Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

American History and Black History can not be separated.

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

I really should read my own blog.

Elections aren’t won by handwringing, cowering, and/or bashing your own candidates.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

He imagines himself as The Big Bad, Who Is Universally Feared… instead of The Big Jagoff, Who Is Universally Mocked.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Donald Jessica Trump found guilty as fuck – May 30, 2024!

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

The arc of the moral universe doesn’t bend itself. it’s up to us.

Republicans in disarray!

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

You are here: Home / Politics / Mueller Report / The Mueller Report Book Club – Introduction, Volume I

The Mueller Report Book Club – Introduction, Volume I

by | 41 Comments

This post is in: ,

The Introduction puts the important conclusion right up front.

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

That’s a stark way to begin, followed by a quick summary of the major events of the Russian campaign and the American response. Obviously Muller intends that conclusion as a takeaway.

The investigation identified two Russian operations. (I will frequently peel out Mueller paragraphs into bullets to make them more readable.)

  • First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
  • Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.

We are now learning in the news that there were more Russian operations. The report goes on to say that the Trump campaign expected a benefit from the Russian operations but does NOT say that the operations changed any results in the election. That is difficult to determine and outside the scope of the investigation.

The treatment of evidence is described in detail.

  • The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation.
  • … the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.
  • … when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred.
  • A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

The last is particularly important to keep in mind, in view of Attorney General William Barr’s and President Donald Trump’s claims.

The report explicitly disavows the word “collusion” as being useful. Discussion of conspiracy is consistent with criminal law. The word “coordination” appears in the appointment order but, like “collusion”, does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.

We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

What the report contains:

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel’s charging decisions.

Volume II addresses the President’s actions towards the FBI’s investigation into Russia’ s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel’ s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation.

Here are a couple of articles relevant to our general topic.

A Side-by-Side Comparison of Barr’s vs. Mueller’s Statements about Special Counsel Report

The Articles of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump: A Draft

Reader Interactions

41Comments

  1. 1.

    Elizabelle

    Thank you for doing this, Cheryl.

    Do you think Mueller will ever testify before Congress? It would be enormously helpful. We, sadly, seem to be a nation of viewers, not readers.

  3. 3.

    debbie

    Do you think there is anything in Volume II that states the surveillance that started all this was justified and legal?

  4. 4.

    smintheus

    ‘Collaborate’ (‘work together’) is a more specific and useful term. Trump & Co. collaborated with the Russians interfering in our election.

  6. 6.

    Elizabelle

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: I don’t understand why Mueller is allowing Barr and Trump etc. to sandbag his conclusions. I also do not believe a DOJ guideline has the force of law to prevent indicting a sitting president.

    Particularly one whose very legitimacy is in question.

    That said, Mueller is now a private citizen and can absolutely be subpoenaed to testify. Makes you wonder what is going on behind the scenes. Plenty, I am sure.

  8. 8.

    Cheryl Rofer

    @debbie: I haven’t read Part II. The story of how the investigation started is pretty well established: George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign would be getting Clinton’s emails.

    Barr and the Republicans are trying to sell another story, though.

  9. 9.

    debbie

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Barr and the Republicans are trying to sell another story, though.

    Exactly. My understanding was that during routine surveillance of Russian communications, the FBI began noticing that certain U.S. citizens (ie, George and Carter both) were in frequent contact with Russians they knew to be sketchy. Trump has totally turned this around and made himself an innocent victim. I wish the House would focus on this now before Trump can ingrain his version in the brains of gullible Americans.

  10. 10.

    zhena gogolia

    I’m taking off for a week-long trip, but before I go, I just want to highlight p. 23, discussing the Internet Research Agency (Russian troll farm)’s instructions to its minions:

    By February 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump Campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton. For example, REDACTED directions to IRA operators, HARM TO ONGOING MATTER “Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.)”

    I really hope the fact that Sanders was being specifically pushed by the Russians gets some attention as we head into primary season.

  12. 12.

    Cheryl Rofer

    @debbie: The brag to the Australian diplomat was what set off the FBI investigation into the campaign.

    Carter Page was under surveillance since 2013 or 2014, before the campaign, because of his dealings with known Russian spies. The disinformation story calls that surveillance on the campaign, but you can bet that if I was as chummy with Russian spies as Page was, the FBI would have recorders on all my communications lines.

