Mueller Testifies About President Trump’s Crimes
Xavier Rockiescavseagles
But Mueller pointedly talked about the lingering question of why his report did not recommend, one way or the other, that President Donald Trump should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for allegedly interfering with his inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and possible coordination with Russians by members of the Trump campaign.
\"The facts you set out in your report and have spoken about today, tell a disturbing tale of a massive Russian interference in our election, of a campaign so eager to win, so driven by greed, it was willing to accept the help of a hostile power in a presidential election decided by a handful of votes in a few key states,\" Schiff said.
\"They risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI and to congress about it and indeed some have gone to jail over such lies. And your work speaks of a president who committed many acts of obstruction of justice. Had it been anyone else in the country they would have been indicted,\" Schiff said.
\"That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American, as you well point out. But your report tells another story as well. For the story of the 2016 presidential election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies,\" he continued.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, left, and TALKS with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., right, as former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies to the House Judiciary Committee about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Cohen was the only Trump Organization representative to negotiate directly with I.C. Expert or its agents. In approximately September 2015, Cohen obtained approval to negotiate with [Russian real estate development corporation] I.C. Expert from candidate Trump, who was then president of the Trump Organization. Cohen provided updates directly to Trump about the project throughout 2015 and into 2016, assuring him the project was continuing. Cohen also discussed the Trump Moscow project with Ivanka Trump as to design elements (such as possible architects to use for the project) and Donald J. Trump Jr. (about his experience in Moscow and possible involvement in the project) during the fall of 2015.
In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI's Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.
By the end of that weekend, Priebus recalled that the President relented and agreed not to ask Sessions to resign. Over the next several days, the President tweeted about Sessions. On the morning of Monday, July 24, 2017, the President criticized Sessions for neglecting to investigate Clinton and called him "beleaguered." On July 25, the President tweeted, "Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!" The following day, July 26, the President tweeted, "Why didn't A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation." According to Hunt, in light of the President's frequent public attacks, Sessions prepared another resignation letter and for the rest of the year carried it with him in his pocket every time he went to the White House.
The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
On March 24, 2019, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that Barr's March 24 letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion".[41] Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report.[42] Also, Barr's March 24 letter stated that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish" that Trump had obstructed justice.[43][44] On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does"[45] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[46] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.[47] In 2020, a federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump.[48][49]
While "conspiracy" or "coordination" was not proven, Mueller's report left many unanswered questions, such as whether the myriad secret contacts between Trump associates and Russians, which they lied about, constituted, using Mueller's words, "a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election"? Benjamin Wittes has written about this:
Trump[94] and many of his supporters have falsely claimed there was "no collusion", even though Mueller made no conclusion about "collusion", only about "conspiracy" or "coordination", and Mueller pushed back against such claims.[95] Senator Lindsey Graham falsely stated "Mr. Mueller and his team concluded there was no collusion."[96] House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy stated "Nothing we saw today changes the underlying results of the 22-month-long Mueller investigation that ultimately found no collusion".[97] In an April 18, 2019, press conference, Attorney General William Barr "noted that, as the president 'said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion' with Moscow's attempts to interfere in the election".[98] Representative Matt Gaetz tweeted a photo showing him holding up the front page of the conservative Washington Times splashed with a big photo of Barr and the headline: "No Russia Conspiracy, No Collusion."[99] The American Bar Association headlined an article with the title, "Mueller finds no collusion with Russia...", which reflected a quote from Trump in the article: "'It was just announced there was no collusion with Russia,' Trump said Sunday 'It was a complete and total exoneration'."[100]
On obstruction of justice, the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him". Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime",[26] as investigators decided "not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes".[18][37][19] Investigators did not make a judgment about whether to charge Trump with a crime, for two main reasons: Firstly, the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted, a stance taken from the start of the investigation.[21][22][116] Secondly, investigators did not want to charge Trump because a federal criminal charge would hinder a sitting president's "capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct",[117] with a footnote reference to impeachment.[118] Even if charges were recommended in a secret memo or a charging document sealed until Trump's presidency ended, the information could still be leaked.[19][22][70] In addition, the special counsel's office rejected the alternative option of accusing Trump of committing a crime without bringing a charge. Investigators felt that this alternative option would be unfair to Trump, as there would be no trial in which Trump could clear his own name.[21][22][34]
dd2b598166