The much-touted Mueller Report (Report on
the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)
was publicly released on April 18. One
of my friends read it and blogged on it right away (https://linnposts.com/2019/04/25/the-mueller-report-and-the-fate-of-the-nation/). He probably read it a lot more carefully than
I did. It took me longer to get to the
report and it took me longer to get through it; I skipped the footnotes and skimmed some sections. However, I read enough to have formed some
conclusions.
First, note the title refers to the “Russian Interference in
the 2016 Presidential Election,” and that is the main focus. However, Mueller was charged with pursuing
other criminal activity that arose in the course of the investigation. Thus, the entire second volume is devoted to possible
obstruction of justice by President Trump.
Volume One amounts to 199 pages; Volume II, 182 pages. There are lots of redactions, so the actual
number of pages to read is somewhat less.
The redactions often leave one guessing as to what we don’t know yet,
but there is enough information to substantiate the main claims in the Report.
As has been widely
reported Mueller found multiple attempts by Russian officials to interfere in
the election (1) by a social media campaign designed to sow division in the
electorate and favor the Trump candidacy, and (2) by contacting Trump campaign
workers to offer negative information, or “dirt,” on Hillary Clinton. Some of those Russian officials were
indicted. As we know, Mueller did not
find (enough) evidence of criminal conspiracy by the Trump campaign and Russia
to issue an indictment on those grounds.
The Report makes clear that they could not conclude that no conspiracy occurred but rather that, while evidence of conspiracy existed, it did not rise to a strict enough legal level or it was not sufficient to charge anyone in court.
At one point the report states that because certain campaign officials made false statements (lied), or took the Fifth Amendment, or deleted records, the Office was unable to paint a complete picture of campaign contacts with Russian officials:
“Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” (V.I, p. 10)
My biggest take-away from Volume I is, if there was no criminal conspiracy, coordination, or “collusion,” why did so many Trump campaign officials lie, take the Fifth, or delete records? What were they covering up? Even Trump has suggested that when someone takes the Fifth, they must be guilty: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5
Though the Office was unable to charge anyone with
conspiracy or violations of federal campaign laws, it did charge certain Trump
campaign officials with lying and obstructing justice:
“The Office determined that certain
individuals associated with the Campaign lied to investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia
and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation…the
Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements
and obstruction offenses. “ (V. I, p. 191)
Also, given the wealth of documented evidence of Russian interference, why is our government not doing more to prevent it from happening in future elections? It is astounding that we seem to be accepting this practice as the status quo.
“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 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.” (V. II, p. 8)
Furthermore, “The President' s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so.” (V. II, p. 158)
My main take-away from Volume II is that there are grounds for impeachment. Whether that is a politically expedient course for the Democrats to pursue is questionable, but there is little doubt in my mind, based on the multiple, documented cases in the Report of Presidential attempts to impede or obstruct the investigation of his campaign that impeachment would be the Constitutionally appropriate action to take.
Those who know me know that I identify as a progressive and vote Democratic (in most cases). If you question my reading of the Mueller report as politically biased, I refer you to, perhaps, a more neutral summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report
Or, read the full report here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2C51tCRpU0u7Bq3AJ6reyjl7tSO8JLhtRSST9EcW_olAc-9ArlZ5Adb7I
Finally, I was surprised when I told people that I was reading the Mueller Report, how often I was met with silence. Was it that people did not want to get into a political conversation? Did my conservative friends (I have a few) fear we would get into an argument? Or were they aware of how damaging the report is to their conservative hero, Donald Trump? Did my liberal friends feel like they’d heard enough about it, and were possibly sick of the whole thing? Are they just exhausted and disgusted by the lack of outrage and action in response to the findings? I don’t know, but I found it striking how little interest folks took in discussing it. Perhaps they felt they had already heard enough about it.
Regardless, it is troubling how dismissive, even “ho, hum,” some folks seem to be about what, to my mind, are shocking revelations about our current administration that are well documented and well established in the Report. In addition to my deep concern about the corruption, incompetence, deception, dysfunction, and outright ignorance of our current administration, I am deeply worried that, as an electorate, we may have become inured to the lowest standards of ethics, intelligence, and general quality of performance.
Perhaps a lot of folks are just holding their fire until the next election. We can only hope.
-->
