The Mueller Report: My Summary, My Take May, 2019 Ron Stockton
I read it. All 448 single-spaced pages. It was long but I was never bored, not even once. Here is my summary and my thoughts on the main points:
Overall Conclusion: There was massive Russian
involvement in the 2016 election, extensive efforts by Team Trump figures to encourage and benefit from that
involvement, and extensive perjury and obstruction efforts during the investigation to conceal that involvement. The Report begins with a conclusion: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Not pulling punches here.
First, by way of orientation, the report is broken into two parts.
Part I is the Russian effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 election (definitely!) and the question of whether members of Team Trump cooperated in any way with Russian persons. Answer: They did, and many of them are indicted, convicted, or cooperating. (The report lists them). Just this morning I heard the then-head of DNI Clapper say that when they saw members of the Trump team making contact with persons they had under security surveillance, they were very concerned. My assessment: Almost every fish who is going to jail over this has already been brought into the net in one way or another. The President’s “people” (his term) are entangled but the President himself appears to have escaped this. Part II focuses on efforts to obstruct the investigation into Part I. Here there is massive evidence of obstruction in multiple ways and in multiple cases. The President is definitely entangled. Often he is the Big Enchilada, to borrow from Watergate. Where perjury is concerned, it is noticeable that all the lying runs in one direction, efforts to cover up or obstruct connections to Russia. If I were the President, I would be very concerned about what happens the day after the next President is sworn in.
Thought: If Donald Trump were the CEO of General Motors or the President of the University of Michigan, he would now be under indictment and facing almost certain conviction. However, as President, he is exempt from prosecution while in office. He dodged a bullet where links with Russia were concerned, but he was deeply involved in obstruction of justice. Mueller explains why they
prosecuted many of his allies and followers, and why they decided not to submit even sealed indictments against the President.
Thought: I never believed that the President would be removed from office. That would take 12 Republican Senators to defect. But this is not 1974 when most Republican Senators were ready to dump Nixon. [Five remained loyal according to Barry Goldwater]. If there are three today willing to vote to remove I would be surprised. This may change but right now they are terrified of Trump.
Missing Witness: As far as I can tell, the Trump financial manager Allan Weisselberg, who was granted immunity and is fully cooperating with the investigation, was not mentioned in the report. Given that he may well be the single most significant witness where criminal prosecution for financial irregularities are concerned, this omission is a silence that speaks. Or even shouts.
Second, the two parts have Executive Summaries of the main conclusions. The first is 7 pages long, the second 6 pages. It was Mueller’s intention that these be released immediately, with the full report released after review. (The first summary has seven possible redactions, the second three. Mueller has subsequently said that he does not believe that revealing these would do harm).
Note: If anyone wants a Cliff Notes version of the report, those 13 pages are a good place to start. The longer sections present the evidence but the Executive Summaries present the conclusions.
The decision of Attorney General Barr to hold back those Executive Summaries but to release his own summary produced a strong responses from Mueller. Mueller sent Barr a letter (now public) saying that Barr had distorted “the context, substance, and nature”) of the report, created confusion, and threatened to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the investigation. It also allowed the president to crow that the report had found “no collusion” and “no obstruction.” Neither of these is an accurate statement of what is in the report. Barr has subsequently criticized Mueller for not submitting a yes/no
recommendation on indicting the president. (Mueller has an extensive discussion why he was unable to deliver such a judgment).
Third, the report includes very interesting discussions of the legal issues involved. Not everyone would want to read these sections but I found them very valuable. Part I has a discussion of why the term “collusion” is not meaningful in a legal sense. The President says he was found not to have engaged in this offense, but Mueller says it is irrelevant to their investigation. A legal concept is conspiracy: a secret cooperation between two or more people to engage in an action that is illegal and harms the rights of another person.
The second legal discussion has several parts. He discusses the rules under which a prosecutor brings a case to court. 1) The prosecutor is convinced the person is guilty. 60-40 and let the jury sort it out is not acceptable. 2) The prosecutor is convinced the evidence is so overwhelming that the jury will bring in a guilty verdict. If the prosecutor is convinced the person is guilty but thinks the jury might get confused and not convict, then the case is not brought forward. 3) There must be a public interest in the
prosecution. 4) There must be a consideration of alternative outcomes.
