WASHINGTON — In the days since Attorney General William P. Barr wrote to Congress describing the still secret report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, a mystery he introduced remains pressing: Why did Mr. Mueller take no position on whether President Trump obstructed justice?
Mr. Barr spoke briefly by phone on Wednesday with Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the House Judiciary Committee chairman, who has criticized Mr. Barr’s decision to step into the gap left by Mr. Mueller’s team and clear Mr. Trump himself. Mr. Nadler has called on Mr. Barr to swiftly turn over the entire Mueller report, but he said it was “apparent” after they spoke that the Justice Department would not meet his April 2 deadline and that he would not commit to making it public without redactions.
“We’re not happy about that, to put it mildly,” Mr. Nadler said.
In the meantime, Mr. Barr’s letter offered scant clues. He wrote that Mr. Mueller decided not to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” about whether the evidence was sufficient to establish whether Mr. Trump committed a crime but did not explain Mr. Mueller’s reasoning, beyond quoting the special counsel as stating that the question raised “difficult issues” of law and fact.
Nor did Mr. Barr say whether Mr. Mueller intended for him to step in and immediately render a judgment, or whether the special counsel instead believed Congress should decide how to proceed on the question without the Justice Department weighing in — at least for now.
It is a crime to subvert an official truth-finding proceeding, like a grand-jury investigation, with a bad motive — like covering up personal wrongdoing or embarrassments. Obstruction can be a crime even if investigators fail to prove any underlying criminal offense.
As a matter of criminal law, Congress has made it a felony, punishable by 20 years in prison, to obstruct or impede any official proceeding, or try to do so.
As a matter of constitutional law — the type in which a president can be impeached for “high crimes” and removed from office by Congress — no written definition or standard exists for obstruction. But both presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings in the modern era, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton, were accused of that offense, among other things.
Mr. Barr did not specify. But he said that “most” of Mr. Trump’s actions investigated as potential obstruction of justice were “the subject of public reporting” and that “many” of them “took place in public view.”
A litany of the president’s actions that have come to light includes: unsuccessfully pressuring James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end an investigation into the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn; firing Mr. Comey and then telling the Russian ambassador that the dismissal took “great pressure” off the president over Russia; excoriating Justice Department leaders over the Russia investigation; making at least two aborted efforts to fire Mr. Mueller and shut down the inquiry; and dangling pardons in front of potential witnesses.
Though nothing in the Constitution says a president cannot be indicted and criminally prosecuted while in office, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has opined that presidents are temporarily immune from criminal charges during their terms. That interpretation of the Constitution is disputed, but it is binding on Justice Department prosecutors — most likely including Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Barr wrote to lawmakers that he did not rely on this idea when he declared the evidence insufficient to accuse Mr. Trump of illegal obstruction. But Mr. Barr did not say whether a factor in Mr. Mueller’s decision to sidestep the question was the awkwardness that would flow from making any informal accusation that the president committed a crime without a way, for now, to resolve the matter through a trial.
Obstruction usually takes the form of corrupting evidence, like destroying documents or suborning perjury. Though made in impeachment proceedings, not criminal charges, the accusations against Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton both fit that category.
But the actions by Mr. Trump that attracted scrutiny instead center on his exercise of presidential powers over the criminal justice system. This raises a constitutional question: May Congress make it a crime for a president to exercise executive authority in a corrupt way? Doing so would subject the motivations behind a president’s decisions to second-guessing in court.
Many legal scholars say that obstruction laws do apply to a president who abuses his powers to corruptly impede an investigation, arguing that the Constitution does not put the president above the law. But supporters of a stronger vision of executive power, including Mr. Trump’s legal team, disagree. No court has ruled on this issue.
Mr. Barr, who has also long espoused a robust vision of executive authority, wrote an unsolicited 19-page memo last June for the Trump administration that strongly pushed the view that obstruction statutes cannot constrain a president’s exercise of his constitutional powers — regardless of his intent. One of the many things that remain unclear is whether Mr. Barr’s view of executive power played a role in Mr. Mueller’s decision to sidestep any conclusion about obstruction.
Mr. Trump’s defenders, including his legal team, have objected to accusations that his actions impeded the Russia investigation. They disputed Mr. Comey’s understanding that Mr. Trump was tacitly directing him to end the Flynn investigation and noted that firing the F.B.I. director does not end any particular investigation the bureau is pursuing.
