I've just finished reading Volume I of "The Mueller Report". Volume I deals directly with Russian interference with the 2016 elections.
There are different editions of "The Mueller Report". The actual report should be the same in each edition. The various introductions and analyses are not. I chose the edition done by The Washington Post.
There is one with an introduction by Alan Dershowitz. I avoided that. Alan is a Trump apologist. I also have trouble trusting anybody that finds a need to publicly post that he kept his underwear on while getting a massage at Epstein's. I mean, really?
If I were buying it anew, I would go with a large print version. It was hard for me to make out the small type. My eyes aren't what they used to be.
I would also urge people to just read Mueller's actual report. The commentary is distracting and I found a mistake early on. All the versions are redacted. Even with that, there's plenty there.
It's worth noting that if your only information on "The Mueller Report" is based on Attorney General Barr's initial 4 page summary, you know absolutely nothing about Mueller's actual report, because Attorney General Barr is simply not an honest man.
This is the first of 2 posts I will do on Mueller's report. I will do the second after I finish Volume II. Why am I doing this in pieces? Am I putting the cart before the horse? Writing before I've finished reading?
No. Volume I and Volume II cover very different subject matter. Volume II covers obstruction of justice. Mueller's investigation was not an investigation of Donald Trump. Mueller was charged with investigating Russian interference.
If you read Volume I you will learn of Russian interference. Mueller has already secured convictions of various Russians involved in interfering with the 2016 elections. He has also secured guilty pleas and convictions for several of the people working for Trump.
Mueller's report also documents Russian involvement with lots of Trump's campaign staff and family. Oodles of collusion with Russians is documented in the report.
So did Mueller clear Trump and his campaign from conspiring with Russia during the 2016 elections? No. Did he explain what conspiracy would be under applicable statutes? Yes. Did he charge Trump with criminal conspiracy? No.
Confusing? Only if you let it be. Only if you let someone muddy the waters with irrelevancies and distractions. Here are the salient points:
1. In order to convict someone of a crime, you must be able to prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Mueller can prove collusion with Russia, but collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.
2. In several instances, Mueller did not believe he had sufficient evidence that would meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in regard to conspiracy with Russia.
There are lots of examples of collusion. The June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Towers is sufficient to explain what I am talking about. The following quote begins on page 185 and ends on page 186 of Volume I.
"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr. 's] father. " The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals, 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A). Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 71; the solicitation of an illegal foreignsource contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a 185 U.S. Department of Justice Attofftey Wofk Pfoclttet // Mtty CotttttiH Mtttefittl Pfoteetecl UHcler Fed. R.. Criffl. P. 6(e) [foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109( d)(l )(A)(i)."
At the June 9th meeting we have Don, Jr., Kushner and Manafort meeting with lots of Russians.
Yes, they colluded royally, but Mueller's staff didn't believe they had evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Junior, Jared and Paul conspired criminally.
That is different from the evidence Mueller had on the 13 Russian nationals who were indicted on February 16, 2018 and charged with a "conspiracy to defraud the United States". Mueller's investigators believed they could prove conspiracy "beyond a reasonable doubt". So did the grand jury.
So let me add this to what I've said and emphasize it. In order to Impeach a president, you do not have to prove a crime was committed. There is no standard such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" that must be met. Yep, Congress could Impeach a president for colluding with another country on the basis of the collusion putting our country at risk, jeopardizing our elections, etc.
That's not all. Here are some important facts regarding Mueller's position as Special Counsel.
1. Mueller was a DOJ employee working under DOJ rules and regulations.
2. He was not allowed to indict a president based upon DOJ policy.
3. He was required to turn his confidential report into the Attorney General when it was completed.
Trump was not the focus of Mueller's investigation. Russian interference was the focus of Mueller's investigation.
I repeat, Mueller didn't start out investigating Trump. He started out investigating Russian interference. He was hunting Russians. He wasn't hunting Americans or witches.
That's a significant point. In the investigation of Russia, the evidence that was being uncovered led Mueller to Trump and others associated with him and in his organization.
It didn't help matters when Trump started accusing our Intelligence Community of conspiring against him. It didn't help matters when Trump refused to look at the evidence and, instead, started defending Putin and Russia.
There is one other thing that needs to be pointed out. Mueller's people were frustrated over and over again in their attempts to obtain evidence by Trump and his minions.
Trump refused to be be interviewed in person. He submitted written answers to some questions and he often said he couldn't remember in his answers.
Many of the people who were interviewed lied and submitted false and contradictory information to the investigators.
This is a good lead in to Volume II. Stay tuned.
Holy Moly!