Regarding indicting the president, the Prosecutor was guided by the opinion of the Department of Justice that a president cannot be indicted while in office. Mueller did not discuss the merit of this position but just accepted it. (Attorney General Barr has been criticizing Mueller for not bringing indictments if he thought they were warranted. This is disingenuous).
might happen) then a principle rule of due process and justice would be violated, that an accused person can mount a defense to rebut the accusations. Because the president could not stand trial until after his term ended, he would have to stand accused without being allowed a defense. (At this point, I became convinced that Mueller was being very sensitive to the rights of the President as a person).
Fourth, redactions. There are four types of redactions: In the hands of a grand jury, Harm to an ongoing investigation, personal privacy, and intelligence source. The privacy issue has to do with innocent persons mentioned who are not suspected of wrongdoing. Even mentioning their name would do harm. The grand jury issue is standard policy. Grand jury investigations are sealed, perhaps forever. If they bring an indictment the matter can be presented in court. In the Nixon case, some grand jury material was turned over to the Judiciary Committee on the grounds that the president cannot be indicted so the information would die unless transferred. A federal court supported this decision. Still, sealing grand jury material is not controversial. The third type of redaction is the most interesting: Harm to Ongoing Matter. There apparently are over a dozen ongoing investigations. Revealing names or
information might harm those investigations. The White House must be terrified at who or what is under investigation. The final matter involves security. Revealing this detail or name would compromise “an investigative technique.” This may mean that some secretary in the Kremlin or some oligarch’s office is helping out, or that the Defense Intelligence Agency has a high powered wiretap that tells us about Putin’s conversations. (When a Russian intelligence operation was hacked, a Russian official was quoted as saying to someone, there is confusion in our office. We have been hacked
Here are some specific incidents.
General conclusion: “In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired by the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” P. 173
Two key Russian organizations. GRU is the Russian military. It hacked into the accounts of DNC and Clinton campaign. It created Guccifer 2.0 as a front and forwarded hacked emails to WikiLeaks.
IRA: This was a group funded by a Russian oligarch. They engaged in “active measures” to influence the outcome of the election. They created Instagram and Facebook accounts. Their twitter accounts reached “tens of thousands” of followers, “including multiple U.S. political figures who re-twetted IRA-created content.” They had 470 Facebook accounts that made 80,000 posts. These accounts reached 126 million persons. Twitter discovered 3,814 accounts. They notified 1.4 million person that they may have been compromised by these accounts. There were definite contacts between IRA and “individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.” P. 14.
Overall goal of the Active Measures: “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary Clinton and the rest {except Sanders and Trump –we support them.” P. 23.
WikiLeaks: WikiLeaks was in regular contact with Guccifer 2.0 which had been using twitter to release hacked material. WikiLeaks suggested that they “send any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” P. 45.
Putin’s help or remains rich because they work with Putin. The richest man in all of Russia lost his wealth and ended up in prison when he crossed Putin. These oligarchs, some of whom spill over into Ukraine and other former Soviet states, can do things that will not leave Putin’s fingerprints. Mueller reports there are fifty of these who meet with Putin every three months. They say that whatever he suggests, they know constitutes an order: This would be a good idea; If that happened it would be very helpful; I wonder if there is any way to help X? When DJT says he had no contacts with the Russian government (he always uses those words very carefully) that tells us almost nothing.
Stupidity is a Defense: In June 2016 there was the Trump Tower meeting. Donald Jr. had received an email saying “Crown prosecutor of Russia … offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealing with Russia.” This was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” To this, Donald Jr responded, “If it’s what you say I love it.” He then met with Russian officials and brought along Manafort, Kushner, and others. Mueller notes that it is clearly illegal to engage with foreign agents or foreign governments. Moreover, they were offering what amounted to valuable opposition research, and it is illegal to accept any contributions from foreign persons or governments be it in cash or kind. ($2,000 is a misdemeanor, $25,000 is a felony). So why is Donald Jr. not in jail? The answer left me smacking my forehead. Unlike what happens when you get a ticket (Gee, Officer. I didn’t realize the speed limit was 35. I’m sorry) ignorance of the law in this case is a defense. To violate the law prohibiting foreign contributions, you have to 1) know it is against the law and 2) be willingly violating the law, which you may not know exists. I am thinking to myself that any person of normal intelligence would know that taking assistance from foreigners, especially those who look as if they just got out of a low-budget spy movie, is against the law. But Donald Jr. was spared for this very reason.
