On Friday, March 23, 2019, Robert Mueller finished what he
was charged to do, which was a portion – not everything – of a vast, far-reaching
series of investigations. He turned over a report recapping what he did, and
(perhaps explicitly or implicitly) what he did not do, and what conclusions he
formed from that investigation. With the submission of that report, the
investigation moved out of his hands.
This report was always destined to be a letdown for its
political and mass audiences. Some portion of that audience was hoping to get a
secret spy story competing with Hollywood’s best. Others wanted a roll call of
lawbreakers – national and international – to be brought to justice at the
public docks. Still others were waiting for vindication of their political
hero, at long last defeating his antagonists with a vindictive “I told you so.”
In the end, none of these scripts worked out as anticipated. So what do we
truly know?
1. Only a few DOJ officials have actually seen “The Mueller Report.”
The rest of us have seen the “Attorney General Barr” report – Barr’s four-page
personal summary of Mueller’s findings. We know what Barr says did/did not
happen; we have no substantiated idea what Mueller actually found. Beyond
Barr’s four pages, all else is factually unknown. Given that Mueller’s report
is reputed to be greater than 300 pages long, it is perhaps a concern that Barr
could properly summarize it in just 36 hours after receiving it.
2. The official narrow charge to Robert Mueller was a) to
investigate whether Russia operatives interfered with our 2016 election, and if
so, b) whether members of the Trump campaign conspired with them to effect that
interference. If other areas of wrong-doing were discovered in the course of his
investigation, he was free to follow that trail and to refer such matters over
to regular DOJ offices for follow-up (as apparently happened with Michael Cohen),
but such avenues were not his focus. The exception to this scope was the added
question of c) did Donald Trump commit “obstruction of justice” by seeking to
undermine, impede, or block Mueller’s pursuit of his investigation.
3. According to the Barr report, Mueller concluded that: a)
yes, Russia did interfere. Almost three dozen indictments of Russians confirmed
that conclusion; b) no definitive evidence was found that Trump campaign
officials criminally conspired with the Russians to commit that interference;
c) whether Trump committed “obstruction of justice” was left unanswered – with
both yes/no evidence being found, the question was deferred to the Attorney General
to decide to answer. Barr has said no;
whether that answer is based on the evidence, or the DOJ’s 1974 internal
opinion (now policy, not law) against indicting a sitting president, is not
clear. (See previous essay, “Indicting A Sitting President,” March 9, 2019, on
this blogsite.)
4. Trump seized upon the Barr report as definitive, and as
usual, immediately lied about the findings. Trump correctly noted that Barr’s
report exonerated him with about Russian collusion, but he also claimed that it
cleared him of obstruction – which it most certainly did not. Barr has said he
will not prosecute Trump on that charge, but has not clarified the basis of
that decision. (Always playing the victim, Trump went one step further and lied
that the entire investigation was illegal, which it most certainly was not.)
5. All of this ambiguity reinforces the need to release
Mueller’s full report and supportive evidence, consistent with legitimate concerns
of national security and grand jury secrecy. Given Barr’s views of the laws and
power applicable to the presidency, as well as his written advance judgement
about the investigation, he should have recused himself from its oversight.
Coming into the investigation after the fact, appointed by the President being
investigated – a President who has consistently demonstrated minimal respect
for the law or DOJ/FBI agencies – makes Barr a non-credible interpreter of the
Mueller investigation.
6. Congress has requested a copy of the original Muller
report and supporting investigative materials, stating that Barr’s summary is
inadequate for proper information, assessment, and potential Congressional follow-up.
In his confirmation hearing, Barr committed to sharing the full report for
“transparency,” consistent with “confidentiality requirements and applicable
law.” This release needs to happen. It is reasonable that a review of the
extensive background materials will take some time, but “all deliberate speed”
should be the priority given the degree of unhelpful speculation that arises
out of the silence.
7. The troubling concern from this “conclusion” of the
Mueller investigation is the seeming many loose ends and unanswered questions
that remain from this process, and therefore what may come next – or need to
come next.
- It has been publicly acknowledged that several Trump
campaign and/or transition officials (e.g. Flynn, Don Jr., Kushner, Stone) had conversations
with Russian officials. If these conversations were so innocuous and
non-conspiratorial, then why did so many lie so frequently about them?
- There are several investigations and indictments over
Russian interference that are in process or not yet concluded by Mueller (e.g.
Flynn, Stone, Butina). What will happen to these, and who will complete these
actions? Barr has provided no guidance regarding these outstanding processes.
- Clearly some investigations have been handed off to, or
initiated by, various DOJ offices. These cases cover a wide range of issues
beyond Mueller’s original narrow charge. It is assumed that these cases will
continue, including those with “sitting president” complications. Again, the guidance
or decisions will Barr make regarding these legal processes is unknown.
- There are also federal and state investigations and
lawsuits regarding the defunct Trump Foundation, Trump Company real estate
dealings (tax, insurance and bank fraud), Emolument Clause violations, and
campaign finance violations against Trump and others. These also need to run
their course. The to-do list remains long.
- What ongoing, or new, investigations are occurring within the various field
offices, out of the public view, that we do not even know about?
The most disturbing thing about this end-of-investigation
phase, and the assessment thereof, is this: how can a top-level FBI
investigation conclude that there was no Trump campaign/Russia collusion, or no
obstruction of justice regarding that investigation, yet never have interviewed
the key campaign players of Don, Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and Jerod? Or, for that
matter, a live interview with Trump himself? Or, since supposedly
agents/prosecutors usually interview only witnesses, not the “targets” of an
investigation, is a different supposition warranted?
In the meantime, as this follow-up period unfolds, House
Democrats should pursue legitimate investigations of potential wrongdoing.
However, they need to focus their scope towards truly primary issues, not overreach
and scattershot their energies. (The Senate should be doing the same thing, but
this will not happen under the blind-eye rule of Mitch McConnell.) In the
meantime, Congress should remember that there is a government to run, and a
citizenry to serve – all of which has been done very badly the last several
years. If Democrats – or much of the country – are looking to remove Trump from
being the President, impeachment is not a feasible option (unless some far more
damaging and convincing evidence surfaces). It must happen at the 2020 ballot
box, and simply running an anti-Trump campaign will not be sufficient to win
that election.
We need to deal with facts – both from the past and those
still to come – not the speculation. The presidential storm may have paused,
but it is far from done. Only one of many investigations has concluded; there
are legitimate and necessary other investigations that need to continue. There
is still far more to come, and it ain’t over ‘till it’s over. Stay tuned.
© 2019
Randy Bell www.ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment