Durham And Horowitz Find No Evidence Of Conspiracy Against Trump

The twin reports from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and US Attorney John Durham have been eagerly awaited by both sides in the debate over whether members of the Trump campaign were baited by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in an effort to establish a probable cause to begin an investigation. A few weeks ago, we reported that Horowitz’s report would not contain bombshells about Deep State conspiracies that had been unearthed and now it seems that Durham will not give conspiracy theorists any Christmas gifts either.

The Washington Post reports that  Horowitz had submitted a number of questions to Durham, who was handpicked by Attorney General Barr to investigate and prosecute misconduct in the DOJ relating to the Russia investigation. Among the questions was whether Durham had evidence that Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, was a government asset who was used to entrap members of the Trump campaign. The Post’s sources, who have seen a draft copy of the Horowitz report, say that Durham has no evidence to contradict government denials that Mifsud was an asset.

The inspector general’s office, the Durham investigation, and the DOJ all declined to comment on the report.

Sources indicate that the Horowitz report will find that there was adequate cause for the FBI to initiate the Russia investigation but will also find fault with FBI handling of the case. In particular, Horowitz will criticize later renewals of the FISA application for Carter Page, which failed to convey that information from Christopher Steele was not as reliable as previously believed. Nevertheless, the report will apparently not conclude that the omissions were significant enough to have compromised the integrity of the entire renewal.

Horowitz will also find fault with Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered an email that related to the FISA application against Page. Clinesmith was forced out of the FBI after his deception was discovered and may be indicted by Durham. Again, Horowitz will say that the action did not compromise the integrity of the investigation.

Clinesmith, who spoke with the Post, also sent emails and text messages with anti-Trump comments. Clinesmith said that such messages were jokes and that his political views did not affect his work.

The Horowitz report will also address the origin of the Russia investigation. As was commonly believed, the investigation was based upon comments made by Trump advisor George Papadopoulos to the Australian ambassador in May 2016. Even though the DNC hack was not public knowledge until July, Papadopoulos told Greek and Australian diplomats in May that Russia was in possession of stolen emails relating to Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos got his information from Mifsud, who he now claims was an agent for some western intelligence agency.

The full IG report has not yet been released to the public, but Barr, who has seen drafts of the report, has disputed Horowitz’s conclusions that there was no conspiracy of DOJ officials who were biased against President Trump and worked to undermine his presidency. The Washington Post reported recently that Barr has praised Horowitz’s work but believes privately that the IG does not have access to enough information to draw firm conclusions. With the DOJ exonerated, Barr has indicated that he believes the key to the conspiracy may lie with other agencies such as the CIA or with foreign governments.  

Without being specific, Barr told CBS News last May, “I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions… Some of the facts that … I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

It is not known whether Horowitz has contacted the CIA and other intelligence agencies to look into possible ties to Mifsud, but Barr and Durham have reportedly reached out to foreign governments. Horowitz’s questions to Durham involved whether he might have found additional information that the IG was not privy to and that would change his conclusions. Durham’s answer seems to have been negative.

At this point, it seems that the Horowitz and Durham investigations will undercut years of conspiratorial talking points from the Trump Administration and Republican pundits. However, don’t expect the sunlight of facts to dispel the myth that moles within the government were out to get Donald Trump. A characteristic of conspiracy theories is that layers can be added to the conspiracy to deny information that contradicts the narrative. Years of breathless-but-wrong revelations of DOJ wrongdoing won’t be easily overcome.

To paraphrase a favorite Ronald Reagan aphorism, it isn’t that the Deep State believers are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Rebel Republican Amash Gets Standing Ovation At Town Hall

In his first public meeting since making his claim that President Donald Trump obstructed justice and committed impeachable acts, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) received a warm welcome from his constituents. Attendees at a town hall meeting in Grand Rapids gave the congressman what Politico called “a hero’s welcome” that included several standing ovations and lots of praise, even from those who disagreed with him.

Amash had scheduled one hour for the town hall, but the meeting lasted two hours. In that time, Amash defended his support for impeachment, defended his record, and criticized the leaders of both parties, including President Trump. Amash also explained that he is still a Republican because it is difficult to get on the ballot as an independent candidate.

Most of the attendees seemed happy with Amash, with many taking selfies with the congressman. There were exceptions, however. One woman wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat said that she was disappointed in Amash and could no longer support him, prompting boos from the audience. Amash ultimately had to tell the crowd to be respectful.

Another woman, identified as Anna Timmer, told Amash, “I’ve changed my position on you. You’ve spent the last two years failing to do your job, which is to directly represent the popular will of your constituents.”

“That’s not my job … my job is to uphold the Constitution,” Amash answered.

“Those are not mutually exclusive,” Timmer replied.

Others in the audience were warmer toward Amash. One woman told him, “I don’t agree with many of your stances, but I applaud your courage and your morality that seems to be lacking in [Washington]. So thank you.” The comment drew cheers from the crowd.

As a point of fact, Amash is one of the most conservative members of Congress. Despite his libertarian leanings, he has an 87 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, a 90 percent from Conservative Review, and a perfect 100 from Freedom Works. His record of backing Trump is mixed per FiveThirtyEight. He has voted with Trump 92 percent of the time in the 116^th Congress but only 54 percent of the time in the last Congress. He is a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, a group that recently denounced him.

