s beginning to feel embarrassed enough about his original hackish summary that he has issued a somewhat less hackish one.”
Immigration News:
Trump is holding up money to the Northern Triangle counties meant to stem the flow of immigrants form the source. The administration is divided on sending the money: “Even as Trump has threatened to zero out aid entirely, though, the officials in his administration actually interacting with Mexican and Central American governments have continued to emphasize the importance of aid.”
In other news:
On Monday the Trump Administration ordered DOJ to support a Texas judge’s decision in invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, apparently over the objection of cabinet officials Barr and the health secretary.
Mulveney spearheaded this decision over the advise of Barr, Pence, the Health and Human Services Secretary. Congressional republicans were upset by the move.
Mulveney pushed a budget that cut funding for the Special Olympics, and Devos took most of the blow back. Haberman reports that she may be the next cabinet official on the chopping block. This sentence from the Time’s story has implications for the kind of politics Trump will be able to apply in reelection: “Mr. Mulvaney, who helped found the hard-line Freedom Caucus in the House, has brought those sensibilities to the White House, not always with Mr. Trump’s knowledge or support.”
NBC reports that Dan Coats tried to resign with Mattis over the Syria pullout in December, but Pence convinced him to stay on until Summer.
Trump’s military wall emergency funding will go forward because the House failed to override his veto with the required two-thirds majority.
The Washington Post reported on numerous ways Trump inflated his worth to investors, potentially breaking the law.
—
Trump’s Job Approval: 41.9%
I watched PBS and the Sunday news shows. I agree with the Democrats, the entire Meuller report needs to reported at least to Congress if not everyone. We paid for it.