....And like a ghost, the Mueller investigation will be haunting SCROTUS for years to come.
A redacted version of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election by Robert S. Mueller III, in two volumes, was released to the public on Thursday, April 18. Little Sister Resister wanted to read it with an empty mind and learn firsthand what the report had to say. It was hard for a media junkie to avoid news articles and satire comedy monologues! But after waiting two years, I wanted to gift myself the unspoiler-ed version.
Armed with a cup of strong tea in my new Rising Sun Earthworks custom mug and a fresh ream of printer paper, I got to work. I read it! Cover to cover! The whole darn thing!
It's worth the read. I encourage my readers to download the PDF, print it out, or buy a copy. There is information you should know, and you get some well-explained law lessons on the way. Mr. Mueller knew his audience. It's us, the American people. Don't be daunted. It's your right and privilege to take part and be informed.
My initial reactions to the volumes on the investigation into Russian election interference and the investigation into Presidential* obstruction of justice: Holy Cow! and Holy Guacamole!
Volume I surrounds the Russian interference itself. Holy Cow! It goes deep and it goes wide. My brief notes on the first reading:
• The hacking and social media disruption was massive. Russian operatives were highly organized, thorough, and relentless. From stealing many terabytes of DNC data and Democratic emails to duping hundreds of thousands -- possibly more than a million -- of Americans (including TЯUMP associates) by feeding propaganda, they undoubtedly influenced the election.
• The only thing that saved TЯUMP affiliates of conspiracy charges is their pure dumbness. From the bottom of page one:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities (due to dumbness)." (parentheses mine)
• Paul Manafort is pure scum. His saving grace in Mueller not finding conspiracy charges against him was his massive greed. He didn't care about the election of the Boychurian Candidate. He only cared about lining his pockets. Not that a different motivation would have been justified, but wow. Greedygreedygreedy.
• Julian Assange is pure scum. I had been on the fence about Assange and WikiLeaks. Whistleblowers have their place and their importance, but after reading this report, I am more cemented in the Assange is Scum category. He's not a whistleblower; he's just another conservative hack. A technologically sophisticated, probably mentally ill conservative hack, but a hack nonetheless. All he wanted was to bring down Hillary. He was behind the Seth Rich rumor, and that's sick.
• Who is he writing about on page 176ff? Mysteriously redacted, we might speculate that it's all about Donny Junior, as there is very little written about him in the rest of the document.
• School is in on page 180, where we are lectured pointedly on the term "collusion" and the word's relation to the legal term "conspiracy." Perhaps if SCROTUS ever does what I have done (read the full report), he may learn a thing or two about the law.
• The end result of the Russian election interference? It's plain on page 149: "Putin has won."
Volume II, concerning the obstruction of justice question. Holy Guacamole! It reads like a thriller. If the bad guy was an impetuous toddler. And if his henchmen were at-their-wits-end babysitters.
• The man just couldn't shut up. Or keep his Twitter thumbs still. He dug his own Hole o' Obstructionist Behaviors with a big honkin' obstruction shovel. What a maroon!
• Mueller plainly stated that the presumptive defenses against the investigation don't hold water, concluding "that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts."
• There is more evidence that 45 is just an overgrown toddler. My favorite: his first draft of the Comey termination letter.
While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often stated is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship - pertaining to the 2016 presidential election, please be informed that I, and I believe the American public - including Ds and Rs - have lost faith in you as Director of the FBI.He was insistent that Comey's statements about the fact that 45 was not under FBI investigation be included in the termination letter.
• Many of the grown-ups in the administration simply did not comply with his requests. Messages weren't delivered, errands weren't completed, lies weren't told. This was his --and the country's--saving grace.
• For example, in order to attempt to curtail the Special Counsel investigation, the 72-Year-Old Toddler dictated a speech that he wanted Jeff Sessions to give publicly (the notes were never delivered to Sessions):
I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS ... is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.• Vice President Pence is rarely mentioned in the document, with nothing substantial written about him. Redacted, maybe? Or maybe he's just been that good at blending in with the furniture over the last two and a half years.
• I noted "LIES!" multiple times in the margins. So many lies by so many people. Shameful.
• There is plain evidence of obstruction from many areas. Mueller very elegantly laid out each instance of questionable obstruction, and described the elements of each potential obstruction charge: the obstructive act, its nexus to a legal proceeding, and his intent. Though some of the acts did not rise to the level of legal obstruction, some of them did meet all three tests, to my reading, including:
- The multiple attempts to end the special counsel investigation
- Attempts to influence Attorney General Jeff Sessions by asking him to "unrecuse himself" (obsessively)
- Witness tampering, specifically Paul Manafort (hinting at a pardon) and Michael Cohen (intimidation)
• Not only did Chicken Donald decline to be interviewed, he incompletely answered or declined answering the Special Counsel's written questions. Appendix D contains the questions and his answers.
• Page 156 and beyond, Overarching Factual Issues, is a sobering read. Mueller outlines the assertions that the theme of 45's conduct has been for self-preservation and intimidation. He states plainly:
But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. ... Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. ... the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.
• There was a lot written about Constitutional power, Executive Branch privilege, division of power, checks and balances, and corruption. The writing on corruption in the last section, III. LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES TO THE PRESIDENT, is especially poignant in our troubled times and lends itself to a judgment that though perhaps Mueller wasn't able to conclude or exonerate the President's* criminality, Hair Furor is very much corrupt. This fact is undeniable from reading the whole report. We should not have a corrupt leader, whether his corruption rises to chargeable offenses or not.
• More than once Mueller stated:
...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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.He lays out in the first pages of Volume II why bringing charges against a president is tricky business and why he did not make charging decisions regarding the President* - most pointedly in the Introduction to Volume II. The president is not a normal citizen, but he is not above the law. On page one of Volume II he writes:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.On page eight he concludes:
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.and
...the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
The whole introduction is worth the read and explains why he deferred bringing charges.
• Further, in his multi-page conclusion--another good read-- he says quite pointedly: "Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice." There is a lot of important stuff packed into the conclusions.
• He also writes that the President's removing principal officers (i.e., his cabinet) is his right and duty, but removing inferior officers (e.g., the FBI Director or Special Counsel) can have Congressional limitations placed.
• To my reading, I'm of the opinion that Mr. Mueller concluded that this lofty decision was not his to make, but that the Congress of the United States should take up the heavy decision of interpreting the evidence as presented and moving forward with impeachment or criminal charges. Or both. It's definitely not the Attorney General's place, despite what William Barr wants to assert.
• He quotes United States vs. Lee (1882) in the final conclusion, which brought tears to my eyes: "And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that 'no [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.'"
So let it be written. So let it be done.
Now, LSR gets to go read and digest others' interpretations. I'll be back soon with a post outlining my synthesis of smart people's analyses!
No comments:
Post a Comment