  14. 14.

    JPL

    @Cheryl Rofer: Cheryl, thank you for reading so we don’t have to. Just the thought ties my stomach into knots. Rep. Amash is the only republican who is speaking out about the report and the rest are afraid of his tweets

  18. 18.

    Fair Economist

    I can kind of understand how the tedious details could get ignored but how is the media managing to back burner this pretty blunt and frightening introduction?

  19. 19.

    zhena gogolia

    That NYT link in the OP is amazing. I’ve bookmarked it for when I get home!

    You guys just won’t let me leave, will you?

  20. 20.

    MomSense

    @Fair Economist:

    I’m listening to an audio version and I think it affects my retention of details but there are so many really upsetting details that it is overwhelming. The Russians perfectly manipulated the trumps and their associates, the media, GOP operatives, the people who live in the Fox/Right wing bubble, and the progressives who supported Sanders, Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden, and Greenwald.

    I joked in an earlier thread that I’m going to name my screamo band Redacted. Harm to ongoing matter.

  23. 23.

    Seahawk

    It seems that we as US citizens have let his lies continue so long and repeated so often that the truth is no were in site. If this continues much longer we may never be able to undo the damage he has done to our country all ready. It is sad to watch this happening day in and out. Now holding the climate reports hostage to a long past disproven position on climate change. When you look at what he has done so far you kinda wonder what’s the end game? Doesn’t look like any kind of plan other then to undo everything Obama did. But maybe that’s it. He’s not very smart nothing long term in what he’s doing now. Just acting like a kid with a new toy.

  25. 25.

    noncarborundum

    @Dorothy A. Winsor:

    Is there some origin story for that claim?

    Once upon a time there was a little boy named Donald who was born with a rectum. One day, …

  26. 26.

    Quaker in a Basement

    does NOT say that the operations changed any results in the election

    It DOES say Russian operators spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads. If all those ads had zero effect, Zuckerberg is running the biggest fraud in history.

  27. 27.

    Quaker in a Basement

    @Dorothy A. Winsor: I think Trump’s claim is based on the fact that the Steele dossier contains information from Russian informants. Because the DNC (or Clinton campaign, I forget which) partially funded the dossier research, Trump makes a logical leap that it was therefore Hillary who “colluded,” not him.

  28. 28.

    Cheryl Rofer

    @debbie: I am working on the next post in the series, and you might want to look at the timeline in the executive summary, on pages 5-6. It isn’t exactly what you are looking for, but you may find it helpful.

  29. 29.

    Another Scott

    I hope Nadler (and Warner) and their colleagues call Barr and Mueller to testify and ask them some very simple questions. Like:

    1) Mr. Barr – nothing in the introductory summaries to the two parts of Mueller’s report were redacted. Why didn’t you release those introductory summaries immediately upon receipt so that the public and Congress would get an unvarnished summary of the findings?

    2) Mr. Mueller – was it your intent that the introductory summaries be released in full upon delivery to Mr. Barr? When you prepared your 400+ page report, did you work to minimize the amount of material that should be redacted before release to the public? Was anything in Barr’s version over-redacted in your opinion?

    3) Mr. Mueller – we know that your investigation started as a counter-intelligence investigation. Did you prepare a report on the counter-intelligence findings? If so, is there any reason why the Congress should not have a copy of that report given its Constitutional oversight role?

    Etc.

    Make Mueller give up the goods, and make Barr tell the Congress and the American people that he is a hack who has no interest in the truth getting out.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  31. 31.

    Joy in FL

    @rikyrah: I just ordered my copy of the Mueller Report Graphic Novel. So cool. Thanks again for bringing it to my awareness.

  33. 33.

    Chief Oshkosh

    @smintheus: PERFECT. “Collaborate” has all of the right baggage during this week of remembrance of D-Day. Seems like a good word for EVERY Democrat to start using.

  35. 35.

    Barb 2

    Barr is now Trump’s personal mouth piece. He cannot be both the people’s lawyer & Trump’s mouth piece.

    Here ‘s the lawfare’s take on Barr:

    Barr’s Bad Day

    The devastating nature of the report makes the performance of the attorney general in characterizing it at his press conference prior to its release a particularly inappropriate spectacle.

