Slashdot Mirror
Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress (cnn.com)
America's recently-appointed Attorney General William Barr has submitted to Congress his summary of the main conclusions from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, CNN reports.
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary.
It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election: The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency, to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.... The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.
Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, then adds "I have concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
CNN has the complete text of the four-page summary. Barr's letter concludes by saying he's still "determining what can be released."
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," special counsel Robert Mueller says, as quoted in Barr's summary.
It does, however, reiterate that there was clear Russian interference in America's 2016 election: The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency, to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.... The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.
Barr also writes that the report leaves it to him to determine whether president Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, then adds "I have concluded that the evidence...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
CNN has the complete text of the four-page summary. Barr's letter concludes by saying he's still "determining what can be released."
The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.
Also specifically states that the decision not to seek indictments was done "without regard to" the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President.
I don't think you read it in context. That quote is specific to the charge of obstruction of justice, and the report says that Mueller gathered up the facts and declined to evaluate whether the activity constituted a crime. That's the context of "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The implication is that the President did things which are debatably criminal, but Mueller felt there were enough legal/constitutional issues that it was proper to have the AG decide whether those actions constituted a crime. We can't be sure why that is without having seen the report, but we could guess:
There's been an ongoing debate because the President explicitly stated that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, which is, in non-legal terms, obstructing an ongoing criminal investigation. On the other side, there have been variations of the Nixonian argument that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." Attempting to charge the President in this case would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court and create a bit of a constitutional crisis, and Mueller seems to have decided that it was simply "above his pay grade" as the special counsel, and a decision the AG should make.
It's also noteworthy that the AG decided not to prosecute on the grounds that it was a question of corrupt intent, and the President's intent couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's remember why the special counsel was appointed by Rosenstein: Rosenstein signed off on a memo justifying to Trump why Comey should have been fired for his threatrics re: Hillary in the run-up to the 2016 election. This was the stated reason to fire him.
What came out after Comey was fired was that:
1. Comey had called up Preibus out of the blue, told him that the Russia-gate stuff being reported in the press about the FBI was nonsense. Preibus then asks if Comey can make a clarifying statement to the press to that effect. Comey says no, AND leaks to the press that he was being pressured by Preibus. Despite having been the one to initiate the conversation and bait Preibus into the ask. Classy.
2. Comey starts leaking his "memos" to the press via his law professor friend with the explicit and expressed purpose of getting a special counsel appointed to probe his firing. Despite some of those memos technically being classified by virtue of the fact that they described a conversation between Trump and Comey acting in their capacities as POTUS and FBI head, respectively and talking over classified matters (because counter-intelligence?). Classy.
3. Turns out that a number of people plead guilty and went to jail for far less than what Hillary was being accused of, but Comey pretty much says he quashed it because of political considerations. Classy.
So now we have the report of the special counsel, who was appointed to probe whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey...coming up completely empty on the question of whether a crime even occurred for Trump to have been covering up and absolutely declining to make a decision on whether obstruction occurred. Read that again: the thing he was mandated to investigate...he makes no determination of. Despite failing to find evidence that a crime even occurred.
But it gets better. Since Mueller declined to make a determination to either incriminate or exonerate Trump...it fell to Attorney General Barr to evaluate the evidence and make the call. Except Barr says he consulted with Rosenstein. The same exact Rosenstein who signed off on the memo to justify firing Comey to begin with. So Rosenstein's coming out of this smelling like a rose too: he appoints the special counsel to investigate whether the justification he wrote for firing Comey was actually part of an act of obstruction of justice...and now at the end he gets to make the decision on whether or not the thing he had his name all over constituted a crime.
Yeesh.
Never mind the Pee Dossier, never mind the trickle of less than flattering information about Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and Evelyn Farkas and Brennan and Clapper the rest of them trying to tip the scales and leak shit to the press and out-and-out try to bait Trump officials into perjuring themselves. The basic fact is that the assistant AG wrote a memo justifying the firing an FBI head who clearly had it coming to him...then appointing a special counsel to investigate himself...and then declaring himself to have not taken part of a crime. Lovely.
Kids...if you're reading...this is not what accountable government looks like. In fact, this is what an out-of-control Deep State looks like: all court intrigue and a colossal circle-jerk for the purpose of...what for all the world looks like...generating a smoke screen in the press to divert attention away from wrong-doing by the very people claiming the mantle of Protectors of the Republic(TM).
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
Cohen also plead guilty to tax evasion charges. And a plea bargain is technically a conviction. Yes they didn't have to prove it in court, the evidence was so overwhelming that Cohen would have been a fool to go to trial.
And the tax charges were ALSO brought by the SDNY.
See the AC was trying to claim "Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with the campaign", which people called BS because Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance violation.
So you tried moving the goal posts by claiming that this is a discussion of the Mueller investigation. But then the AC's statement makes no sense because they're referring to tax crimes which happened the SDNY. The only charges that Cohen was convicted from Mueller's office was lying to congress... about the campaign.
This is just some rhetorical game to make people think that when they hear of "Cohen's crimes" they somehow think it has nothing to do with the campaign. Unfortunately for you the meaningless distinctions that would usually help to confuse people don't actually apply here.
I stole this Sig