The Mueller Report: What IT says

The Mueller report on Russian intervention in the 2016 election
How does it answer some key questions about Russia’s intervention and the Trump campaign’s involvement therein?

If you haven't read through the whole 448 pages yourself, OR aren't particularly interested in what the left or the right say that it says, this is for you.

(Exact words of the report itself are italicized)

1)    What does the report conclude about Russian interference in the 2016 election?

Vol. I of the report leaves no doubt that the Russians interfered in a variety of ways to sow discord among Americans, but especially to hurt Clinton and to help Trump in the election. 

“Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations,”  (Vol. 1, p. 14 )

"Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences,"   "By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton."  (Vol. 1, p.  14)

2)    Was there collusion between the President and Russia regarding the election?

Well first, there is no such legal thing as “collusion.”  But moving on, the answer is No – at least not that rising to a criminal level.  The President and his campaign basically get a clean bill of health on this charge, to the surprise of many of his opponents. 

….collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute….. For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."  (Vol. I, pp. 180-181)

The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts,

….the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged , namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra . Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above (Vol. I, p.181)

…the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos , and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government-or at its direction control, or request during the relevant time period. (Vol. I, p. 183)

…the Office considered whether two of those efforts in particular- the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower  ….. constituted prosecutable violations of the campaign-finance laws. The Office determined that the evidence was not sufficient to charge either incident as a criminal violation. (Vol. I, p. 184)

3)    Does that mean the President did nothing wrong regarding Russian and Wikileaks interference in the election?

Not exactly.  The report concludes that the Russians tried to coordinate with the Trump campaign, and that the campaign was interested in using Russian information.  As shown above (Vol. I, pp. 183 &184 of the report), there was evidence of wrong-doing, but not sufficient to charge the individuals.

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. 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. (Vol. I, pp. 1 & 2)

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA (Russia’s Internet Research Agency) and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting , or similar methods of reposting - pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts.  (Vol. I, p. 41)

According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.  …..shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. (Vol. I, p. 54)

 “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and Its government's support for Mr. Trump.”  (Email to Trump Jr. from Goldstone) “….if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” (Trump Jr. reply to Goldstone, Vol. I, p. 113)

…the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia - affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, (Vol. I, p. 180)

4)    Were charges not brought because of the Department of Justice’s policy of not charging a sitting President?

In the case of conspiracy, this doesn’t seem to be a factor, but regarding obstruction it WAS a reason for not bringing charges against the President.  That’s another way of saying that if Donald Trump was not the President, it is more likely that criminal charges of obstruction might have been made against him. 

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."   “….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.” (Vol. II, Page 1)

“…we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” (Vol. II, Page 2)

“Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges

can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a

speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An

individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In

contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,

affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” (Vol. II, Page 2)

“…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… while this report does

not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. (Vol. II, Page 2

5)    Did the President obstruct the investigation?

There is a substantial amount of evidence that he did obstruct justice, but also possible alternative rationales for a number of the things he did.  Volume II of the report provides details of numerous instances when the President seems to have sought to obstruct the investigation.  The following are key examples:

Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs, particularly in dealings with Russia…. Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign... The President also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General "who to investigate."  (Vol. II, p. 76)

The initial reliance on a pretextual justification could support an inference that the President had concerns about providing the real reason for the firing, although the evidence does not resolve whether those concerns were personal, political, or both. (Vol. II, p. 77)

“….when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked.” (Vol. II, p. 78)

The evidence accordingly indicates that news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated.  There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn…. suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper. (Vol. II, p. 90)

Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct. (Vol. II, p. 97)

The evidence establishes the President's substantial involvement in the communications strategy related to information about his campaign's connections to Russia and his desire to minimize public disclosures about those connections.  (Vol. II, p. 106)

“There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope…. A reasonable inference from those statements and the President's actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.”   (Vol. II, pp. 112 & 113)

“Substantial evidence exists that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.  (Vol. II, p. 120)

With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President's actions had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Mana fort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. (Vol. II, p. 131)

* It is notable pro-Trump Fox News’ legal analyst Judge Napolitano on April 25, 2019 claimed that the President showed a clear pattern of “criminal obstruction of justice” based on the Mueller report.  https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2019/04/25/fox-news-judge-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-trump-obstructed-justice/23717457/ ) *

6)    Why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller not express an opinion on whether the President committed obstruction of justice?