    Not content to release a document that he had—contrary to many people’s expectations—not redacted beyond readability, he characterized it in a fashion that sounded remarkably like the president’s own spin. “The bottom line,” Barr concluded, in a statement that seemed designed to vindicate the Trump campaign’s claims of innocence, “After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.”

    Barr had to elide a lot of Mueller’s actual findings in order to describe them this way. In addressing the Trump campaign’s possible involvement in the dissemination of hacked DNC materials through WikiLeaks, the attorney general concluded that the report found that no one associated with the Trump campaign had “illegally participated” in the dissemination, while noting that doing so would be criminal only if those involved in publishing them also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Similarly, in discussing contacts between the Trump campaign and those connected with the Russian government, Barr observed only that Mueller “did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law,” without characterizing the actual interactions that the investigation uncovered. Instead, Barr focused on the narrow question of whether the Mueller investigation found that there was a criminal conspiracy.

    Barr then moved on to whether President Trump had obstructed justice in his removal of former FBI Director James Comey and other interactions with law enforcement. Without elaborating, he noted areas of disagreement with the legal framework that Mueller presented in his report, but claimed that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein nonetheless applied it in concluding that “the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

    Later, in response to a question, Barr emphasized that Mueller had avoided reaching a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed an obstruction crime on the basis of OLC’s view that a sitting president was not subject to indictment. Yet it’s hard to square this account with Mueller’s own description of his reasoning, which we described above. Barr went on an extended riff on his assessment of Trump’s state of mind in evaluating the potential obstructions described in the report, noting that “the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.” Suffice it to say these factors loom larger in Barr’s assessment of the evidence than they do in Mueller’s account.

    On their face, Barr’s remarks were not a neutral recitation of the report’s principal conclusions. Instead, by drawing broad conclusions from narrow legal analysis, the attorney general provided the president’s supporters with an abundance of sound bites and talking points for the weeks to come. Trump could not have asked for a friendlier summary of a deeply unfriendly document.

    Barr, however, did himself no service, despite having done a reasonable job shepherding the report itself to public release. A great many people will be more skeptical of his future actions as a result of his words.

    The Political Reaction

    “I’m having a good day,” said Trump in his first remarks following the report. “No collusion, no obstruction.” Trump’s victory lap actually began hours earlier in a series of triumphant tweets. The president’s most ardent congressional defenders have repeated the line.

  36. 36.

    sukabi

    @Cheryl Rofer: Flynn was also more than likely being at least loosely monitored as his behavior was suspect enough to get him shitcanned during Obama’s term. And Obama warned drumpf about hiring him.

  38. 38.

    Ohio Mom

    This is refreshingly easy to follow — at one point, I’d given up hope of ever being able to keep all the details straight.

    Thanks Cheryl for your summary, I’ll look forward to future installments.

  39. 39.

    Procopius

    This is very helpful and I’m grateful you’re doing it. One statement, though, surprised me:

    The word “coordination” appears in the appointment order but, like “collusion”, does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.

    I thought “coordination” would have to be well defined, because it’s an important criterion in election law and the eligibility of certain PACs for non-disclosure status.

    I agree with @smintheus #4 that “collaborate” would be a helpful term. I’ve felt from the beginning that “collusion” was unhelpful.

  40. 40.

    TriassicSands

    A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

    It is important to understand that Mueller was operating under rules and constraints that characterize criminal cases — not impeachment. His inability to reach a threshold that would allow him to determine a crime took place doesn’t mean that the evidence and facts he did find weren’t sufficient to impeach and remove Trump. Assuming he couldn’t indict Trump for obstructing justice, Mueller wouldn’t offer a conclusion that Trump did obstruct justice. Instead, he presents the evidence and leaves it to Congress to do its job. Maybe Mueller is so naive and out of touch that he assumed that Republicans would choose country over party. If so, that’s pretty troubling.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen an innocent person act as guilty as Trump did month after month. Congress can take that behavior into account in the impeachment process. But the Republicans won’t. I imagine most of them will avoid reading the Mueller Report since their ignorance will allow them to substitute Barr’s dishonest whitewash for their own judgment.

  41. 41.

    dnfree

    I am going to try to follow this through. Thank you, Cheryl, for the organized effort to break it into manageable pieces and explain it. I haven’t seen the “media” attempt anything this detailed.

Comments are closed.