The Mueller Report: The Comprehensive Findings of the Special Counsel

I downloaded the PDF file of The Mueller Report because I thought I should read it for myself. It was a bit of a slog, though coherently and even succinctly written -- it took me 2 weeks to get through it. I can't say I learned a whole lot that was new as I've become a bit of a news junky, following this Presidency both on TV and in newspaper reports. The number of contacts among trump campaign operatives and Russians as described in Volume I is staggering, and in Volume II, the evidence that the the president has tried to obstruct justice in both the Mueller investigation and in congressional investigations is totally convincing to me. But go and read it for yourself.

The Most Discussed Unread Report

If you are like most Americans, you have an opinion about what is popularly known as The Mueller Report. And, like 97% of Americans, including members of congress and probably the president of the United States, you haven’t read it. Your opinions most likely emanate from your personal confirmation bias supported by commentary from news organizations and “pundits” you follow and believe, as well as acquaintances in your group and your family. That Americans can offer up strong opinions on a document they haven’t read and by all measures have little idea of what it contains shouldn’t surprise anybody. It’s how the vast majority of our fellow citizens operate.

Let’s begin with this: being such show more an important document it really is the obligation of every American to read the report. Of course, this will go unheeded, as does the call for these same Americans to educate themselves before voting. But, really folks, if you are going to talk about this thing, you should know what you’re talking about.

Okay, enough of that. The official title isn’t The Mueller Report. It is Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Volumes I and II. Volume I reports on the findings of Russian interference in the election and the interactions and encouragements of Trump people regarding the interference. Volume II reports in detail the various ways Donald Trump tried to thwart the investigation into Russian interference and then into the many ways he tried to shield himself from investigation. Both volumes are contained in the one-volume Washington Post edition.

Readers will find The Washington Post edition particularly helpful because of all the additional material it contains, as well as its organization. It reproduces the original document, including the original pagination. When people cite specific document pages, you can easily find them in this book. Additionally, the volume contains a very helpful narrative of events that took place over more than a year and half and that involved a large cast of characters. Speaking of the characters, this edition contains a list of individuals involved, arranged by affiliation, with short summaries of their activities and backgrounds. (Mueller also provides an extensive listing at the end of his report.) Also, because of the timespan, readers will find the book’s timeline of events useful. Finally, the book contains multiple appendices that include biographies of Mueller and Trump, a glossary of legal terms, and key documents (such as the indictment of the Internet Research Agency). Easily, it’s enough to give a clear understanding of the entire affair, start to finish.

As to Volume I of the report, readers will be astounded by the extent of Russian interference and very troubled by how Trump and his associates encouraged Russian help. It will become evident to most readers that Trump should count himself a lucky man, for if a prosecutor not nearly as Republican and conservative as Robert Mueller had conducted the probe, Trump and his people might have found themselves indicted on conspiracy charges. Interestingly, Trump probably still doesn’t realize just how fortunate he is.

It’s not for me to go through Volume I; that’s your job as an American citizen or a non-citizen curious about all the brouhaha is about. However, I would like to address one refrain common among Trump supporters. It goes something like: The Russians never had anything to do with how I voted; the Russians never influenced me. In fact, unbeknownst to them, the Russians did just that. The report presents numerous examples of how the IRA (Internet Research Agency, operated by the Russians out of a building at 55 Savushkina Street, Saint Petersburg) employed all types of media to reach voters, including social media. Read and mull over just this one paragraph from Volume I, and then ask yourself, did the Russians touch me, did they influence me (that is, did they anger you, turn you against a group, help you identify more strongly with a group, discourage you from voting, etc.)?

“Collectively, the IRA’s social media accounts reached tens of millions of U.S. persons. Individual IRA social media accounts attracted hundreds of thousands of followers. For example, at the time they were deactivated by Facebook in mid-2017, the IRA’s “United Muslims of America” Facebook group had over 300,000 followers, the “Don’t Shoot Us” Facebook group had over 250,000 followers, the “Being Patriotic” Facebook group had over 200,000 followers, and the “Secured Borders” Facebook group had over 130,000 followers. According to Facebook, in total the IRA-controlled accounts made over 80,000 posts before their deactivation in August 2017, and these posts reached at least 29 million U.S. persons and ‘may have reached an estimated 126 million people.” And, mind you, this is just Facebook.

