Mueller spent almost two years investigating what the Democrats and mainstream media said was collusion with the Russians. The Democrats and media also claimed that Trump had attempted to obstruct justice over his alleged "crimes".
Over those two years Special Counsel Mueller employed 19 lawyers who were supported by a team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff.
Mueller and his team issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, made 13 requests for foreign government for evidence, and interviewed 500 witnesses.
In the process, over $25 million was spent on the investigation.
What was the principal finding on the Russian collusion allegation?
This is a direct quote from the Attorney's General letter summarizing the findings of the Special Counsel report.
"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election."
It does not get much clearer than that. It also tracks exactly with what Donald Trump has said for the last two years. It does not track with what CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times and The Washington Post have been saying for the last two years.
Mueller did find that a Russian organization (the Internet Research Agency) attempted to sow social discord with the ultimate aim of interfering with the election and Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails of some within the Clinton campaign and the DNC and then used intermediaries (including WikiLeaks) to disseminate those emails to the public to influence the campaign.
Some have jumped to the conclusion that the report shows that the Russians were attempting to influence the election in favor of Trump due to the hacked Democrat emails. That is an inference, not a fact, from the report. The only known fact is that the Russians were trying to sow social discord during the election. For example, we don't know whether the Russians also attempted to hack the RNC and Trump's campaign as well. Perhaps further details on this exist in the full Mueller report.
As to the question of whether President Trump committed any obstruction of justice offense, the Special Counsel, according to the Attorney General's summary of the report, set out evidence on both sides of the question. He also stated that there were difficult issues of law and fact on whether the President's actions could be viewed as obstruction.
This led to this quote from the Special Counsel's report that is sure to be recited time and again by Democrats that Trump is still guilty of something involving obstruction.
"While this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him".
In the end, Mueller left the obstruction question for the Justice Department to decide. Of course, when Mueller found that there was no underlying crime or collusion or conspiracy to begin with, it is not easy to establish or find obstruction of justice.
It is also important to remember there still is a presumption of innocence in this country. That is particularly true when you have just undergone a 2 year, $25 million investigation.
I like what former U.S. Attorney and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said about this point. The fact that Mueller could not find that a crime was committed is all you need to know.
On the charge of obstruction of justice, Bob Mueller’s report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. That’s an important finding because that is what prosecutors do—they prosecute, they do not exonerate. Why? Because we all enjoy the presumption of innocence.
This is what the Attorney General stated in clearing President Trump on any obstruction of justice charge.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense.
It would not seem that anybody who was put under the microscope for two years by a Special Counsel with $25 million to spend could expect a much better result than what Donald Trump ended up with here.
It comes as close to vindication as you can probably get for Trump.
Of course, how does he overcome the bias that was peddled by the mainstream to the American people over the last two years?
50% of the American people have believed for the last two years that Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians due to the incessant media drumbeats on the subject.
Will they change their minds?
Will the media?
I would like to think that would be the case.
However, that does not seem to be the world we live in anymore, particularly the media and those who are political partisans.
Mueller had the time to do the investigation. He could not find anything on Trump. However, when it comes to Trump, time knows limits when it comes to the Democrats and the media. I don't expect that the Mueller report will do much to stop their pursuit of Trump.
For example, here is what Democrat Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said yesterday before the Mueller Report summary was released.
“You have a president, who in my opinion beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to ... collude with the Russian government,”
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) seems to share the same opinion in that he said Sunday on ABC that "there is still significant evidence of collusion".
Why let facts get in the way of opinions?
Will opinions finally start giving way to facts?
Scott Adams is right on point with his Dilbert comic strip today. He actually created it two months ago based on a tweet he sent out today on Twitter. Talk about good timing!
I have said it before and I will say it again.
Facts are just so inconvenient at times.
No comments:
Post a Comment