With the dropping of charges against General Flynn and the
Supreme Court’s hearing about the partial release of Grand Jury testimony
gathered by Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, we are re-entering a focus on
the Mueller investigation. Just how unbiased was Rober Mueller?
Robert Mueller, a lifelong Republican, has given great
service to his party through his investigation of the Trump campaign and his
report (Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016
Presidential Election) and his discussion of the report before Congress in July
2019. It is clear that Robert Mueller is not quite such a straight arrow as he
is reputed to be.
This conclusion is based on four elements:
- . The failure to file charges on Finance Law violations (conspiracy with the Russians) following the June 9th 2016 meeting between Trump campaign representatives and Russian operatives
- The obfuscation so evident in his discussion of why the President was not indicted on obstruction of justice charges
- His delay in correcting Attorney General Barr’s misleading summary of the Mueller report
- His strangely inept behavior during his testimony before Congress.
No Campaign Finance
Charges
From his report, it is clear that he bent over backwards not
to indict two members of the President’s family (Donald Jr. and Jared Kushner)
and the then manager of his presidential campaign, Mr. Manafort for receiving
dirt about Hillary Clinton. Mueller levies no charges because he thought he
would have difficulty providing proof of a crime because of the question of
whether there was anything of value being offered to the campaign and whether
the participants in the meeting knew that they were breaking the law. It was
clear that if something of value had been received, it whould have ben reported
and that receipt from a foreigner was forbidden.
Although the law specifies that value resides in what the
participants expect to receive before the meeting took place. He then went on to claim that there was no
way to establish the value of what was offered to the Trump team. This despite
the fact that before the meeting, the team was told that the information would
incriminate Hillary and that it would be helpful to the Trump campaign. Mueller’s second reason for rejecting the idea
that something of value was received wass the fact that “no judicial decision
has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or
similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution
under campaign finance law.” We shall see later that Mr. Mueller was not so
sensitive to a lack of judicial support.
Finally, he argues that he could not lay charges because the
Trump representatives might not have known that they were breaking the law in
asking for something of value from the Russians. Although ignorance of the law
is usually no excuse, with campaign finance law, the potential wrongdoer must
do so “knowingly and willfully.” Mueller thought that Trump’s team might be
able to activate this defense, but surely that is a decision to be made by the
defenders and not to be considered in deciding whether or not there is a case
to be made.
Obfuscation on
Obstruction of Justice
The saddest statement in the report comes in the
introduction to the section on Obstruction of Justice. It reads: “Accordingly,
while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate him.”
There is one reason and one reason only why Mr. Mueller did
not draw the conclusion the President was a criminal: Justice Department rulings
and memoranda that a sitting president could not be indicted. However. This
proposition has not been tested in Court. Mr. Mueller unlike the issue of value
accepted the untested position. Clearly favoring the President.
Barr’s summary of the
Mueller report
On March 22nd. 2019, Robert Mueller submitted his
report, just under 500 pages in length, to the Attorney General, William Barr.
Two days later, Barr released a four page letter giving his summary of the
report and claiming that there was no collusion and no obstruction. On March 29th.
Mr. Mueller wrote privately to the Attorney General protesting that Barr’s
summary did not take into account the context and detail provided in the
report. In other words the report was misleading the public. The information about
Mueller’s concerns did not become public until April 30th. This, however,
was moot as the redacted Mueller report had been released on April 18th.
Thus for over three weeks, the Barr summary was the only information that the
public had about what Mueller had found. The Barr misinformation set the frame
for subsequent discussion and interpretation. Mueller failed to immediately
scotch Barr’s misinformation. He played by the rules being unwilling to
challenge his boss publically; the country lost.
Behavior at the Congressional
Hearings
Mueller repeatedly said he did not wish to appear before Congress.
However, as a good soldier, he appeared when called upon. However, his
reputation as a sharp, well informed, legal firecracker did not survive his
testimony. He was low key. He often appeared confused. He always declined to go
beyond what was written in the report, and he never, never engaged in
speculation. However, at least one message was clearly delivered: our elections
are under attack by Russia and we need to take defensive actions before 2020.