Mr. Barr’s terse explanation of his own reasoning — his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, concurred, he said — emphasized the difficulty in proving Mr. Trump’s intentions. He stressed that while it was not dispositive that Mr. Mueller had found no illegal conspiracy with Russia for Mr. Trump to cover up, the president should be given the benefit of the doubt about his motives when interpreting ambiguous evidence.
Still, Mr. Barr did not address other reasons that Mr. Trump may have had for wanting to stymie a searching look at his actions during the presidential campaign: that it might uncover other crimes or embarrassing acts, like his scheme with his personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen to pay hush money to a pornographic movie actress claiming to have had an affair with him, and the continuing inquiries into his financial dealings that also spun off from Mr. Mueller’s investigation.B:
今晚开马报结果查询“【国】【防】【军】？【专】【门】【的】【破】【壁】【者】【部】【队】？”【夏】【北】【问】【道】。 【虞】【娜】【点】【了】【点】【头】。 【夏】【北】【摇】【摇】【头】，【就】【和】【当】【初】【拒】【绝】【祁】【峰】【一】【样】，【干】【净】【利】【落】【地】【拒】【绝】【道】：“【如】【果】【换】【做】【别】【的】【什】【么】【机】【构】，【我】【说】【不】【定】【就】【跟】【你】【去】【了】。【可】【偏】【偏】，【你】【说】【是】【军】【方】……【抱】【歉】，【我】【没】【兴】【趣】。” “【你】【跟】【军】【队】【有】【仇】？”【虞】【娜】【眼】【睛】【眯】【了】【起】【来】，【寒】【光】【一】【闪】。 “【算】【不】【上】【有】【仇】，”【夏】【北】【垂】
【忽】【的】，【房】【间】【内】【突】【然】【开】【始】【剧】【烈】【晃】【动】，【房】【顶】【好】【像】【要】【掉】【下】【来】【一】【样】，【而】【脚】【下】【的】【石】【板】【仿】【佛】【承】【受】【不】【了】【任】【何】【重】【力】【一】【样】【开】【始】【松】【动】。 【众】【人】【脸】【色】【一】【变】，【身】【形】【皆】【是】【七】【倒】【八】【歪】【的】。 【陆】【刃】【厉】【声】【道】：“【都】【别】【乱】【动】，【冷】【静】，【一】【会】【儿】【就】【过】【去】【了】。” 【谢】【靖】【亦】【脸】【色】【已】【经】【黑】【的】【随】【时】【要】【爆】【发】【了】，【她】【大】【吼】【道】：“【谁】【乱】【动】【东】【西】【了】，【听】【不】【懂】【话】【吗】？【都】【说】【了】【让】【你】【们】
【过】【了】【两】【个】【小】【时】【后】，【所】【有】【的】【有】【时】【间】【的】【明】【星】，【名】【人】，【都】【到】【达】【杜】【园】。 【而】【由】【于】【这】【次】【晚】【会】【的】【特】【殊】【性】，【所】【以】【宫】【家】【也】【是】【让】【海】【城】【的】【五】【大】【娱】【乐】【媒】【体】【的】【代】【表】【人】【进】【入】【到】【了】【场】【所】【里】。 “【欢】【迎】【各】【位】【来】【到】【我】【们】【宫】【家】【的】【晚】【宴】【现】【场】，【很】【高】【兴】【各】【位】【可】【以】【来】【捧】【场】，【在】【这】【里】，【我】【先】【谢】【谢】【在】【座】【的】【各】【位】【了】。” 【宫】【家】【明】【穿】【着】【一】【套】【自】【己】【最】【喜】【欢】【的】【深】【蓝】【色】【西】【装】，【拿】
