SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump stepped off Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on September 1, 2020. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
Watchdog Leader: 'It Is Clear Why Barr Did Not Want the Public to See' Newly Released Trump Memo
The head of CREW—which fought for the document's release—said that "it twists the facts and the law to benefit Trump and does not comport with a serious reading of the law."
Aug 24, 2022
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Following a watchdog group's win in court last week, the Biden administration on Wednesday released an unredacted memorandum from 2019 about whether then-President Donald Trump obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russia's election interference.
Noah Bookbinder--president of the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)--highlighted that then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr pointed to the memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel to claim there was no justification for charging Trump with obstruction of justice.
"The memo presents a breathtakingly generous view of the law and facts for Donald Trump," Bookbinder said. "It twists the facts and the law to benefit Trump and does not comport with a serious reading of the law of obstruction of justice or the facts as found by Special Counsel Mueller."
\u201cGreat work by @CREWcrew\u201d— Jane Mayer (@Jane Mayer) 1661377721
As Bookbinder explained: "The memo is premised in large part on the argument that there was no underlying criminal conduct and that it's hard to charge obstruction without an underlying crime. Of course, that's not what Mueller actually found."
"Mueller found there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump and others with conspiring with Russia," CREW's leader continued. "He didn't find no crime, just not enough evidence for charges. Of course, Trump couldn't know about that future conclusion when he decided whether or not to obstruct."
He also noted that the document "takes an exceedingly cramped view of prior cases" and "relies on Trump's use of open-ended language [about] his 'hope' the investigation would be let go, and his delegation of firing prosecutors or narrowing investigations to others when he could have done it himself, as exonerating Trump."
\u201cThe memo also points to Trump\u2019s belief that the investigation was motivated to hurt him politically as somehow excusing his actions. It supports the chilling conclusion that any president can interfere with any investigation if they believe it could damage them politically.\u201d— Noah Bookbinder (@Noah Bookbinder) 1661374493
"The memo is not just wrong; it is dangerous coming from a usually respected office at the Department of Justice," Bookbinder added. "It is clear why Barr did not want the public to see it."
In a series of Wednesday tweets contrasting the memo with Mueller's report, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage said that the newly released document "reads like a defense lawyer's brief."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Following a watchdog group's win in court last week, the Biden administration on Wednesday released an unredacted memorandum from 2019 about whether then-President Donald Trump obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russia's election interference.
Noah Bookbinder--president of the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)--highlighted that then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr pointed to the memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel to claim there was no justification for charging Trump with obstruction of justice.
"The memo presents a breathtakingly generous view of the law and facts for Donald Trump," Bookbinder said. "It twists the facts and the law to benefit Trump and does not comport with a serious reading of the law of obstruction of justice or the facts as found by Special Counsel Mueller."
\u201cGreat work by @CREWcrew\u201d— Jane Mayer (@Jane Mayer) 1661377721
As Bookbinder explained: "The memo is premised in large part on the argument that there was no underlying criminal conduct and that it's hard to charge obstruction without an underlying crime. Of course, that's not what Mueller actually found."
"Mueller found there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump and others with conspiring with Russia," CREW's leader continued. "He didn't find no crime, just not enough evidence for charges. Of course, Trump couldn't know about that future conclusion when he decided whether or not to obstruct."
He also noted that the document "takes an exceedingly cramped view of prior cases" and "relies on Trump's use of open-ended language [about] his 'hope' the investigation would be let go, and his delegation of firing prosecutors or narrowing investigations to others when he could have done it himself, as exonerating Trump."
\u201cThe memo also points to Trump\u2019s belief that the investigation was motivated to hurt him politically as somehow excusing his actions. It supports the chilling conclusion that any president can interfere with any investigation if they believe it could damage them politically.\u201d— Noah Bookbinder (@Noah Bookbinder) 1661374493
"The memo is not just wrong; it is dangerous coming from a usually respected office at the Department of Justice," Bookbinder added. "It is clear why Barr did not want the public to see it."
In a series of Wednesday tweets contrasting the memo with Mueller's report, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage said that the newly released document "reads like a defense lawyer's brief."
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Following a watchdog group's win in court last week, the Biden administration on Wednesday released an unredacted memorandum from 2019 about whether then-President Donald Trump obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russia's election interference.
Noah Bookbinder--president of the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)--highlighted that then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr pointed to the memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel to claim there was no justification for charging Trump with obstruction of justice.
"The memo presents a breathtakingly generous view of the law and facts for Donald Trump," Bookbinder said. "It twists the facts and the law to benefit Trump and does not comport with a serious reading of the law of obstruction of justice or the facts as found by Special Counsel Mueller."
\u201cGreat work by @CREWcrew\u201d— Jane Mayer (@Jane Mayer) 1661377721
As Bookbinder explained: "The memo is premised in large part on the argument that there was no underlying criminal conduct and that it's hard to charge obstruction without an underlying crime. Of course, that's not what Mueller actually found."
"Mueller found there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump and others with conspiring with Russia," CREW's leader continued. "He didn't find no crime, just not enough evidence for charges. Of course, Trump couldn't know about that future conclusion when he decided whether or not to obstruct."
He also noted that the document "takes an exceedingly cramped view of prior cases" and "relies on Trump's use of open-ended language [about] his 'hope' the investigation would be let go, and his delegation of firing prosecutors or narrowing investigations to others when he could have done it himself, as exonerating Trump."
\u201cThe memo also points to Trump\u2019s belief that the investigation was motivated to hurt him politically as somehow excusing his actions. It supports the chilling conclusion that any president can interfere with any investigation if they believe it could damage them politically.\u201d— Noah Bookbinder (@Noah Bookbinder) 1661374493
"The memo is not just wrong; it is dangerous coming from a usually respected office at the Department of Justice," Bookbinder added. "It is clear why Barr did not want the public to see it."
In a series of Wednesday tweets contrasting the memo with Mueller's report, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage said that the newly released document "reads like a defense lawyer's brief."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.