Mueller: No Collusion Per Se, But Plenty of Obstruction of Justice Bread Crumbs for Congress

Mueller Report: Pieces of Obstruction Puzzle for DEMS

Introduction to Help Explain No Collusion: An important caveat Mueller makes is that when he writes that his investigation “did not establish particular facts” that “does not mean that there was no evidence of those facts.”

In the end, Mueller’s 22-month investigation spent a great deal of time and resources probing those matters — and despite all of the shady information they turned up, they didn’t end up clearly documenting a Trump-Russia election interference conspiracy (layman’s term: 

collusion) – at least that would stand up in a trial. 

So, why not? Perhaps the next part of this posting along with my personal view, helps explain at least part of that.

Right up front I say and said before this got deep that Mr. Mueller was an honorable, mission-focused, and by-the-rules investigator, his report confirms that.

So, why no conclusive “collusion?”

FACT: Trump has a lifetime of shrewdly covering his tracks always blaming others while ducking and skating blame himself and that comes from his very slick and clever speech techniques to rouse supporters and to keep them in tow an ample supply of snake oil delivered by his skillful con-man rants.

I give him that skill in spades, thus proving “collusion” in any form that would stick to him is nearly impossible, and I’m sure Mr. Mueller saw that, too.

A lot more here from Vox.com – good analysis worth reading – title: Mueller’s obstruction of justice findings, explained:

The second volume of Mueller’s report is a detailed investigation of events that potentially implicate President Trump in obstruction of justice.

The special counsel writes that he “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” on whether Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice. 

The main reason he did so was because the Justice Department has held that a sitting president can’t be indicted. “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” he writes.

(I note: Example of Mueller playing by the rules he was handed).

Critical Point from Mueller: Mueller then goes out of his way to point out that he does not have “confidence” that Trump did not obstruct justice — and claims: “That if Trump indeed clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” he would say so.

The implication there is that the evidence against Trump on obstruction shouldn’t be dismissed lightly (even though Barr did end dismissing it rather lightly).

The key obstruction-related events Mueller collected facts and evidence on are:

1.    Trump insisted that he doubted that Russia was behind the hacking of Democrats’ emails, and denied having any business in Russia even though his company was trying to build a skyscraper in Moscow.

2.    Trump tried to get FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn (but Comey didn’t do it).

3.    Trump tried several times to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from oversight of the Russia investigation or to rein in the probe.

4.    Trump fired Comey.

5.    Trump directed McGahn to have Mueller himself fired (but McGahn didn’t carry this out).

6.    Trump tried to prevent the disclosure of emails revealing Donald Jr.’s meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer.

7.    Trump and his legal team urged key figures in the probe (e.g., Paul Manafort) not to “flip” and attacked those who did flip (e.g., Michael Cohen).

Much of this seems to be clearly aimed at trying to impede the Russia investigation, and some of the details here are very juicy indeed. For instance, an administration official’s notes describe Trump’s reaction upon learning of Mueller’s appointment: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f--ked.”

After that, Trump spoke to his advisers about “knocking out Mueller” and tried — unsuccessfully — to have Jeff Sessions rein in the Russia investigation.

We also learned that, when Flynn moved toward cooperating with the government, Trump’s lawyer told Flynn’s attorney that he interpreted this as an expression of hostility toward the president and that he planned to make Trump aware of it.

Then that after Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted, Manafort told Gates that it would be stupid to strike a plea deal, since Trump’s lawyer had made clear they’d “be taken care of.”

Mueller writes that the evidence doesn’t establish that all this “was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia” — but that Trump could well have had other corrupt motives.

For instance, regarding Trump’s firing of Comey, Mueller writes:

“The president had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him... 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.”

For many of these potentially obstructive incidents, Mueller includes some analysis of what the evidence shows about the three requirements for whether something can be considered criminal obstruction of justice:  (1) Whether it involves an obstructive act, (2) Whether it has a connection to a pending proceeding, and (3) What Trump’s intent was.

But, throughout, Mueller avoids coming to a conclusion on whether any of these individual acts — or the combination of them — qualify as criminal obstruction of justice.

He does, however, occasionally to allude that another federal government body can address the matter: 

“We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”

And toward the end of the document, the special counsel writes: 

“The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person — including the President — accords with the fundamental principle of our government that: No person in this country is so high that he is above the law.”

My 2 cents: Not much more to add that I stated above in this fine Vox analysis except now the proverbial ball is in the Dem-Controlled House to act or not – and they must to get full closure for right not we do not have full closure and cliché or not: “We the People” have a compelling and absolute right to know, and more so now as we move towards 2020 and Trump’s aim to get reelected which in my opinion he must not.

No One Plus Donald J.Trump is Above the Law

(Justice Must Prevail)

Getting and examining the un-redacted parts may prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt and that could (and should) move the GOP-run Senate to vote and remove Trump from office.

Related Mueller Report Updates:

(1) 12 legal experts weigh in here also from Vox.com (must read).

(2) Mueller report contains ample evidence Trump and his campaign sought foreign help in 2016 from the New Republic here.

(3) Crucially, obstruction of justice doesn’t necessarily require an underlying crime (from Washington Post).

(4) Mueller makes a convincing case that Trump attempted to abuse his power not charged, why not — also from the New Republic here.

At that point Mr. Trump, who loves to brag about firsts and his greatness above all else, can brag about being the first and only of 45 presidents to be impeached and removed from office. Only two to date have been be impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) but neither was removed from office. Trump would hold that title, but not proudly I assume?

Finally, Putin absorbing this news of no “collusion” surely makes him ecstatic to see his disinformation scheme working better than even he planned … just listen to the GOPers who keep playing right into Vlad’s hand – they confirm it, bigly…!!!

Thanks for stopping by.