Saturday, July 20, 2019

Some Thoughts on the Mueller Report


It took me a while, but as of Friday I can say—unlike most Americans and unlike 99 percent of Republicans in Congress—that I have read the entire Mueller report. I figured it was my civic duty. So now, since I invested that much time in getting informed, I figure it’s also my civic duty to offer a few observations.
1. This is not easy reading. There’s a lot of legalese in it. And a lot of the detail was reported accurately by the “fake” news, so there were few surprises. But it was well worth reading.
2. Trump and his campaign perhaps did not conspire or coordinate with the Russians, but they were aware of their interference and welcomed it, rather than reporting it. Which says something about how they view the law (something to ignore).
3. While no Americans “knowingly” or “intentionally” supported the IRA’s efforts (IRA is Internet Research Agency, a Russian entity), many unwittingly furthered the IRA’s objectives. They got duped. This is important for all sides, because next time around, it could be the Democrats who get used by the Russians.
4. The election was close. A few thousand votes in three states made the difference. A Russian Facebook campaign that reached as many as 126 million persons and a twitter campaign that reached as many as 1.4 million certainly had an effect.
5. The Russian objective was to sow discord in American politics, which furthered Putin’s larger objective of undermining democracy here and around the world. He obviously felt that Trump would help fulfill this objective. He also sought to defeat Clinton, so he also supported Sanders in the primary. Which brings up an interesting question: In a face-off between Sanders and Trump, who would the Russians support? Probably Trump. See next point.
6. The chaos that Trump brings furthers Russian objectives. When he is gone, either in 2020 or in 2024, which candidate will the Russians support in order to bring down democracy? Or will China also get into the game? What if they support opposite sides? I think we’re in for a rough ride, because the Trump administration has done nothing to combat foreign interference in our elections. He can’t bring himself to admit there was Russian interference because it casts doubt over the legitimacy of his election, which it should. But his inaction opens the door for more interference in the future. Hold your hat.
7. The evidence of obstruction was sufficient, I thought, but after reading the complete accounting of it, I’m leaning toward Nancy Pelosi’s position. Trump probably isn’t worth it. And it would be symbolic anyway, since the Republican Senate will never convict Trump. The president was obviously trying to both derail the investigation and encourage his indicted chums to lie under oath, but he was probably saved from the worst attempted obstruction by disloyal staffers, primarily but not exclusively McGahn and Sessions. If they had followed orders, Trump would be facing certain impeachment. At this point, though, I think an impeachment process would get bogged down by Trump’s stonewalling, which would result in lengthy legal battles that might consume the rest of his presidency.
8. I suspect, though, that Trump might be in greater danger of eventual conviction for either campaign finance violations (the porn-star payments) or any number of corrupt business practices. That will certainly play out in the courts after his presidency, when he is no longer immune from indictment.
9. In some ways, Trump seemed to dance all around obstruction without quite stepping on it, but you get the impression that this was more dumb luck than skill. He seemed to be stumbling and bumbling in his efforts to kill the investigation. Part of the reason he probably got away with what he did is that he did so much of it in public. It simply got lost in the daily chaos of the Trump presidency. There is so much objectionable in Trump’s act that obstruction of justice seems rather inconsequential. Next to his racism, his perpetual lying, his undermining of democratic institutions, his kowtowing to brutal dictators, and his personal attacks, obstruction of justice just isn’t all that eye-catching. It is, however, illegal.
10. And this was apparently very important to Robert Mueller. The most surprising portion of the report, for me, was a lengthy section near the end where Mueller’s team put together a thorough legal analysis of the relevant obstruction laws to shoot every objection raised by Trump’s legal team completely out of the water. Even though Mueller refused to come to a conclusion on obstruction, for reasons he explained, he did indeed lay out a very clear legal pathway for Congress to follow. Which makes his testimony this week all the more crucial. I wonder what the questioners will be able to drag out of him.
A couple of quotes from the Mueller report are particularly significant, I thought. “In sum, in light of the breadth of Section 1512( c )(2) and the other obstruction statutes, an argument that the conduct at issue in this investigation falls outside the scope of the obstruction laws lacks merit” (section 2, p. 168). Also this: “Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article II powers” (section 2, p. 178). If you understand what Mueller is saying, AG Barr completely and dishonestly misinterpreted the report. After reading it and listening to Barr, I have to wonder if he actually read it.
A final thought. I’m really tired of the Donald Trump show. I hope most Americans are similarly exhausted. We recently celebrated Independence Day in America. Trump, of course, tried to co-opt the holiday and make himself the center of attention. But I had a personal hope on July 4 this year. All I wanted was independence from Donald Trump. May that day come soon.

1 comment:

  1. The Meuller report is a Rorschach test -- people see in it what they bring to in terms of partisanship. Trump is indeed an embarrassment on many levels, but how you conclude from Meuller's statement that Barr was lying about what Meuller said is beyond me. Here is the Meuller statement that you quote yourself: “Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article II powers” (section 2, p. 178). Barr said that Meuller stated at least twice that his conclusions were not based on a finding that Trump could not be prosecuted -- and that is just what Meuller says in this statement. Meuller is saying that the President is not immune to prosecution for obstruction of justice and thus his conclusions could not have been based on that conclusion (just as he also stated to Barr).

    I read the whole report the day it came out. My initial impression was that Meuller was not charged with exonerating Trump from obstruction but determining whether there was evidence that he did obstruct. Instead, Meuller did something no self-respecting and competent attorney should ever do and reversed the burden of proof by saying he could not preclude the finding that Trump obstructed. That is just 180 degrees off. He should either find that there is sufficient evidence to find that Trump obstructed and leave it to the DOJ deter,ine whether the burden of proof had been met and whether to prosecute; or he should find that there is insufficient evidence to support an obstruction finding. Determining that the possibility that he obstructed could not be precluded is legal nonsense and a burden no American (even Trump) should have to shoulder.

    ReplyDelete