Again, why this particular offense, out of the totality, is so important should be obvious. Because Americans insist on believing they were not influenced in the least bit by Russia. However, the report argues otherwise. And Russia continues to and can be expected to ramp up these activities as we approach the 2020 election. To believe that you somehow cannot be influenced is to be completely delusional and even more susceptible to influence. The message here: Wake up.

In Part Two, the Special Counsel lays out the case of obstruction against President Trump. And it is a very strong case. In fact, it is so strong that to date more than 1,000 former Department of Justice prosecutors have signed a letter stating that Trump, were he not president, could be indicted on several counts of felony obstruction of justice. What prevented Mueller, and has saved Trump for the time being (for, as Mueller points out, Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office), from indicting is the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel guideline prohibiting prosecution of a sitting president. Thus, Mueller’s wishy-washy statement at the conclusion of Part Two: “…if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

So, what are these points of obstruction detailed in Part Two? They are:

Trump’s and his campaign’s efforts to deny Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump’s efforts to protect Michael Flynn.
Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey
Trump’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
Trump’s attempts to coverup the June 9 meeting involving Trump, Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and the Russians.
Trump’s efforts to have Jeff Sessions un-recuse himself and take over the investigation.
Trump’s attempt to order McGahn to deny Trump tried to fire the Special Prosecutor.
Trump’s attempts at witness tampering regarding Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen.

Part Two provides in-depth detail regarding each of these points that paints a vivid picture of a scheming President Trump. Readers familiar with Trump’s behavior in New York as a self-styled real estate mogul will see reflected in The Mueller Report conduct typical of Trump throughout his life.

At the end of the report, readers will find a number of helpful items provided by the Special Counsel, among them: Trump’s written answers to questions deemed by the Special Counsel as inadequate and an extensive list of individuals referred in the body of the report.

Finally, please heed these words of Special Counselor Mueller at the conclusion of his May 29 remarks: “And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” It’s incumbent upon you as a U.S. citizen to understand what happened, and what continues to happen, and will almost certainly happen again in the 2020 election. show less

I am embarrassed to say that this took me longer to read than I anticipated, despite it not being a difficult read. In fact, it read like a spy novel, only with real ramifications as it is based on what actually happened during the 2016 Presidential Election. I also would like to point out that I am a registered Republican, though I am not a supporter of President Trump. After following his business and personal life for too many years, I made the determination prior to voting that he was not a candidate I could support. However, that did not preclude me from reading this report with my only goal being to learn what really happened and learn I did. Despite Trump's assertion that there was no collusion, a view shared by Mueller, and no show more obstruction, a view Mueller did not share, this report was an eye opener. While Mueller found no collusion, there were way too many contacts between Trump's staff and Russian business people and government officials for me to feel comfortable with. I feel no good came from those numerous contacts. Furthermore, the section on obstruction truly frightened me. One example occurred when Trump asked KT McFarland to write a document declaring Trump did not tell Micheal Flynn to discuss sanctions with Russian diplomat Kislyak. Since she was up for an ambassadorship in Singapore, she declined because it would look like the appointment was a "quid pro quo." Shades of Ukraine? I came away agreeing with Mueller - there was no way to find Trump did not commit obstruction of justice based on the known facts and that if one reads he answers to the Special Counsel's questions, one really wonders just how much he is hiding. I am so glad I actually read the document and do not rely on others to interpret it for me. Every American who cares should do so. show less

The Most Discussed Unread Report

If you are like most Americans, you have an opinion about what is popularly known as The Mueller Report. And, like 97% of Americans, including members of congress and probably the president of the United States, you haven’t read it. Your opinions most likely emanate from your personal confirmation bias supported by commentary from news organizations and “pundits” you follow and believe, as well as acquaintances in your group and your family. That Americans can offer up strong opinions on a document they haven’t read and by all measures have little idea of what it contains shouldn’t surprise anybody. It’s how the vast majority of our fellow citizens operate.

Let’s begin with this: being such show more an important document it really is the obligation of every American to read the report. Of course, this will go unheeded, as does the call for these same Americans to educate themselves before voting. But, really folks, if you are going to talk about this thing, you should know what you’re talking about.

