Dershowitz: Why did mueller punt on obstruction and why didn't rosenstein, recuse himself?

Love him or hate him, dershowitz is continually proven correct in his legal analysis. So when he asks why someone didn't recuse themselves, you ought to at least ponder the question. In this case that person is Rod Rosenstein. Why would Rod be allowed to decide whether trump obstructed justice when he would have been a key witness in such a case? This is yet another example of the deep state never following the rules as they were written and intended.

Rod rosenstein wrote the letter which trump used as justification (one of many) for firing comey. Firing comey was, presumably, a big part of the obstruction of justice case mueller had compiled evidence for and against. So why would a witness (someone trump publicly named) get to have any say in whether the subject should be charged?

Now maybe I'm reading the situation wrong and barr simply discussed the situation around which comey was fired, with rosenstein. Which led to barr (who is not conflicted) to conclude that rosenstein's witness testimony along with all of the info inside the mueller report was not significant enough to warrant an indictment. However, the way that the statement in the summary is written, it would seem barr and rosentein consulted together on this decision.

That seems highly inappropriate.

Here's the dershowitz tweet.

Mueller could not state obstruction, because he could be bias, so he left it up to someone else to evaluate that. He also would get bashed from one side or the other if he stated either no obstruction or obstruction, there was no win possible.

I see nothing in the fact that Mueller did not make a determination on that, he provided evidence that he had and he let someone else call that. The left was always stating in the news that Trump was obstructing justice, if Mueller said no, the Left would attack him like they throw others under the bus so often.

I am sure he does not disagree with AG Barrs determination, he is working with him to figure out what to release or not. I do not think Mueller is a bad guy, why would anyone start wanting the left bashing him for saying no actual obstruction of justice, the left is ruthless.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Oy vey!

It seems the firing was pretty light handed. Are we certain Comey wont be charged with unlawful behavior?

I think President Trump wants the public to see the report, because it will show what was going on behind the scenes. Someone needs to be brought to justice for treacherous traitor behavior and actions.

The show is not over yet. The fat lady is going to cry, before she sings. And sing ,she will!

Mueller decided there was no Trump-Russia Collusion in the Summer of 2017...just a few months after he started investigating. (Strzok was on Mueller's team. He reached that same conclusion in 2016, according to text msgs)

Therefore, Rosenstein broadened Mueller's "scope" to include investigating President Trump for Obstructing Justice, in a secret memo, on August 2, 2017.

Obstruction-hunt turned up empty, so as a last resort, Mueller tried to get Trump on PERJURY. The President's lawyers wouldn't let the President walk into that trap...thankfully.

Finally, A.G. Barr was sworn in, and started forcing a wind-down of the Mueller witch-hunt.

James Comey's memos, and additional related documents are supposed to be declassified this week. Those materials should validate that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to begin investigating Trump for Obstructing Justice.

Here's the story on that: theconservativetreehouse.com... l-1st/

He signed off on the FISA documents . Was involved in the Russia investigation early on .He wrote the memo to fire Comey. He appointed Bob Mueller. He made claims he was forced to write the memo on Comey ( implicating obstruction of justice ). In April 2018 he announced Trump wasn’t a target in the investigation. About a week later the New York Times broke a report( I bet they had a long time ) that he wanted to wear a wire on trump in early 2017 . Around a month after that Trump laughed it off . He wasn’t fired when Barr took office . He helped write the letter that cleared trump of obstruction of justice .

He’s plays both sides of the field yet continues to hold his position. If it wasn’t for the fact that there was a federal going on through all of that.

I would swear he was a C.I .

The sniveling manipulative little coward is a mystery.

So I guess we’re gonna have to wait for the moive.

Because I have no earthly idea .

I don't have the answer to this, either. Why Rosenstwin's role in this isn't given much scrutiny by the press is beyond me.

He seems to be a key figure in the deception, the "double-agent", so to speak, who liasoned with the SC AND the POTUS.

No one else was in such a position to aid the President and, if true, deceive him to further aid the Russian narrative.

Rosenstein wore two faces in a high-stakes gamble. His role in thia should be investigated by our media further.

The investigation went almost two years and reached and end.... No obstruction...

