Please verify: It is the job of Congress, not AG Barr,

[BigmanPigman]

to decide what the conclusion of the report is. I have heard this all day long. So why is everyone acting like Barr is the final word on the investigation and the conclusion?

[Socal31]

1. The Senate isn't going to remove him

[Mister Ed]

2. I don't think that was the question posed by the OP. n/t

[Hoyt]

5. It's part of the answer. Unless Barr lied, Muellers' report won't change Senate votes.

I'm focusing on the election where voters become the deciders.

Barr will voluntarily, or by force, release the report. If it turns out he's lied about findings, that might change things. Democrats need to stay on top of that, but I agree with some of the damn talking heads -- we "need to be careful not to overplay our hand, at this point."

[Socal31]

6. Sure it is. And I've seen enough of your posts to know youre intelligent.....

......and understand the point I was making.

[Mister Ed]

11. I just re-read the OP two more times.

It's pretty brief and concise. Just asks whether it's the job of Congress or the AG to decide what the report's conclusion is. Looks as though that question was answered in post #3 below.

I sincerely can't see how the OP is asking whether the Republican-dominated Senate is likely to convict and remove Trump if he's ever impeached.

[CentralMass]

4. That should not hamper the House from bringing articles of impeachment if they are warranted.

Let the Senate Republicans explain their no votes.

Impeachable acts should be entered into the record, if no other reason to document how corrupt our government has become.

[Socal31]

8. I agree.

I am just getting worried at how much energy is being expended by us on removal, with no path to the big payoff. 2020 is where our enthusiasm is best allocated, imo.

I'm sure I'm over-reacting since this is all fresh news...I'll try to avoid GD and stay in DP to clear my mind.

Cheers

[CentralMass]

12. +1

[Iliyah]

3. It is congress' job not Barr.

The report must be submitted to the House. I know Senate will not request it with Graham in the lead.

[BigmanPigman]

7. Then that is what we and the media must focus on.

Let Congress(the House) do the job we elected them to do and treat Barr's "whatever you want to call it" as a biased opinion and nothing else. It is basically meaningless and should be treated as such.

[J_William_Ryan]

14. Mostly true.

The administration has completed its self-investigation, which was the Mueller probe.

House Democrats will likely move ahead in earnest now with their investigation.

Having the comprehensive findings of Mueller’s investigation would certainly be helpful and facilitate the Democratic investigations, but those findings are otherwise not necessary to those investigations.

In essence, the administration was given the opportunity to provide an honest accounting to the American people as to what exactly happened during the 2016 General Election, the Trump campaign’s role in the election, and how the administration conducted itself after the election.

The administration has clearly elected to do none of the above.

Now the responsibility falls to House Democrats to do what the Trump administration failed to do, and likely has refused to do.

This is why it was unwise for Democrats to invest so much in the Mueller probe, and why being disappointed or frustrated is unwarranted.

[BigmanPigman]

17. Well said!

[regnaD kciN]

10. I'm not sure it's anybody's "job"...

See, the "special prosecutor" law that enabled the probe into Watergate, but also into Whitewater, expired some time ago. When Mueller was appointed, it wasn't under this statute. Instead, he had to be a "special investigator" working as part of the DoJ (in other words, as part of the Trump executive branch). At the time, AG Sessions had recused himself, so AAG Rosenstein was in charge of the investigation, and Mueller was to report to him. That changed, of course, when Sessions resigned and Barr was appointed to replace him. At that point, Mueller essentially became Barr's employee. He was to report to Barr and (this is something that not too many people are noticing) recommend any possible indictments to him for approval. When Rosenstein was Mueller's boss, he appears to have OKed a number of indictments. I don't see any having been made following Barr's ascent. But, in any event, the report was only for, first Rosenstein's, then Barr's eyes. He was required, as part of the appointment, to submit a summary of it to congressional leaders, but he could otherwise sit on the actual report and never let anyone see it.

That's what we're looking at now. Democrats in the House want the entire report. Barr will likely only provide a severely "redacted" version. It's probable the whole thing will wind up in the courts. If it gets to the SCOTUS, the deciding vote on whether to allow its release may well be cast by...Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course, I would expect the House to launch its own investigation, but that might involve starting from scratch. And, now that the major media has spread the narrative of "NO COLLUSION! CASE CLOSED" far and wide, will anyone be paying attention?

[BigmanPigman]

13. So we and Congress won't see it unless SCOTUS allows it first?

[uponit7771]

20. Yes people will pay attention, over 80% of Americans wanted to see the full report and congress ...

... voted 420 to zipp.

People will be paying side attention to it like Nixon as long as dems frame this correct and Harris has already started !!

[uponit7771]

19. +1, Dems should laser focus on this one point !!! It wasn't Barr's job to conclude that !!!

[unblock]

9. I don't think that's entirely correct.

Certainly congress can choose to impeach or conduct further investigations base on the report.

But I think the ag can choose to pursue (or not) more indictments. Bring a Donnie hack, he obviously isn't, but I think he that is a decision he can make.

[J_William_Ryan]

16. Or

the House can choose to impeach or conduct further investigations based on its own findings of evidence, independent of Mueller’s report or Justice.

It’s understandable that so much intense emphasis was given to the Mueller probe, as it was the ‘only game in town’ – Congress wasn’t going to investigate the consequence of both the House and Senate being controlled by Republicans at the time.

[unblock]

18. Right. Mueller's scope was very narrow.

[Azathoth]

15. This is spin. Barr is the final legal word. Congress is the final political word.

The DOJ prosecutes criminals. Impeachment, despite attempts dress it up otherwise, is a political process. Congress can decide a "high crime and misdemeanor" means whatever they want it to mean.

[uponit7771]

21. Then in that case it doesn't matter what the Mueller report was going to say if Barr is going to

... be the decider.

This doesn't make sense, the whole point of the SC was to keep political lackies out of the equation right?

Thx in advance

[Azathoth]

22. Uh, yes, that's how it works

Barr is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He makes the calls, epecially if the SC punts to him.

The SC is part of the DOJ, which means he ultimately answers to AG. Barr, and before him Rosenstein, could have shut Mueller down at any point. They also could have overridden Mueller's actions if they felt he was out of line. The only reason Trump himself couldn't fire Mueller with the stroke of a pen was because of the federal rulemaking process, not because the SC possessed any independence from the (non-recused) AG.

This is what we are left with after the Independent Counsel statute was allowed to expire.

[uponit7771]

23. Ah, OK... SC is not an Independent Counsel. So why have a special council at all ? Just to

... keep red don from firing Mueller in this instance?

Thx in advance

[Azathoth]

24. Yup, pretty much

As long as it was a standard investigation, Trump could easentially obstruct it at will. Once it was handed to the SC, it was insulated somewhat from the White House. But it was never insulated from Rosenstein and Barr.