Repost of two articles…
Pelosi says Barr believes Trump is ‘above the law’
By Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb, CNN, Tue March 26, 2019 12:23 PM ET
(CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told House Democrats in a private meeting Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr’s words cannot be taken at face value, according to multiple sources in the meeting, arguing Barr got the job in the first place by authoring a memo criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction probe as “fatally misconceived.”
Pelosi told her caucus that said Barr’s job is to defend the President, and Democrats should wait to see what’s in the full report.
“We have to see the report,” Pelosi said, according to an aide in the room. “We cannot make a judgment on the basis of an interpretation by a man who was hired for his job because he believes the President is above the law and he wrote a 19-page memo to demonstrate that.”
Pelosi also sought to calm her nervous colleagues as Democrats are facing a torrent of criticism from congressional Republicans and the White House after … [continued on CNN.com]
The Critical Part of Mueller’s Report That Barr Didn’t Mention
The special counsel’s most interesting findings about Trump and Russia might be in the counterintelligence portion of his report.
By Natasha Bertrand, The Atlantic, March 26, 2019 6:00 AM ET
On Sunday afternoon, Attorney General Bill Barr presented a summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions that contained a few sentences from Mueller’s final report, one of which directly addressed the question of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” In a footnote, Barr explained that Mueller had defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”
Mueller’s full report has not been made available to the public yet, so it’s not clear whether it sets forth everything the special counsel’s office learned over the course of its nearly two-year investigation—including findings about conduct that was perhaps objectionable but not criminal—or whether it is more tailored and explains only Mueller’s prosecution and declination decisions. But national-security and intelligence experts tell me that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump or his campaign team with a conspiracy is far from dispositive, and that the underlying evidence the special counsel amassed over two years could prove as useful as a conspiracy charge to understanding the full scope of Russia’s election interference in 2016. [Continued on theatlantic.com]