White House lawyer blasted Mueller over obstruction decision

White House lawyer blasted Mueller over obstruction decision in April letter to Barr is the full headline.. shortened for ATS.

Buried in the news after the "RRREEEEEE heard round the world" that was the release of the Mueller report and Barr's descent into liberal hellfire came this report from White House lawyer Emmet Flood to AG William Barr.

White House lawyer Emmet Flood sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr in April complaining that special counsel Robert Mueller's report made "political" statements, according to multiple reports.

The letter was sent one day after Mueller's redacted report was released to the public.

In it, Flood described the Mueller report as suffering from “an extraordinary legal defect” and rebuked the special counsel for explicitly stating that his investigation did not “exonerate” President Trump on allegations of obstruction of justice.

The Hill Article

In it he made a few very good points, including this one...

“The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: It quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law,” Flood wrote. “Lest the Report’s release be taken as a ‘precedent’ or perceived as somehow legitimately the defect, I write with both the President and future Presidents in mind to make the following points clear.”

Flood took issue with Mueller’s statements on obstruction, arguing that “making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.”

In his report, Mueller wrote that his prosecutors could not “conclusively” determine that Trump did not commit a criminal offense and left the question of obstruction open.

“Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of ‘exonerating’ investigated persons,” Flood wrote. “In the American justice system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to ‘conclusively determine’ it” “Nor is there any place for such a determination.”

Bold mine.

For those who cannot make themselves click on a "The Hill" link, here is a CBS News article about the same. The letter in question is available on both links and well worth the read.

CBS News Link

After reading the letter and thinking about it for a bit, here are my first conclusions...

If you take the time to read the letter and go to the bottom of page 2 starting with...

The President therefore wants the following features of his decision to be known and understood:

The following three paragraphs outline the new rules of engagement.

It also sets up his use of Executive Privilege now that the Mueller report is over.

The final paragraph is a hint of where the President is going to go with the battle from here forward... finding the leakers, snaring the low-hanging fruit who have already told America on video that they leaked, turning them to get the next higher ups, then the next....

The Executive branch has declared war.

No wonder Democratic leadership and the PR arm of the DNC (the MSM) is trying to get rid of Barr By Any Means Necessary.

Any thoughts from those who take the time to read the Flood letter?

Levin read this on his show yesterday. Pretty direct and accurately paints Vol II as unnecessary and beyond scope of SCO.

In the end, the Left swung and missed. It’s now POTUS’ turn.

My fear, however, is that the IG report equally comes up empty (like Mueller) and the AG is last man standing at trying to get at the truth. With the Left yapping at him and trying to discredit anything he uncovers.

a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

I don't usually listen to talk shows so missed that completely.

However, I really don't mind Mark focusing on it because he's a pretty sharp cookie... I've read a few of his books.

And you are correct... the IG report is a "we'll see", no matter what people are saying about it.

I have a good feeling though...

a reply to: Lumenari

I'm of the rare breed here then cause i'm clicking on the link lol.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: Lumenari

I'm of the rare breed here then cause i'm clicking on the link lol.

Well, the letter itself is a 4 1/2 page PDF and a rather easy read.

I just gave another link for those who can't stand anything that isn't liberally biased as far as the attached article.

Trying to promote a discussion about the actual letter without being blasted about the source.

a reply to: Lumenari

I think you may be correct.

From your source.

These very public and widely felt consequences flowed from, and
were fueled by, improper disclosures by senior government officials with
access to classified information. That this continues to go largely
unremarked should worry all civil libertarians, all
supporters of investigative due process, and all believer in limited and
effective government under the Constitution.

It does seem as if he will go after the deep state.

a reply to: Lumenari

Thanks for that, love your posts.

a reply to: Lumenari

Read the article from the hill and was on page two of the pdf and got a work related call. So I just finished it. Very interesting read it was. Flood made some very good points. I don’t see this going over to well for those that are lost and enslaved by the msm though.
I had no idea that this letter existed till you posted this. Been really busy with work and the likes.
Sorry I don’t have much more to add since you pretty much summed up everything.

The entire Mueller Investigation was pocked with political scientific notations.

I would like to get ahold of all the paperwork generated because it's sure to be chock full of stuff that was omitted 😎

Stuff like damning evidence of Democrat sponsored collusion with several foreign governments and entities 😎

a reply to: Lumenari

Herr Muller is a Tool , to be Used for a Purpose . Still Trying to Figure Out what that is by the Way ...............Hmm.....

a reply to: Lumenari

The Hill receives the good/accurate leaks.

It was brought up in the Senate hearing; all we hear about is the spying on Trump. Is it a leap that the Dems were spying on other GOP candidates in the run-up to Trump winning the nomination?

a reply to: carewemust

Flood released the letter publicly at the same time he sent it to Barr.

Interesting isn't it... all the talk about it on the news?

Oh wait... the only thing I've seen it on when looking around is a short commentary by Juan Williams on Fox telling me to ignore it.

Bub...But...Republicans are guilty until proven innocent, only Democrats are innocent till proven guilty.

Didn't anyone get the memo....Perhaps the Republicans did not read the memo just like the Democrats refused to read the Mueller report that was redacted, but still questioned Barr even though they had no idea what the report said. But that is the right of the left, ignore anything you do not agree with, it makes it easier to trash who you are questioning.

We got a screwed up House, it needs to be cleaned somehow. Maybe a little spic and span is needed to effectively clean the sight of Democrats....Oh wait, Spic and span...that would be a racist statement.

a reply to: Lumenari

Hello !

I've never understood the "exonerated" statement. Like we found no collusion or obstruction but it doesn't exonerate him... so they believe somehow in some way Trump has committed a crime but they don't know what or how... guilty until proven innocent....

I'm wondering when we are going to say enough is enough and clean out this rat hole of a government and replace it with those that will have our best interest at heart. I for one am ready, willing and able... just can't do it alone.

a reply to: Lumenari

Mueller also said that he couldn't indict Trump, who he was unable to clear, because of the DOJ rule against indicting a sitting president, and tossed it over to the constitutional authority of Congress.

This is a predictable administration, once again trying to change the damning evidence in the report, by attacking Mueller and his team's work, for one thing or another.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Mueller also said that he couldn't indict Trump, who he was unable to clear, because of the DOJ rule against indicting a sitting president, and tossed it over to the constitutional authority of Congress.

This is a predictable administration, once again trying to change the damning evidence in the report, by attacking Mueller and his team's work, for one thing or another.

Tossing it over to the constitutional authority of Congress is like setting raw meat in a bear trap and the Democrats are the bears 😎

a reply to: Sookiechacha

" Mueller also said that he couldn't indict Trump, "

On What EXACT Evidence ? GYFOOH Chip on your Sholder Man ...........

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Mueller also said that he couldn't indict Trump, who he was unable to clear, because of the DOJ rule against indicting a sitting president, and tossed it over to the constitutional authority of Congress.

This is a predictable administration, once again trying to change the damning evidence in the report, by attacking Mueller and his team's work, for one thing or another.

~sigh~

It is not the job of a prosecutor to "clear" or "prove" that someone they are investigating is innocent.

Because in America you are presumed innocent unless it can be proven that you are guilty.

You didn't even bother to read the letter.

I did ask in the OP this...

Any thoughts from those who take the time to read the Flood letter?

I lost 5 seconds of my life reading your reply because I already saw it on CNN.