Ongoing: The Trump Tower discussion is filled with Grand Jury redactions. One or more people are in deep dudu.
Eric Prince: This is the Michigan son who created Blackwater. He is the brother of Secretary of Education DeVos. The discussion of Prince and his secret meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian agent (we just bumped into each other) is so compromising that one wonders why he is not already in jail. The discussion of his dealings is filled with redactions involving “Grand Jury.” Oh, my.
Another Person: In the Prince discussion, there is reference to another person who is being tracked by a grand jury. There are over three pages of redactions in this section. Someone is in deep dudu.
Admissible Evidence: At several points the report says we could not move for an indictment because of the lack of “admissible” evidence. Translation: this person is guilty but we cannot reveal how we know that without giving up sources. Someone gets a pass that they do not deserve.
Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell: The investigation assumes that anyone on the way to prison is going to lie. They will not accept anything they are told unless it can be corroborated with other
testimony. Consider their comment on Paul Manafort, Trump campaign manager and unregistered secret Ukrainian agent. “We have generally recounted his version of events in this report only when his
statements are sufficiently corroborated to be trustworthy.” P. 52.
Missing emails: Trump officials “deleted relevant communications” and used “encryption” to conceal communications. But they still want to find out about Hillary’s missing emails.
Israel: Foreign Policy Adviser Papadopoulos was an “unregistered agents of the Israeli government.” The investigation “revealed significant ties” but not enough to prosecute. Hmm.
Electronic interference in the campaign: This section had ten pages of redactions. It’s not over until it’s over.
Kilimnik, Manafort business partner, is a Russian intelligence asset. P. 133.
Stupidity a Defense, Part II. DJT was in denial about Russian involvement. “During the briefing, President-Elect Trump asked Deputy NSC Advisor McFarland if the Russians did ‘it,’ meaning the intrusions intended to influence the presidential election. McFarland said yes, and President-Elect Trump expressed doubt that it was the Russians.” The report includes other such incidents. P. 171. Timing is everything: The disruption campaign released hacked information selectively and
strategically. Three days before the Democratic Convention, they released 20,000 hacked emails. One hour after the apparently campaign-ending ACCESS Hollywood tape came out (DJT “grabbing” women), WikiLeaks released the Podesta emails. They successfully changed the agenda of the media.
Mueller, Report Two, On Obstruction
Mueller wrote two reports. The first was on Russian involvement in the 2016 election, the second focused on efforts to obstruct the first part. This second part is 159 pages long.
The report begins with an explanation of why they did not feel they could bring indictments of the President, or even say that he should be indicted. But remember that in the first report, the investigation indicted several people but concluded that the President did not violate the law. Reading this passage (which has been misquoted and misrepresented by the President’s supporters, including the Attorney General), the reader should keep that earlier conclusion in mind.
So why did they not indict the President? They five five reasons: “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” 1) given legal opinions from the Justice Department that indicting a sitting president is not permitted. 2) A president can be investigated while in office and prosecuted after leaving office 3) We decided “to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” 4) We decided not to conclude whether or not the President “committed crimes.’ 5) Concluding that “crimes were committed but no charges brought” affords “no opportunity for public name-clearing.” “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president
also does not exonerate him.” Paraphrase: If we thought the man was innocent or falsely accused we would say this, as we did with other cases in this investigation. We are not saying that. P. 1-2.
The full statement: “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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 application of legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Note how carefully worded this is. If we though he was not guilty we would say so. We are not saying so. Remember that in Part I, the report said the President had not conspired with Russians. Mueller is clearly willing to exonerate the President. He did not. And he explained why.
Two things to Remember:
Article II. Article I of the constitution outlines the powers of Congress. Article II outlines the powers and responsibilities of the President. When the report refers to Article II powers this is what it means. White House Counsel: A key figure mentioned throughout is Don McGahn, the White House Counsel. This is a central position and McGahn was a key witness. He is quoted over 140 times in the report. The WHC is charged with protecting the integrity of the Presidency. He is not the President’s attorney. His conversations with the President are not protected by Attorney-Client privilege. P. 117.