Mueller could not fully establish intent, since Trump refused to fully answer all questions.  Also, he felt it was unfair to accuse the President since he could not be tried and thus would not have a chance to clear his name. 

“We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not “recall” or “remember” or have an “independent recollection” ’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise.’ ”  

“We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics….The President declined.” (Appendix C, Pages 1 & 2)

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct.  (Vol. II, p. 8)

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case,” he wrote. “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”  (Vol. II, p. 10)

7)    Is there good reason to believe that Mueller and his deputies were “conflicted”, “angry Democrats”, or otherwise likely to be biased against the President? 

There is little reason to believe that the Special Counsel was “conflicted” or biased against Trump, as shown in the report itself.  Mueller is a life-long Republican, appointed by Republican presidents.  Regarding his staff, most (but apparently not all) are registered Democrats, though according to the non-partisan website Politifact.com, considering them “angry Democrats” is a judgment all.  Overall, Politifact rates the claim about Mueller’s staff as “half-true.”  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/21/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/

“Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a total disgrace to the USA!”) Vol. II, Page 125

“In the days following the Special Counsel’s appointment, the President repeatedly told advisors, including Priebus, Bannon, and McGahn, that Special Counsel Mueller had conflicts of interest.  The President’s advisors pushed back on his assertion of conflicts…. Bannon recalled telling the President they were ‘ridiculous’ and that none of them was real or could come close to justifying precluding Mueller from serving as the Special Counsel.” (Vol. II, pp. 80 & 81)

“He (McGahn) and other advisors believed the asserted conflicts were ‘silly’ and ‘not real’ and they had previously communicated that view to the President.”  (Vol. II, p. 85)

8)    Did the White House “fully cooperate” with the investigation, as claimed by the Attorney General?

No.  Apart from all of the President’s attempts to discredit and end the investigation, as mentioned in 4) above, the President declined several requests to be interviewed by the Special Counsel.  Furthermore, Donald Trump Jr. also declined to be interviewed by the Special Counsel. 

“We also sought a voluntary interview with the President. After more discussion, the President declined to be interviewed.”  (Vol. II, p. 13)

9)    Did the investigation “spy” on the White House? 

No.  “Spy” is a term used by the White House and by the Attorney General, and implies improper action.  The investigation was fully authorized to investigate the White House and Trump’s campaign, and it did so lawfully. 

“Relying on "the authority vested" in the Acting Attorney General, "including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,

510, and 515," the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel "in

order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General 's] responsibility to provide supervision and

management of the Department of Justice , and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the

Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."  (Vol. I, p. 11)

“…the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury , obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses ." 28 C.F.R . § 600.4(a). The authority to investigate "any matters that arose . .. directly from the investigation ," Appointment Order ,r (b)(ii), covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel's appointment. "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, " the Order further provided, "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."  (Vol. I, p. 11)

10)           Did the investigation identify other wrongdoing by the President?

Yes.  It identified actions regarding conspiracy with Russia and the obstruction of justice that may not have reasonably led to convictions for criminal matters, but that were nevertheless improper, unethical, and/or illegal.  Additionally, it identified other actions that did not constitute conspiracy or the obstruction of justice (for example, violating campaign laws), but were similarly improper, unethical, and/or illegal.    Here are just two of such excerpts:

“Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the

campaign period.”  (Vol. I, p. 59)

“….the June 9, 2016 meeting between high-ranking campaign officials and Russians promising

derogatory information on Hillary Clinton-implicates an additional body of law: campaign finance

statutes.  (Vol. I, p. 180)