I would think if the investigation was stopped in someway we could suggest further investigation of obstruction would be warranted, but we had a never impede investigation that actually reached final conclusion.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Barr/Rosenstein/Mueller are working together (along with Intel leaders) to make the 400-page Mueller report legal for public viewing.

That's one fact the haters on CNN and MSNBC keep intentionally ignoring in their discussions.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Love him or hate him, dershowitz is continually proven correct in his legal analysis. So when he asks why someone didn't recuse themselves, you ought to at least ponder the question. In this case that person is Rod Rosenstein. Why would Rod be allowed to decide whether trump obstructed justice when he would have been a key witness in such a case? This is yet another example of the deep state never following the rules as they were written and intended.

Rod rosenstein wrote the letter which trump used as justification (one of many) for firing comey. Firing comey was, presumably, a big part of the obstruction of justice case mueller had compiled evidence for and against. So why would a witness (someone trump publicly named) get to have any say in whether the subject should be charged?

Now maybe I'm reading the situation wrong and barr simply discussed the situation around which comey was fired, with rosenstein. Which led to barr (who is not conflicted) to conclude that rosenstein's witness testimony along with all of the info inside the mueller report was not significant enough to warrant an indictment. However, the way that the statement in the summary is written, it would seem barr and rosentein consulted together on this decision.

That seems highly inappropriate.

Here's the dershowitz tweet.

Mueller's brief did not include obstruction of justice. His recent report was in regard to Russian interference in the 2016 elections and did not seem to stray from its brief.

It was general public speculation that there was a case for 'collusion' or obstruction of justice.

a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, that's incorrect. There's an entire section on obstruction.

a reply to: carewemust

CNN and the rest of the yahoos have no one to blame but theirselves for the new special counsel regulations . Bill Clinton was investigated under the “ independent counsel act “ that expired in 1999 .

When Ken Starr released his report in full it made slick Willie sound like a degenerate. I remember people saying it was the best dirty book ever released by Washington DC . Lol

The Democrats learned a lesson and Reno ( you remember her don’t you she kidnapped kids at gunpoint and sends them to Cuba) had the regulation re-written to our current special counsel rules. In order to hide all the future dirty deeds Democrats would do . By keeping salacious and investigative information out of the final report.

You’ve got to hand it to Democrats. They are the masters of karma. Almost everything they do comes back to bite them in the ass .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I hope when the Mueller report is published and Democrats complain about redacted sections, Republicans point to Janet Reno as the reason for this report not being 100% transparent, like the Ken Starr report was.

There was a guest on CNN who was LIVID that Congress wouldn't get an un-redacted version, like Ken Starr gave to Congress within 48 hours of its completion. At that time, I was wondering why Barr didn't do just what Starr did. Thanks to you FallingDown, I now know why. Thank-you!

a reply to: carewemust

No problem it’s not a big secret anyway. Every commentator, talking head, anchor and elected official in the Democratic Party/mainstream media knows the reason.

But hell they been lying for three years why quit now ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

But hell they been lying for three years why quit now ?

I don't think it's voluntary. I think it's their natural state. They couldn't quit if they wanted to.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Lol

It’s a reflex action. Kind of like a hiccup.

April 1, 2019

A related Update:

On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz stated that there isn’t any legal basis for a court to compel Attorney General William Barr to release the Mueller report, but he understands why people want to see the report.

Dershowitz said, “I think, even if Barr were hypothetically to refuse to issue anything, there would be no legal basis for a court to compel him to do that.”

He added, “The special counsel, under the rules, has an obligation to file a report with the attorney general. There’s nothing in the rules that require the attorney general to make the report public, particularly if it contains information critical of people who were not indicted. So, this is a political issue. This is a media issue. This is not a legal issue.”

Source: www.breitbart.com...

Nadler and Schiff say if they don't have the full Mueller report before Wednesday, they're going to subpoena the document.

a reply to: rickymouse

But that's an even bigger question.

Mueller knew this before he even began. Why would he go through with this if he knew it would go nowhere?

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: rickymouse

But that's an even bigger question.

Mueller knew this before he even began. Why would he go through with this if he knew it would go nowhere?

If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. He might as well get the big salary and bonus instead of giving it to someone else.

a reply to: rickymouse

Makes sense in some twisted sort of way.

Suppose that's why I'm not into politics. I couldn't play the part. Far too confusing.