Specifics on Obstruction from the Executive Summary:
1. From the beginning, DJT said Russia was not involved in hacking Clinton and DNC files. It was. 2. He denied having business in or connections with Russia. He definitely did.
3. Regarding FBI Director Comey and National Security Adviser Flynn: Flynn falsely denied Russia contacts. After he left, the President said, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” Then he asked Comey to “let Flynn go” in the investigation.
4. He asked Deputy NSC Advisor McFarland to create a memo that he had not asked Flynn to lie about Russia contacts. She would not.
5. Trump asked White House Counsel McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing and then asked him to have Sessions “unrecuse.”
6. He asked the DNI, CIA and NSA to head off the FBI investigation and “lift the cloud” with statements that DJT had nothing to do with Russia election interference. They would not.
7. Trump told the Russian ambassador the pressure had been “taken off’ by firing Comey.
8. Trump called McGahn at home and told him to tell Sessions that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn prepared to resign rather than create another Saturday Night Massacre. He went to his office that weekend to box up his things and to write a resignation letter. His Deputy also prepared her resignation letter. He believed Sessions might also resign. Trump backed off.
10. Regarding Trump Tower meeting with Russian agents. Trump told aides to conceal emails. He denied editing out of Donald Jr. draft statement a sentence about an offer of Russian support. He denied he played any role in that statement.
11. Called Sessions at home and urged him to reverse his recusal. Urged him to investigate Hillary. 12. White House Aides urged McGahn to deny Trump told him to remove Mueller. He was told to create a memorandum of conversation that would show he did not tell him that. He refused.
13. Trump said Manafort was being treated unfairly and refused to rule out a pardon. He praised Manafort for being “brave” and for refusing to “break.”
14. He urged Cohen to “stay strong,” privately sent messages of support, and discussed a pardon with his attorneys.
Conclusion: “We did not make a traditional prosecutorial decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President’s conduct.”
1. The President has Article II powers [a president can fire an appointee] but he has “unique and powerful means” to influence proceedings, subordinate officers and witnesses. These are “relevant to a potential obstruction of justice analysis.”
2. Traditional obstruction cases involve efforts to cover up a crime. We have no evidence the president committed “a crime related to Russia interference,” but there are “other possible motives” that may motivate obstruction.
3. Many efforts to influence witnesses, etc. took place in public. That is unusual but “if the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.” Note: When Cohen flipped, Trump called him a “rat” and alluded to possible crimes his family had committed, and suggested that “flipping” [i.e., cooperating with the prosecutor] should be outlawed.
Possible Obstruction fell into two phases. 1) Interactions with Comey when Trump was not a target and 2) Special Counsel when his own behavior came under investigation. At that point he made public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts both public and private “to encourage witnesses not to cooperate.”
Constitutional Issues: Is the president exempted from obstruction because of his exceptional
constitutional powers? No. A President cannot bribe a witness or suborn perjury [i.e. encourage lying]. Such conduct “does not implicate his constitutional authority” i.e., obstruction is not part of his
constitutional obligation to carry out his duties. The law prohibits a president’s “corrupt use of his authority.” Acting corruptly means “intent to obtain an improper advantage,” i.e., “shielding himself from criminal punishment” or “avoiding financial liability” or “avoiding personal embarrassment.” P. 8. Note: Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about cheating on his wife, clearly not a matter of state. What is Obstruction? 1. It refers to anything that “blocks, makes difficult, hinders” an investigation. 2. “An improper motive can render an actor’s criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority.” 3. There must be a “nexus,” i.e., connected to official proceedings such as a criminal or congressional investigation.
home alone without an alibi and you get your best friend to say you were together watching television, that is obstruction, even if they later catch the real thief and clear your name.
Six examples of possible obstruction, p. 12.
1. President’s private dinner with Comey in which the President asked for Comey’s loyalty, one day after President had been told of Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador (which he denied).
2. President’s meeting with Comey in which he asked Comey not to pursue investigation of Flynn. 3. President’s request to Comey to make a public statement that the President was not subject of an FBI investigation.
