A!378 – Greenwald Report

3 Gedanken zu „A!378 – Greenwald Report“

1. Schade, dass Greenwald anführt, die eine Frage, die er Mueller stellen würde, wäre, warum er keine Entscheidung getroffen hat, ob oder ob keine Justizbehinderung vorliegt. Ab Minute 20:28: »[…] People think that Robert Mueller should have said in his report one way or the other […] and he kind of refused so – he left it up to other people to make that decision. And I think it’s a legitimate question to ask, why if he had investigated for 22 months […] didn’t he provide an answer.«

   Dabei hat Mueller im Report klar ausgeführt warum genau er diese Entscheidung nicht getroffen hat und nicht treffen konnte. Volume II, Seite 1 und 2:

   First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

   Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

   Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

   The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

   Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

   Just my 2 cent.

2. Um auf die Frage von Tilo Jung zu antworten, wie wir Eishockey-Fans Eishockey schauen.
   Ein kleiner Thread dazu. Ich bin seit 5 Jahren Eishockey-Fan, insbesondere der Kölner Haie.
   Und bin auch schon so lange auf die Livestreams der Telekom und die Live-Übertragungen bei SPORT1 angewiesen. Mit der Zeit gewöhnt man sich daran und wird geübt darin, den Puck sehen zu können. Meistens schaue ich Eishockey am Fernseher, oder auch auf meinem MacBook oder auch auf dem iPad.
   Liebe Grüße von einem Hai!

3. Wo war jetzt die versprochene Diskriminierung bei den Komponisten? Hab ich was verpasst?

Kommentare sind geschlossen.