Mar
31
Brief Takeaways re the “No Collusion” Letter
“The collusion delusion is over.” — President Donald Trump
Mueller and Barr
For three years now, America has been caught up in the “Russian collusion” investigation into Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. Roughly the past two of those years have been under the direction of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Plenty of people — both among those involved in the investigation and among the rest of us with no inside information — were so sure that Trump and his people had election help from the Russians. Given Mueller’s tenacity and ever-expanding investigative scope, he was bound to come up with something that could be interpreted as collusion or, at the very least, get Trump on obstruction of justice charges. Right?
Alas, it would seem they were wrong.
Mueller has finally ended his investigation and turned in to the Dept. of Justice a nearly 400-page report on his findings. There has been a strong, bipartisan call (with Trump’s support) for the full report to be released not only to Congress but to the general public. There are legal concerns about doing so, but Attorney General William Barr has promised to release a redacted version in two or three weeks. What will be redacted from the public version?
“(1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties”
In the meantime, Barr has already released a 4-page letter that summarizes the ‘principal conclusions’ of Mueller’s report. (Barr has made clear that the letter was never meant to be an “exhaustive recounting” nor even a summary of the full report.) Unfortunately, the President and certain commentators and reporters have misstated certain of those conclusions. So, what does it say?
Here is what I gleaned primarily from Emily Zanotti’s article at the Daily Wire:
1) “Mueller used a team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI special agents to issue ‘more than 2,800 subpoenas,’ execute ‘nearly 500 search warrants,’ obtain ‘more than 230 orders for communication records,’ issue requests to 13 foreign countries and interview more than 500 witnesses.”
2) The report does not exonerate Trump. Democrats (e.g., Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)) are using this “to justify ongoing investigations into Trump’s past, business dealings, and campaign communications.” (Sorry, Mr. President, but the “delusion” is not over.)
3) However, neither was any evidence found “to establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”
4) “The Special Counsel found no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired with the Russians to influence the election, despite offers by [Russian officials and the Russian-controlled ‘Internet Research Agency’] to do so.”
5) Mueller’s report lists potentially “obstructive” actions taken by Trump during the course of the investigation, but Barr and Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein agree that none of the evidence was “sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.”
6) Mueller recommended no further indictments, though this may be because DOJ regulations state that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
There you have it. The story will continue, of course, along with the accusations and investigations. But, previous hyperbole and misstatements aside (e.g., “Total exoneration. Complete vindication.”), it sounds like the overall “principle conclusions” of Special Counsel Mueller’s report are on Trump’s side, and he has just cause to celebrate this as a win.