4. President’s outreach to intelligence chiefs about FBI’s Russia investigation.
5. President’s stated rationales for firing Comey which suggest action was motivated by FBI’s Russia investigation.
6. President’s involvement in a statement about Trump Tower meeting that it was about adoptions, and his removal of reference to Russian offer of aid.
“We also sought a voluntary interview with the President. After more than a year of discussions, the President declined to be interviewed.” Then [Redacted: Grand Jury, Redacted: Grand Jury]. P. 13 “A false description of an encounter can imply a consciousness of wrongdoing.” P. 14
Flynn’s Lies Compromise him: “The public statements of incoming Administration officials denying that Flynn and [Russian ambassador] Kysliak had discussed sanctions alarmed senior DOJ officials, who were aware that the statements were not true. [DOJ officials were “really freaked out about it,” FN]. Those officials were concerned that Flynn had lied to his colleagues – who in turn had unwittingly misled the American public – creating a compromise situation for Flynn because the Department of Justice assessed that the Russian government could prove that Flynn lied. The FBI investigative team also believed that Flynn’s calls with Kislyak and subsequent denials about discussing sanctions raised potential Logan Act issues and were relevant to the FBI’s broader Russian investigation.” Note: Logan Act prohibits private citizens from foreign policy negotiations. Flynn met before the administration took office. P. 30
Trump during television interview with Lester Holt. “I was going to fire [Comey] regardless of
recommendation… [Rosenstein] made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I ws gong to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself – I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” P. 73.
`“The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia…But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI
information about future WikiLeaks releases. More broadly, multiple witnesses described the President’s preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concerns that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.” p. 76. [That redaction must be scary for the White House].
McGahn was ordered to tell Rosenstein to remove Mueller. The President called multiple times and said, “Mueller has to go” and “Call me back when you do it.” McGahn went to his office that Sunday to pick up his belongings and to submit his resignation letter. His Deputy also prepared to resign. As did Chief of Staff Priebus. P. 86. Wow! Another Saturday Night Massacre.
Trump Tower meeting. Hope Hicks, communication officer, warned Trump that the emails were “really bad” and that the story would be “massive” when it breaks. P. 101
Diversion: The President’s attorney told the NYT that the Democrats might have set up that meeting to blame the President. P. 103.
“On July 12, 2017 the Special Counsel’s Office (REDACTED Grand Jury) related to the June 9 meeting and those who attended the meeting” Trump Jr (Redacted Grand Jury). P. 105. Oh, my.
Tweet to Sessions. When the President accused Sessions in August, 2018 of not being in charge of the Justice Department, Sessions responded that “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in…While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political consideration.” The President then tweeted the following: “Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the ‘other side’ including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strok, Page, Ohr, FISA abuse, Christopher Steels & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, Illegal surveillance of Trump campaign, Russia collusion by Dems – and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting.” P. 111.
Why Attack Sessions for recusing? Fact: The Attorney General is required to be non-partisan. Trump believed that the Attorney General is traditionally a political appointee who is loyal to the President and will protect him. A more loyal AG would make this investigation go away. “A reasonable inference from those statements and the President’s actions it that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia
investigation.” P. 113.
Manafort to Gates: “In January 2018 Manafort told Gates [Manafort business partner, Deputy Campaign Manager, and head of Republican Finance Committee] that he had talked to the President’s personal counsel and they were ‘going to take care of us’. Manafort told Gates it was stupid to plead, saying that he had been in touch with the President’s personal counsel and repeating that they should ‘sit tight’ and ‘we’ll be taken care of.’ Gates asked Manafort outright if anyone mentioned pardons and Manafort said no one used that word.” Then in late 2018 the President said it was “very brave” of Manafort not to “flip.” Asked about a pardon for Manafort, he said, “It was never discussed, but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?” Then follows nearly three pages of Redactions entitled “Harm to Ongoing Matter.” P. 123 and 128 plus.
searched home, hotel room and office. President said FBI “broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys – a good man.” President called Cohen and told him to “hang in there” and “stay strong.” 145-46. When Cohen discussed possibility of a pardon with President’s personal attorney he was told “to stay on message and everything would be fine.” P. 154. Once Cohen began to cooperate, the President renounced him as a “rat” and expressed concern for his family and their possible legal exposure. His words sounded like something James Cagney would have said in a 1930s mob movie.
