It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.”
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?