Okay, enough of that. The official title isn’t The Mueller Report. It is Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Volumes I and II. Volume I reports on the findings of Russian interference in the election and the interactions and encouragements of Trump people regarding the interference. Volume II reports in detail the various ways Donald Trump tried to thwart the investigation into Russian interference and then into the many ways he tried to shield himself from investigation. Both volumes are contained in the one-volume Washington Post edition.

Readers will find The Washington Post edition particularly helpful because of all the additional material it contains, as well as its organization. It reproduces the original document, including the original pagination. When people cite specific document pages, you can easily find them in this book. Additionally, the volume contains a very helpful narrative of events that took place over more than a year and half and that involved a large cast of characters. Speaking of the characters, this edition contains a list of individuals involved, arranged by affiliation, with short summaries of their activities and backgrounds. (Mueller also provides an extensive listing at the end of his report.) Also, because of the timespan, readers will find the book’s timeline of events useful. Finally, the book contains multiple appendices that include biographies of Mueller and Trump, a glossary of legal terms, and key documents (such as the indictment of the Internet Research Agency). Easily, it’s enough to give a clear understanding of the entire affair, start to finish.

As to Volume I of the report, readers will be astounded by the extent of Russian interference and very troubled by how Trump and his associates encouraged Russian help. It will become evident to most readers that Trump should count himself a lucky man, for if a prosecutor not nearly as Republican and conservative as Robert Mueller had conducted the probe, Trump and his people might have found themselves indicted on conspiracy charges. Interestingly, Trump probably still doesn’t realize just how fortunate he is.

It’s not for me to go through Volume I; that’s your job as an American citizen or a non-citizen curious about all the brouhaha is about. However, I would like to address one refrain common among Trump supporters. It goes something like: The Russians never had anything to do with how I voted; the Russians never influenced me. In fact, unbeknownst to them, the Russians did just that. The report presents numerous examples of how the IRA (Internet Research Agency, operated by the Russians out of a building at 55 Savushkina Street, Saint Petersburg) employed all types of media to reach voters, including social media. Read and mull over just this one paragraph from Volume I, and then ask yourself, did the Russians touch me, did they influence me (that is, did they anger you, turn you against a group, help you identify more strongly with a group, discourage you from voting, etc.)?

“Collectively, the IRA’s social media accounts reached tens of millions of U.S. persons. Individual IRA social media accounts attracted hundreds of thousands of followers. For example, at the time they were deactivated by Facebook in mid-2017, the IRA’s “United Muslims of America” Facebook group had over 300,000 followers, the “Don’t Shoot Us” Facebook group had over 250,000 followers, the “Being Patriotic” Facebook group had over 200,000 followers, and the “Secured Borders” Facebook group had over 130,000 followers. According to Facebook, in total the IRA-controlled accounts made over 80,000 posts before their deactivation in August 2017, and these posts reached at least 29 million U.S. persons and ‘may have reached an estimated 126 million people.” And, mind you, this is just Facebook.

Again, why this particular offense, out of the totality, is so important should be obvious. Because Americans insist on believing they were not influenced in the least bit by Russia. However, the report argues otherwise. And Russia continues to and can be expected to ramp up these activities as we approach the 2020 election. To believe that you somehow cannot be influenced is to be completely delusional and even more susceptible to influence. The message here: Wake up.

In Part Two, the Special Counsel lays out the case of obstruction against President Trump. And it is a very strong case. In fact, it is so strong that to date more than 1,000 former Department of Justice prosecutors have signed a letter stating that Trump, were he not president, could be indicted on several counts of felony obstruction of justice. What prevented Mueller, and has saved Trump for the time being (for, as Mueller points out, Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office), from indicting is the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel guideline prohibiting prosecution of a sitting president. Thus, Mueller’s wishy-washy statement at the conclusion of Part Two: “…if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

So, what are these points of obstruction detailed in Part Two? They are:

Trump’s and his campaign’s efforts to deny Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Trump’s efforts to protect Michael Flynn.
Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey
Trump’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
Trump’s attempts to coverup the June 9 meeting involving Trump, Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and the Russians.
Trump’s efforts to have Jeff Sessions un-recuse himself and take over the investigation.
Trump’s attempt to order McGahn to deny Trump tried to fire the Special Prosecutor.
Trump’s attempts at witness tampering regarding Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen.