Conclusion: “The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen’s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.” P. 154.
Conclusion: “In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements.” P. 155
Denial of any business interest in Russia: “The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen’s false statements to Congress. Cohen discussed the project with the President in early 2017 following media inquiries. Cohen recalled that on September 20, 2017, the day after he released to the public his opening remarks to Congress -- which said the project “was terminated in January of 2016” – the President’s personal counsel told him the President was pleased with what Cohen had said about Trump Tower Moscow. And after Cohen’s guilty pleas, the President told reporters that he had ultimately decided not to do the project, which supports the inference that he remained aware of his own involvement in the project and the period during the Campaign in which the project was being pursued.” P. 155.
Conclusion: Attacking the Investigation: “Soon after he fired Comey, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President’s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials, and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.” P. 158.
was abusing his powers. President Trump -- trying to cover up his hound-dog behavior or his financial deals with Russia – was not acting to protect the country but to protect his own behavior and to avoid personal embarrassment. P. 179.
Concluding passage: It is important to remember three things to understand this final paragraph (which I quoted above in full). The first is that Mueller felt he did not have the authority to make a “binary decision” on whether Trump should or should not be indicted. The second is that as he sees it, a
prosecutor brings evidence and a jury decides whether a person is guilty. A prosecutor can conclude that the evidence is strong but cannot conclude that a person is guilty. The third thing is that a prosecutor can conclude that a person is NOT guilty by pointing out that there is no evidence to support a conclusion of guilty. In Part I he had no reluctance in concluding that Trump was NOT guilty of conspiracy with Russia. Remembering those three things, now read the concluding observation: “”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 we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The President’s Testimony. The President refused to appear in person to answer questions but he submitted thirteen pages of responses. He said at the time that he had written these responses himself without help from attorneys. Liar, Liar, pants on fire. These responses were written to avoid perjury. They told nothing. Twelve times he acknowledged that he remembers something but 29 different times he said, “I do not recall” or something similar. This is reminiscent of John Mitchell during Watergate saying, “I have no independent recollection at this point in time.” Mitchell ended up in jail. Five times Trump said that his calendar revealed something. Three times he referred to an email or document. Four times he said the media had reported something. Once he said he was joking (about asking Russia to help out with hacking). These responses were worthless.
Personal Conclusion: As I stated above, a CEO of GM or the President of the University of Michigan who had this evidence against them would be under indictment, facing almost certain conviction, and would be begging for a plea agreement that would spare jail time. In fact, the former President of MSU actually IS under indictment for covering up actions far less serious and pervasive than these. The evidence in Report II is powerful and compelling. It is couched in cautious language -- “the evidence would support the conclusion” – but that is just the decision of Mueller to present the evidence and memories while they are available and fresh and wait for others to bring formal charges. This is a powerful indictment of a sitting President.
Thought: This document would be an excellent text for a course in law, evidence, due process, constitutional authority, and the limits thereupon, and separation of powers.
Thought: If the President had done what any other president had done there would be no crisis. Suppose he had issued the following statement: “The intelligence heads have just briefed me on the extent of Russian interference in our election. This is shocking and outrageous. I have just spoken to the President of Russia and let him know that this has done serious harm to our relationship. I have told our
Update: Not only did Attorney General Barr not release the two non-sensitive Executive Summaries but he released a statement that seemed to exonerate the President. He said that the report “Identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct.” This statement was so inconsistent with the findings of the report that a few weeks later over 800 former Department of Justice Prosecutors, a healthy mix of Democrats and Republicans, issued their own statement. They said that if the President were not the President he would be indicted for obstruction. Here are their actual words: “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.,”
Mueller Farewell Statement, May 29, 2019
When Mueller officially resigned from his position, and closed the investigation he made a public statement. It seemed that he wanted it to be his last word on the matter. It is unlikely that he will be allowed to let the report speak for itself.
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our
investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election. These indictments contain allegations.
And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation.
The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned.
When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report.
The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.
The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.
Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.
Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.
And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal
justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General – as required by Department regulations. The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself – no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress.
Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.
