Did they hijack the plane?
by digby
A number of things Bill Barr said in his testimony has led to the suspicion that he shut down the Mueller investigation. His weird insistence that if you can’t charge you can’t investigate (meaning the only thing you can do is clear a president since they can’t be charged) along with his comment that if you decide to just lay out the evidence “it’s time to pull up” certainly hint at that possibility.
Emptywheel notes that there’s a good chance Rosenstein was pressing to do that even before Barr came on board:
Bill Barr’s admission the other day that he and Rod Rosenstein started talking about how to deny that Trump obstructed justice on March 5, long before even getting the Mueller Report, has raised real questions about whether the two men pushed Mueller to finish his investigation (even though the Mystery Appellant and Andrew Miller subpoenas were still pending).
But I’ve started wondering whether Rosenstein — the guy who promised Trump he’d “land the plane” while he was trying to keep his job — hasn’t been pressuring Mueller to finish up even longer than that.
At the beginning of Manafort’s breach hearing, Andrew Weissmann described how this plea deal was different from most normal plea deals.
There were two points that I wanted to make to the Court. There are a number of subparts to them.
But, the first point has to do with sort of the context in which we operated at the time that we entered into the agreement. As the Court will recall, the agreement was entered into just shortly before the trial was to commence before this Court, and it was after three proffer sessions. And then, of course, there were many debriefings after that. And a couple things about that timing that are relevant.
One, at the end of the third proffer session, before entering into the agreement, we had made clear to the defense that we were willing to go forward. But, that given the limited opportunity, and yet the need to make a decision because of the eminent [sic] trial, we wanted to make clear to the defense that, of course, we were going in with good faith.
But we could not say at that point that we either could say the defendant was being truthful or that the defendant was going to be able to meet the substantial assistance prong. In other words, two parts of the agreement.
Of course, I think everyone was hopeful that all of that would be met. But we wanted to make it clear to the defense that they weren’t being misled in any way as to what we were thinking.
And the second component of that is, I think, something unusual — there were two factors that were unusual in this case compared to, I think, the cases that all of us at this table have had in the past. One was, there’s enormous interest in what I will call — for lack of a better term — the intelligence that could be gathered from having a cooperating witness in this particular investigation. And that would account for the Government agreeing to have Mr. Manafort cooperate, even though it was after a trial. Because that’s certainly an — not — not — it’s not that that never happens, but it’s more atypical.
By the same token, there was an unusual factor — the second unusual factor, which was [redacted] the normal motives and incentives that are built into a cooperation agreement.
To sum up, it was unusual because:
- They didn’t do all the vetting they would normally do before entering into a plea deal,
- There was a big push to avoid the September 2018 trial
- They entered a plea deal when they weren’t sure about Manafort’s reliability in part to get intelligence, not prosecutorial information
- Another factor, which is redacted, which by context is likely to be Trump’s floating of a pardon
In other words, there was great pressure to enter into this plea deal that led them not to do the vetting they would normally have.
There’s more at the link.
I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that Barr shut down Mueller, would they?
.