Part Two provides in-depth detail regarding each of these points that paints a vivid picture of a scheming President Trump. Readers familiar with Trump’s behavior in New York as a self-styled real estate mogul will see reflected in The Mueller Report conduct typical of Trump throughout his life.

At the end of the report, readers will find a number of helpful items provided by the Special Counsel, among them: Trump’s written answers to questions deemed by the Special Counsel as inadequate and an extensive list of individuals referred in the body of the report.

Finally, please heed these words of Special Counselor Mueller at the conclusion of his May 29 remarks: “And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” It’s incumbent upon you as a U.S. citizen to understand what happened, and what continues to happen, and will almost certainly happen again in the 2020 election. show less

Remarkably well-documented overview of the long, yet unfinished, investigation of Russia's 2016 conspiracy to defraud the United States, the Trump campaign's attempts to court the Russians and benefit from the fraud, and Donald Trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation into the underlying crimes.

Through Vol. I, on the underlying crime of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the campaign’s efforts to benefit from the interference and cover it up, I counted 23 distinct crimes committed by Russians and campaign officials, including one likely sanctions violation by DT himself. There were also at least 21 distinct efforts by Trump campaign officials to conspire with the Russians. Unfortunately, the Special show more Counsel could only conduct a cursory investigation: all of the Russian defendants remain at large and refused to be interviewed, most of the campaign's communications were deleted (e.g. Steve Bannon could not explain why he had no email or text history before March 2017), and there were no truly cooperative defendants--what can you expect from a group of shysters?

As an aside, I struggle to understand how the 2015-16 crimes and ongoing intrusions committed by Russia's military intelligence organization and orchestrated by Putin do not constitute acts of war. The U.S. government may actually agree, even if they will not say as much: they are now attacking Russia's electrical grid. Portents.

In Volume II, I count at least 20 discrete instances of attempted obstruction by DT himself. Mueller outlines loads of evidence that prove the unlawful acts and illustrate the intent and the nexus between the act and the expected impact on the investigation.

Despite a preponderance of evidence, Mueller decided at the outset of the investigation to forego criminal accusations against the sitting president, as this would "potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct" (i.e. impeachment and post-term prosecution). The slow wheel of justice turns even slower for the powerful, but it will eventually grind trump and his entourage of wannabe plutocrats into the soil.

Fruits of the investigation so far: at least 16 criminal cases / trials and several USD millions in fines. Well done, sir. I just wish Congress could now reliably pick up the reins and do their job. show less

I thought it might be difficult to listen to such a massive and complicated tome, but it turned out to be an excellent way to take in and process lots of information. The three narrators all did an amazing job of reading complex legal text, full of footnotes and citations to the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Supreme Court cases, and even Law Dictionary definitions.

It helped to listen to this in 2-3 loooong listening sessions (it is just over 19 hours long). Volume II is the volume that addresses possible obstruction of justice. Section II. FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION and Section III. LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE PRESIDENT frequently cite Trump's tweets as evidence show more and tie his responses so clearly with Mueller's actions that it would be difficult to read this behavior in any way other than multiple attempts to divert, distract and obstruct the investigation. show less

Everyone should read this; not exactly a laughing matter. Readers with no experience or interest in law can skip the legal analyses in Section Two (histories of the applicable laws, case citations, etc.).

A careful reader will have difficulty accepting that the individual who is the focus of this report would not have been indicted for obstruction if he were not arguably immune from indictment by virtue of a debatable opinion on an unsettled question held by the Department of Justice: that a sitting president is immune from indictment. Mueller accepted that as an axiom, but he set out a detailed road map for a charge of obstruction, working carefully within his mandate.

What would happen if that departmental opinion changed in 2021? Whom show more would we thank? The only acid test is to indict and let the Supreme Court sort it out. Nothing in our laws or Constitution shields a sitting president, and no court has ruled on it. Nothing shields a former president.

The report is free online here:

http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/04/muellerreport.pdf#page=394.0

There are quite a few related criminal investigations ongoing, but most information about them is redacted in this report. They may prove interesting. Redactions are otherwise rather minimal.
Congressional testimony and document production are forthcoming. show less