PN>>19039367 Moar Barr. Durham to Rome/Mifsud

I found this FOIA'd document on Barr memo to Rosenstein on how Mueller was trying to push obstruction on President Trump and demand his deposition. Barr had a very lengthy letter of 19 pages saying a lot about OBSTRUCTION and how it doesn't apply (at that time), but details obstruction and if it can applied. He was very wordy about his defense of Pres. Trump at that time, examples below, and PDF. A lawfag would understand if this info applies to the Smith case. But it's obvious Barr seemingly doesn't understand the law now that he is opposed to Trump (Wasn't Weissman running the Mueller team, and also happened to compose a recommendation on how to prosecute Trump, that got sent to Smith and Lisa Monaco": Weissmann recommended obstruction at that time also)

MEMORANDUM 8 June 2018

To: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel

From: Bill Barr

Re: Mueller’s “Obstruction” Theory

_____

I am writing as a former official deeply concerned with the institutions of the Presidency and the Department of Justice. I realize that I am in the dark about many facts, but I hope my views may be useful.

It appears Mueller’s team is investigating a possible case of “obstruction” by the President predicated substantially on his expression of hopethat the Comey could eventually “let…go” of its investigation of Flynn and his action in firing Comey. In pursuit of this obstruction theory, it appears thatMueller’s team is demanding that the President submit to interrogation about these incidents, using the threat of subpoenas to coerce his submission.

Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction. Apart from whether Mueller a strong enough factual basis for doing so, Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived. As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and ==would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive

Branch==.

As things stand, obstruction laws do not criminalize just any act that can influence a “proceeding.” Rather they are concerned with acts intended to have a particular kind of impact. A “proceeding” is a formalized process for finding the truth.In general, obstruction laws are meant to protect proceedings from actions designed subvert the integrity of their truth-finding function through compromising the honesty of decision-makers (e.g., judge, jury) or impairing the integrity or availability of evidence testimonial, documentary, or physical.

Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying, altering, or falsifying evidence all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any otherofficial can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. __Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding – does not involve commission of any of

these inherently wrongful, subversive acts__.

LINK TO FULL FOIA'D PDF

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6818452/DOJ-OIP-18-1015-A.pdf