【李】【侃】【觉】【得】，【再】【回】【到】【学】【校】【的】【萧】【群】【更】【难】【让】【人】【接】【近】【了】。 【怎】【么】【形】【容】【呢】，【他】【想】【不】【出】【来】，【就】【是】【特】【死】【气】【沉】【沉】【的】【那】【种】。【除】【了】【对】【上】【他】【偶】【尔】【还】【有】【点】【情】【绪】，【能】【和】【他】【说】【两】【句】【话】，【其】【他】【人】，【别】【说】【搭】【茬】【了】，【那】【就】【是】【连】【表】【情】【都】【欠】【奉】。 【这】【样】【下】【去】【半】【年】，【李】【侃】【实】【在】【忍】【不】【住】【了】。 “【兄】【弟】，【你】【这】【样】【不】【行】。” 【经】【常】【性】【的】【皱】【眉】，【使】【他】【连】【抬】【头】【纹】【都】【过】【早】【的】今晚开马报结果查询【为】【了】【进】【一】【步】【提】【升】【学】【生】【对】【毒】【品】【危】【害】【的】【认】【识】，【增】【强】【学】【生】【识】【毒】、【防】【毒】、【拒】【毒】【的】【能】【力】【和】【禁】【毒】【文】【明】【意】【识】，【筑】【牢】【校】【园】“【防】【毒】【墙】”， 2019【年】11【月】6【日】，【东】【盛】【小】【学】【邀】【请】【到】【吉】【林】【省】【女】【子】【强】【制】【隔】【离】【戒】【毒】【所】【警】【官】、【长】【春】【禁】【毒】【宣】【讲】【团】【讲】【师】【王】【葳】【琪】，【进】【行】【以】“【珍】【爱】【生】【命】 【远】【离】【毒】【品】”【为】【主】【题】【的】【青】【少】【年】【禁】【毒】【知】【识】【宣】【讲】。
“【我】【宣】【布】，【从】【今】【天】【起】，【大】【陆】【开】【启】【了】【新】【纪】【元】，【由】【我】【们】【灵】【族】【开】【始】【统】【领】！” “【我】【们】【已】【经】【杀】【死】【了】【魔】【王】【阿】【斯】【蒙】【蒂】【斯】，【封】【印】【了】【在】【战】【争】【里】【残】【存】【的】【魔】【族】！” “【我】【们】【灵】【族】【的】【伟】【大】，【已】【经】【通】【达】【天】【宇】【苍】【穹】！” “【为】【此】，【从】【今】【天】【起】，【我】【们】【将】【废】【弃】【灵】【族】【的】【称】【号】，【以】【后】，【你】【需】【要】【叫】【我】【们】，【神】【族】！” “【我】，【初】【代】【神】【王】，【哈】【皮】·【海】【纳】，【在】【这】
【李】【赤】【水】【一】【愣】：“【我】【几】【时】【说】【过】【这】【话】？” 【封】【舟】【道】：“【你】【休】【要】【耍】【赖】！‘【那】【日】【我】【吃】【了】【一】【个】，【就】【把】【那】【个】【石】【头】【狮】【子】【搬】【进】【院】【子】【里】【来】，【还】【把】【那】【棵】【树】***’，【这】【话】【是】【谁】【讲】【的】？” 【李】【赤】【水】【这】【话】【原】【来】【是】【背】【着】【封】【舟】【说】【的】，【也】【不】【知】【怎】【么】【被】【封】【舟】【听】【了】【去】，【一】【时】【间】【颇】【为】【尴】【尬】，【不】【过】【他】【毕】【竟】【是】【小】【叫】【花】【秃】【子】，【脸】【皮】【厚】【的】【很】，【当】【即】【眨】【巴】【眨】【巴】【眼】【睛】：“【就】
“【你】【们】【看】，【那】【人】【是】【谁】，【衡】【阳】【半】【仙】【和】【战】【城】【主】【都】【要】【站】【在】【其】【身】【后】。” “【咦】，【那】【两】【个】【身】【穿】【铠】【甲】【的】【好】【像】【是】【华】【羽】【岭】【王】【府】【的】【明】【连】【和】【明】【理】【军】【将】，【八】【年】【前】【我】【见】【过】【他】【们】【的】【风】【采】，【他】【们】【两】【人】【可】【都】【是】【羽】【化】【半】【仙】【的】【存】【在】。” “【你】【们】【瞎】【啊】，【那】【人】【是】【华】【羽】【岭】【王】【府】【的】【镇】【军】【王】【爷】，【那】【可】【是】【一】【尊】【真】【正】【的】【仙】【人】【啊】！” “【那】【看】【样】【子】【与】【镇】【军】【王】【爷】【对】【立】【的】【白】【跑】