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.
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).
ReplyDeleteI 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.