What angers the president’s supporters is that Amash has deviated from the Republican line that Mueller’s report found “no collusion, no obstruction.” Earlier this month, Amash publicly announced that the conventional wisdom was wrong and that the president had in fact committed impeachable acts.

In another tweetstorm yesterday, Amash charged that Attorney General Barr “deliberately misrepresented key aspects of Mueller’s report and decisions in the investigation, which has helped further the president’s false narrative about the investigation.” In the subsequent tweets, Amash, who is a lawyer, laid out a specific case against Barr.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1133410107461689345

Meanwhile, Amash has already drawn two primary challenges from establishment Trump supporters. One, Jim Lower, a state representative, said of Amash, “His conduct is completely unacceptable.”

Others, including Amash, say that it is the president’s conduct that has been unacceptable. “It doesn’t matter to me that some people won’t support me,” the congressman said. “You have to do the right thing regardless.”

Amash also said, “A lot of people think I’m right about the Mueller report. They just won’t say it. A lot of Republicans.”

His Republican primary race seems likely to become a referendum on whether voters agree with his stance or not. If Rep. Amash wins re-election after going toe-to-toe with the Trump and being opposed by a self-described “pro-Trump” Republican, it could signal a very bad election year for Republicans.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Set To Hold Barr In Contempt

The House Judiciary Committee has taken the first step towards holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. The committee announced this morning that it will consider a contempt citation against Barr on Wednesday. If the committee approves the citation, it would advance to a vote before the full House.

“The attorney general’s failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report,” Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement reported by Politico.

The contempt citation refers to a House Judiciary Committee investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the president as well as Barr’s refusal to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report to congressional investigators. It also notes the Department of Justice guidelines against indicting a sitting president and Mueller’s acceptance of that policy.

“Congress is therefore the only body able to hold the president to account for improper conduct in our tripartite system, and urgently requires the subpoenaed material to determine whether and how to proceed with its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances on the president and executive branch,” the contempt citation says. “Otherwise, the president remains insulated from legal consequences and sits above the law.”

Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the committee, said in a statement, “Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction.”

NBC News noted last week that Congress has three methods of enforcing its subpoenas. First, the sergeant-at-arms could be dispatched to arrest Barr. This is unlikely since the attorney general is protected by armed DOJ officers. Second, federal prosecutors could charge Barr with criminal contempt. Again, this is unlikely.

The most likely option is the last one. Congress can sue the attorney general under civil contempt statutes. If a federal judge finds that Barr is in contempt, the court can apply civil penalties to attempt force Barr to comply with congressional requests.

Originally published on The Resurgent

SHARE

The Accurate-But-Incomplete Barr Summary

One of the newest spats to erupt in the continuing saga of the Russia investigation is over Robert Mueller’s letter to Attorney General William Barr regarding his representation of the Mueller team’s findings. As with much of the Russia scandal, the details are sufficiently vague that both sides can claim to be supported by the facts, but Barr’s critics do make valid points. The release of Mueller's letter and Barr's congressional testimony lead to more questions that need to be answered.

To recap the situation for those who came in late, on March 24 Barr released a four-page summary of the Mueller team’s findings. Barr wrote that, with respect to a criminal conspiracy with the Russians, “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.”  Few, if any, serious observers have problems with this statement.

With respect to the second part of Mueller’s report, the investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the president, Barr quotes the report directly, saying, “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Barr then goes on to say that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “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.” Barr also notes that this determination was made “without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president.” Barr further says that Trump’s actions could not be proven to have “corrupt intent” beyond a reasonable doubt. Barr’s defenders argue quite reasonably that nothing that Barr wrote in his summary is inaccurate.

As promised in his summary, Barr released a redacted version of the Mueller report on April 18. Readers quickly discovered that while Barr had not misstated any facts in his summary, the facts that he had chosen not to mention changed the characterization of what Mueller and his investigators had determined. Where Barr correctly said that Mueller found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by the Trump campaign, Mueller’s report found tacit approval of Russia’s actions by the campaign, prefacing its exoneration with the statement, “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts…” But this was not criminal behavior. Fair enough.

Barr’s characterization of the obstruction investigation is more problematic. Barr omitted two very important points from Mueller’s failure to find indictable actions by President Trump. First, Barr ignored Mueller’s statement that the report did not make a prosecutorial judgment because the team “accepted OLC’s legal conclusion” that “’the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions’ in violation of ‘the constitutional separation of powers.’”

Second, Barr omitted Mueller’s statement that “Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” This statement, paired with the statement that, “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” contradicts Barr’s determination that no prosecutable obstruction occurred. Given abuses of power in the examples cited by the report, President Trump’s actions might rise to the level of impeachable offenses even if Barr is correct that they were not prosecutable.

While Mueller did not specifically state that Trump’s actions were impeachable offenses, he seems to have hinted at that possibility. The reference to corruption refers to a “subversion of the political process” and an “act done with intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.” The Constitutional Rights Foundation points out that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment don’t necessarily require a finding of illegality. In English law that was familiar to the framers of the Constitution, the phrase had been applied to remove officials from office on a variety of charges, some that were criminal and some that were not. “The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve,” the Foundation notes.

Immediately after the release of Barr’s summary, President Trump took to Twitter to claim, “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.” This tweet explicitly contradicts Mueller’s findings on obstruction. Conservative media outlets picked up the message and trumpeted what they saw as Trump’s vindication.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744

What we now know is that after Barr released his summary, Mueller sent the attorney general a private letter behind the scenes. In the letter, Mueller stated that the “summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.” He wrote that the discrepancy had led to “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” The obvious conclusion is that the confusion that Mueller referred to was the fact that Trump and his supporters were claiming exoneration where the Mueller team failed to find it and specifically pointed out that fact.

Ben Shapiro has said that Mueller was wrong to complain about Barr’s characterization of the report. In Shapiro’s view, the details that the report includes serve only to embarrass the president in the absence of a finding that Trump broke the law. He points out that the details can be found in the publicly released report and were irrelevant to Barr’s summary. This is wrong for two reasons. First, a finding that the president acted corruptly enough that he could not be exonerated deserves a detailed explanation, especially when the president is claiming “no obstruction” and “total exoneration.” Second, at the time Mueller wrote his letter on March 27, the report was not public and there was no way to counter the president’s claims.

Even before this week’s release of the Mueller letter, there were rumblings that Mueller’s investigators were unhappy with Barr’s synopsis of their work. On April 3, the New York Times reported some members of Mueller’s team had said that Barr’s summary failed to accurately reflect their findings.

In his testimony yesterday, Barr said that Mueller told him that he was frustrated with the way the media was portraying the report and that “he was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report.” It seems likely that Mueller’s problem was with the way that Trump-friendly media was covering the report as an exoneration of Trump rather than the mainstream media parsing the words of Barr’s letter.

The current state of affairs leaves a number of unanswered questions. First, is whether Barr’s failure to find obstruction legally accurate. Several conservative legal scholars such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, Reagan Justice Department official and current Republican candidate Bill Weld, law professor Mimi Rocah and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti dispute Barr’s (and Shapiro’s) interpretation of the obstruction statutes.

Second, there is the question of whether Barr intentionally tried to gloss over the parts of the Mueller report that were more damaging to President Trump. A follow-up to this question is whether the instances of Trump’s obstructive behavior cited in the report would have been redacted if it had not been likely that Mueller would have gone public with his objections.

Finally, there is the question of Mueller’s side of the story. Does Mueller agree that Barr’s summary was an accurate representation of the special counsel’s findings? If so, why did he send a written complaint? Barr suggested to House members that Mueller’s letter was “a bit snitty, and I think it was probably written by one of his staff people.” If so, why did Mueller sign it?

When the big picture is examined, it is apparent that while Barr’s summary was factually accurate, it did omit important aspects of Mueller’s report. These omissions changed the characterization of Mueller’s findings that “the evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues” to Barr’s determination that “the report identifies no actions… done with corrupt intent.” The only way to resolve these discrepancies and know exactly what Mueller and his investigators took issue with is to have Mueller testify.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Barr Bails Amid Mueller Message Mess

Attorney General Bill Barr canceled his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee after the body decided to allow an extra hour of questioning by staff lawyers. The Department of Justice objected to the extended questioning. The hearing was scheduled to begin Thursday at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time without Barr’s participation.

In a statement, the Department of Justice said that “having staff question the Attorney General, a Senate-confined Cabinet member, is inappropriate.” There was no explanation for why this would be inappropriate.

The statement also notes that the majority of the committee “are themselves attorneys, and the Chairman has the ability and authority to fashion the hearing in a way that allows for efficient and thorough questioning by the Members themselves, the Chairman’s request is also unnecessary.” That authority would presumably include the authority to delegate the questioning to professional attorneys.  It is worth noting that Senate Republicans hired an outside counsel to question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, last September.

Axios reports that House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) had previously said that he would subpoena Barr if he refused to testify voluntarily. If Barr ignores the subpoena then he could be held in contempt of Congress.

Barr’s refusal to testify leaves House Democrats with few good options. NBC News explains that most likely scenario to force Barr’s testimony is to pursue a contempt case in civil court. A judge could impose sanctions in an attempt to get Barr to comply with the subpoena.

Even without testimony from the attorney general, the brouhaha over the Mueller report and Barr’s characterization of it is not likely to go away. The obvious next step is for House Democrats to invite Robert Mueller to testify.

When he released the redacted version of the Mueller report on April 18, Barr said he had “no objection” to allowing Mueller to testify. It will be interesting to see if Barr is still open to that possibility. It will also be interesting to see if Mueller’s sworn testimony backs up Barr’s claim from yesterday that the special counsel “was not suggesting that we had misrepresented his report.”

As with most of the details from the Russia scandal, Barr’s testimony left many questions unanswered. With denials of wrongdoing from an administration that is well-known for covering up embarrassing behavior, the only logical course is to go straight to the horse’s mouth for answers. It’s time to hear from Robert Mueller.   

Originally published on The Resurgent