An important point: The Executive Branch cannot investigate itself.

[kentuck]

That is the job of Congress.

AG Barr had no authority to give his conclusions, which were not accurate, to the American people. It was another abuse of power by the Executive Branch. It was not his job to judge the results of the investigation. His job was to give the information to the Congress.

In my opinion, he has done great harm to the separation of powers within our government.

By our Constitution, it is the duty of Congress to offer oversight of the Executive Branch.

They have thrown a wrench into the workings of our government.

The Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.

[LovingA2andMI]

1. Congress....

The US House, needs to put IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE --- and you're right on everything else.

[Quemado]

2. Floating an idea: maybe the Founding Fathers should have made DOJ a separate branch of government

to prevent conflicts of interests like the one we have now.

[meow2u3]

6. I've been thinking the same thing

There ought to be a fourth branch of government independent of the other 3 branches. Let's call it the investigative branch, subject to Congressional oversight.

Personally, I think the AG ought to be elected by popular vote, but with this GOP voter suppression, we might end up "electing" a far right nutcase who'd protect repuke privilege over the rule of law.

[MineralMan]

3. I'm sure the House, at least, will try to get to the bottom of it.

Here's the thing, though: It will take a lot of time to do that. How much time? Think 2020, really. In 2020, we're going to have to switch over to the Presidential, House, and Senate races. While House committees will be holding hearings, hopefully public hearings, there's an election coming up.

Bottom line: Trump skates on this. He's not going to leave the White House unless we vote him out. That's the upshot of what we know about the Mueller investigation. Other stuff will come out, no doubt, but not in time to change things before November 2020.

We're going to have to rely on the last option we have - electing Democrats to Congress and electing a Democratic President. It's now up to the voters to make the changes. The system isn't going to do it.

And those are the facts we have to deal with.

[FBaggins]

4. I don't think that's a useful starting point

The investigation itself was the executive branch investigating itself. The FBI's investigation prior to Mueller was also the executive branch investigating itself.

How could Congress even get the word that an investigation was needed when the entire intelligence community is part of the executive branch?

And, of course, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate for the first two years.

AG Barr had no authority to give his conclusions, which were not accurate, to the American people. It was another abuse of power by the Executive Branch. It was not his job to judge the results of the investigation. His job was to give the information to the Congress.

It's important to note that what you're saying is a philosophical "how it should have been" argument. Under current law and DOJ regulations (including under Obama), he had the authority and responsibility to do just what he did (with the possible exception of currently-unfounded claims that he went rogue and created a work of fiction rather than summarizing Mueller).

[kentuck]

8. There were contradictions within the Barr letter...

Especially about obstruction of justice. We really do not know what Mueller thought of the obstruction issue?

[FBaggins]

9. My take on Mueller and the obstruction issue

I'm not sure what contradictions you're talking about... but re: Mueller from an earlier post:

It's probably too early to bring this up, but I think Mueller was doing us a favor (and doing so intentionally). If he did make the prosecutorial decision (rather than punting to Barr), he almost certainly would be forced to say that no charges were warranted - because he had already concluded a lack of an underlying crime and couldn't get to motive because he couldn't get Trump to testify.

The best thing that he could do in those circumstances is to say that it's an open question. Yes, that gives Barr an opportunity to answer the question... but it also means that Congress gets to question that determination and gets to bring the facts to light with their own investigation/allegations.

The bad news is that few here on DU appear to understand how hard an obstruction charge would be in these circumstances (because they don't understand the legal standard for the crime)... but the good news is that the public doesn't understand the difference either. "He fired Comey because he wanted the investigation to go away" is not obstruction if he actually believed that he didn't do anything that needed investigating and it was all a witch hunt... but it sure sounds like it is. Democrats in Congress will be on the side that is much easier to sell to the public... and Mueller's strategy made that possible.

[kentuck]

10. Good points!

But it is a tad diificult to square the circle with Barr's comments about obstruction in his 19-page memo job interview?

[Wounded Bear]

5. Which is why past administrations tried to maintain separation...

between the office of the presidency and the DoJ.

Of course, that is just based on 'customs and norms' and has no bearing on Repub behavior.

[tableturner]

7. They'll do whatever they want to do, and we won't stop it!

Why? That's the way it is 99% of the time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. True. With Barr in control of Justice and justice and

impeachment off table our only recourse now are the state courts. Barr controls SDNY too right?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. But even if they did Pelosi

Is against impeachment. Hate to sound defeatest...but isn't that a big roadblock? Investigate for truth but realize there won't ever be punishment?