The Media

Michael Zeldin is a Denier


Michael Zeldin is a Denier | Victor Takacs


Barr overstepped his authority and undermined the integrity of the Mueller investigation

by CNNs Michael Zeldin

(CNN)—US Attorney General William Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress summarizing the principal conclusions reached by special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have gone well beyond what the special counsel regulations authorize.

On their own initiative, and with no apparent authority in the regulations, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the evidence that the special counsel provided was not sufficient to establish that President Donald Trump committed an obstruction of justice offense.

In his four-page letter, Barr explained that the special counsel’s decision to describe the facts without reaching any legal conclusion left it to the Attorney General to determine whether the President’s conduct constituted a crime.

Barr’s action, however, appears to be in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the special counsel regulations — that is, to have a special counsel who is not a political appointee and who is independent of the Department of Justice make the decision whether to charge a crime.

This independence is especially important, where, as here, the attorney general appears to have had a predetermined point of view on whether Trump’s actions could amount to obstruction of justice. (Barr, as a private citizen, wrote a memorandum to Justice Department officials in June 2018, saying that Mueller’s obstruction inquiry was “fatally misconceived.”)

Mueller’s decision that he lacked sufficient evidence to make a criminal charging decision, however, is a decision. There is nothing in the special counsel regulations that would appear to authorize the attorney general to make another decision.

The appropriate course of action would have been for Barr not to have made a determination about whether Trump could or would be prosecuted for obstruction.

Instead, Barr should have transmitted Mueller’s full report to Congress for Congress to consider the next step — whether the evidence that Mueller assembled may be worthy of evaluation in a potential impeachment investigation. Lack of a determination of criminal liability does not resolve the question whether the President’s conduct and intentions constituted an impeachable abuse of the powers of his office.

Free State of V’s Analysis (Victor Takacs)

Mr. Zeldin would have used his time in a more productive manner had he decided not to write this article. It is virtually meaningless. According to the Regulations of the Special Counsel, he or she works as an independent entity of the Department of Justice. Furthermore, he or she is an immediate subordinate of the Attorney General. In other words, he or she answers to the Attorney General. It is the responsibility of the Special Counsel to refer prosecution or exoneration pertinent to the subjects of its investigations.

On the question of obstruction of justice related to the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and the Russia Collusion Investigation as a whole, Mr. Mueller does not refer President Trump for prosecution, nor does he exonerate him. This is reckless as it leaves open to Democrats and their media surrogates an ability to report whatever they want to report regarding this matter to the American people. The Regulations of the Special Counsel are quite clear on this issue. Mr. Mueller as Special Counsel, is the responsible party when it comes to all final decisions about investigations. Mueller’s indecisiveness on obstruction thus clears the president of this charge. While it is not explicitly written in the Regulations of the Special Counsel, one would have to infer that the Attorney General, as boss over the Special Counsel, is responsible for tying up the loose ends of the report not properly decided upon. 

Mueller’s purposeful indecisiveness on obstruction creates a dangerous precedent. The justice system of the United States allows for any individual being charged with a crime the opportunity to defend him or herself in a court of law. Mueller usurps the president’s power to defend himself legally in a court of law by being neutral on the exoneration vs.  prosecution question regarding obstruction. Thus the opening of the opportunity to try the president in the court of public opinion without the ability for him to properly defend himself comes into existence. This is why Attorney General Barr did what he did. He had to decide something the Special Counsel should have decided, and at the same time be fair and just to the duly elected President of the United States. 

The Special Counsel is not an elected official, thus he is beholden to no one. However the president serves in his capacity according to the electoral will of the American people. He is responsible for appointment of the Attorney General. Thus Barr’s decision-making is a reflection of the will of the American people.    

The fact of the matter is that obstruction of justice should have never been investigated. How was there obstruction of justice? If there was no crime (Russia Collusion) to obstruct, then there can be no obstruction. Furthermore, at no point in Mr. Mueller’s investigation did anyone make an attempt to thwart or obstruct the investigation as a whole.

Regarding the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the president is justified in his actions. The FBI is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The  Department of Justice is under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The President of the United States is the Head of the Executive Branch. The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president. Comey is not a person of good character. He exonerates Hillary Clinton despite the mountain of evidence the FBI had to file charges on her. He uses the fake Russian Dossier so as to put pressure on President Trump in certain situations as well. Comey is also a known leaker and liar. Moreover evidence continues to mount at the present time that points to the fact that Comey may have been complicit in aiding in the effort to to mislead FISA judges so as to secure warrants needed to surveil the Trump Campaign.   

Liberals would still be complaining even if President Trump were sentenced to death. Perhaps the only thing to shut them up would be his death, but even that may not be enough. Mr. Zeldin would like the Mueller Report in full delivered to Democrats in Congress. Fine. The House of Representatives can attempt to impeach the president based on zero evidence in the Mueller Report. Still the Democrat majority will do their best to get it done. Impeachment proceedings in the House would be a waste of time. With the Republican majority in the US Senate, conviction is impossible. As was the case with President Clinton, impeachment in the House with no conviction in the Senate would send the president’s approval rating through the roof. It would guarantee his reelection in 2020. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Impeachment is the only option. Go for it Dems! 

Looking at this 78,000 ways to Sunday, every scenario has Trump as the victor and the Dems as the loser. This is why Mr. Zeldin wasted his time. 

CLICK HERE: Attorney General’s Summary of Mueller Report

CLICK HERE: Regulations of the Special Counsel


1 reply »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.