Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
More excellent points made here: William Barr Has Some Explaining to Do on Politico.
Snippets (emphasis mine):
Now combine that bolded part with the fact that Mueller evidently already informed Barr about where he was on the obstruction question three weeks ago and factor in:
Again, Mueller is no idiot. Barr's opinion on the whole investigation was well known even before being appointed by Trumputin. So why would Mueller tip him in any way--let alone three weeks prior to completing and submitting the report--about his findings/position in regard to obstruction?
Well, what's a way to "booby-trap" the report so that it all but requires (i.e., as a matter of strict protocol) that the House, in particular, must subpoena for the full report, brer rabbit?
As I pointed out previously, the only way to do that is to use the DOJ rules to Mueller's advantage, which is precisely what it seems he's done, only in a very clever manner. Instead of over-extending and calling for actions the AG would be guaranteed to countermand--which would trigger Congressional intervention--he did the same thing, only in reverse by coming to no conclusion and thus not being able to recommend any action by the AG and took steps to make it very clear that was his position long before the final report.
So, he told the one guy who he knew was appointed to bury his report exactly what that guy wanted to hear long before completing the report, so that all Barr would be focused on when reading the report (if in fact he ever did) is that portion that seemed to confirm Barr's own bias.
Iow, it wasn't a punt so much as it was an onside kick, straight into the hands of Nadler, hopefully.
As Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under Obama and currently a professor at Georgetown University put it in a separate Politico piece:
ETA: I think it's also significant that Mueller didn't meet with Barr and Rosenstein over that weekend to go over the report. And Rosenstein--who appointed Mueller to begin with--would likewise know Barr's position and would be an effective way to "guide" Barr to trip the booby-trap, if you will and that's essentially exactly what we see happening in Barr's letter.
Barr makes note to reference Rosenstein seemingly in lock-step with his summation, particularly regarding how Mueller seems to punt on obstruction, but is actually saying that he could not come to a conclusion one way or the other on the matter.
So Barr took that opening and (with Rosenstein's assurance) inadvertently triggered the DOJ/Congressional guidelines by effectivley contradicting the Special Counsel's recommendation (or, in this case lack of foundation to make a recommendation either way).
That means the AG is effectively contradicting the Special Counsel, which triggers (3):
In this case, the "proposed action" by Mueller, was that there can be no action determined either way. So Barr's action--to conclude to not pursue obstruction--is in contradiction to Mueller's conclusion.
Snippets (emphasis mine):
Now combine that bolded part with the fact that Mueller evidently already informed Barr about where he was on the obstruction question three weeks ago and factor in:
Again, Mueller is no idiot. Barr's opinion on the whole investigation was well known even before being appointed by Trumputin. So why would Mueller tip him in any way--let alone three weeks prior to completing and submitting the report--about his findings/position in regard to obstruction?
Well, what's a way to "booby-trap" the report so that it all but requires (i.e., as a matter of strict protocol) that the House, in particular, must subpoena for the full report, brer rabbit?
As I pointed out previously, the only way to do that is to use the DOJ rules to Mueller's advantage, which is precisely what it seems he's done, only in a very clever manner. Instead of over-extending and calling for actions the AG would be guaranteed to countermand--which would trigger Congressional intervention--he did the same thing, only in reverse by coming to no conclusion and thus not being able to recommend any action by the AG and took steps to make it very clear that was his position long before the final report.
So, he told the one guy who he knew was appointed to bury his report exactly what that guy wanted to hear long before completing the report, so that all Barr would be focused on when reading the report (if in fact he ever did) is that portion that seemed to confirm Barr's own bias.
Iow, it wasn't a punt so much as it was an onside kick, straight into the hands of Nadler, hopefully.
As Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under Obama and currently a professor at Georgetown University put it in a separate Politico piece:
ETA: I think it's also significant that Mueller didn't meet with Barr and Rosenstein over that weekend to go over the report. And Rosenstein--who appointed Mueller to begin with--would likewise know Barr's position and would be an effective way to "guide" Barr to trip the booby-trap, if you will and that's essentially exactly what we see happening in Barr's letter.
Barr makes note to reference Rosenstein seemingly in lock-step with his summation, particularly regarding how Mueller seems to punt on obstruction, but is actually saying that he could not come to a conclusion one way or the other on the matter.
So Barr took that opening and (with Rosenstein's assurance) inadvertently triggered the DOJ/Congressional guidelines by effectivley contradicting the Special Counsel's recommendation (or, in this case lack of foundation to make a recommendation either way).
That means the AG is effectively contradicting the Special Counsel, which triggers (3):
In this case, the "proposed action" by Mueller, was that there can be no action determined either way. So Barr's action--to conclude to not pursue obstruction--is in contradiction to Mueller's conclusion.
Last edited:
