MY TAKE ON THE MUELLER REPORT

22 Apr. 2019
Dear Friends and Patriots,
The long-awaited Mueller Report was given to Congress and the public on Thursday. It’s a two-volume monstrosity at 448 pages of 8.5x11” page size. It’s a monstrosity in other ways as well.
It’s amazing that people tend to get the impressions we do of certain occupations and people within those occupations. We often forget that lawyers are people too, especially Department of Justice (DoJ) lawyers. We forget they can find myriad excuses for pretty much any bias they exhibit by citing some obscure departmental rule or a vague interpretation of one of the tenets of their Code of Ethics. When someone like a Special Prosecutor is chartered, given an unlimited budget and no time limits, you should never have great expectations. It’s extremely difficult to be that much in the public eye and the subject of a daily inundation of public commentary and not have some aspect of your work affected. It’s that “people” thing.
Robert Mueller released his highly-anticipated report and now we, the People, have to figure out what it is and how to deal with it. I’ve already made one judgment. It smears President Trump.
The report’s official title is “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Election.” It’s an interesting read. The first thing I noted are the claims on pp. 45 and 58 of Vol. 1 of the report that Russia’s intelligence agency, the GRU, was responsible for the successful spear fishing of Robert Podesta’s computer files. If that’s the FBI’s official position, it’s news to me. We know he was spear-fished, and we know the files were given to Julian Assange and published by WikiLeaks, but I never once heard who was assigned responsibility. Is the citation in this report speculation or provable fact? Is that tidbit in the report because it’s true or because of other government efforts against Mr. Assange? Remember, Mr. Assange has steadfastly rebutted any idea that he acquired the files from any Russian state actor. The report alleges direct cooperation between Gussifer, a known Russian hacking operation, and WikiLeaks, and cites from intercepted Twitter communications.
The report contains a lot of detail concerning attempted Russian interference in the 2016 elections, as one might hope, given the report’s title. But, when you stand back from all that you have to wonder if all the effort to detail and track every tiny detail of Russia’s operations is worth it. When you read the scope of the “interference” and the sums of money expended, then the details of what was actually done, you have to shake your head and wonder if it was an actual state-run operation or one put together by a troupe of actors who were playing the role of intelligence agents. It was so limited, so underfunded, and so oddly executed it seems impossible to conclude the Russian efforts could possibly have had any affect at all on the election process or its outcome.
Before you read any of the report, look at Appendix A-1, which is a copy of the actual appointment letter where Robert Mueller was tasked with his investigation. Normally a prosecutor, any prosecutor, commences an investigation based upon an allegation of a
specific crime. If there’s no allegation of a crime, why is a prosecutor’s time being spent? This is where the President’s complaint of “witch hunt” is germane. If you read the appointment letter you will find no allegation of any crime at all. In fact, what you read in section (c) of the letter is direction to “prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation …” That clause is preceded by “If the Special Prosecutor believes it is necessary and appropriate …” So, if the Special Prosecutor believes President Trump or anyone else should be indicted and prosecuted for any crime it’s his job to proceed. There’s no statement of a crime alleged. It’s exactly what many TV talking heads have called it – an investigation in search of a crime.
The Special Prosecutor was charged with indicting and prosecuting, yet he didn’t indict or prosecute Trump. In Volume I of the investigation there is no section identified as “Conclusion,” yet there is a conclusion on the principle question of the investigation, if the title of the report is to indicate its principle purpose. There is a statement on p. 2 of Volume I that reads, in part, “ … the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Yet, if you read only one sentence prior you see a characterization of “numerous links” between the same Russian government and the very same Trump Campaign. How very curious! It fascinates one to contemplate how a “meeting” or even just being in the same room as a Russian can constitute a “link.” If there was a “link,” was it between the Russian government and the campaign or between Russians and specific individuals. Do you get the difference? The conclusion statement is seemingly refuted by its predecessor statement. It’s all in the nuance of language.

My real problems with the report are in Volume II. It contains a blow-by-blow timeline recount of the past two plus years. In its narrative are accounts of actions and conversations that can only be verified by examination of extensive back-up material. I bring this up because much of what you’ll read would normally be considered “rumor and innuendo.” The fact the report has footnotes to back up the citations tends to lend credence to salacious information that might actually be mostly rumor and innuendo. At present, we don’t know. The truth is, we will probably never know because we’ll never get to examine the details referenced in those footnotes. They could well be from notes taken by attorneys of the Special Counsel’s office instead of information that’s taken from irrefutable notes and documents of the individual under discussion. I would point out all “evidence” included that regard conversations held between Cory Lewandowski and the President. This weekend Mr. Lewandowski was asked about the passages in the report that cite his actions and conversations and he absolutely refuted them, calling them “absurd.” He especially pointed to the allegation that the President asked him (Lewandowski) to carry a message to Jeff Sessions, telling him (Lewandowski) that if Sessions refused a meeting with him (Lewandowski) he (Lewandowski) was to tell Sessions that he (Sessions) was fired. Lewandowski indicates the entire episode as reported is fiction and that the idea that he (Lewandowski), a private citizen, would be instructed to fire a US Attorney General is just ridiculous. I (your author) concur.
As tawdry as much of Volume II is, the part that’s truly egregious is the conclusion statement.

e I have a major problem. The Special Counsel states he found no provable evidence of wrong-doing on the subject of obstruction of justice. That should have been the total conclusion. His job was to determine if there is sufficient evidence of wrong-doing to sustain an indictment and prosecution. But, remember, there was no actual criminal allegation in the first place. To state there is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion is not the problem. To state he was unable to reach a “judgment” of a crime committed and that the report does not exonerate the President … that’s a smear.

Prosecutors do not judge. Juries judge. Judges judge. Prosecutors refer criminal allegations to grand juries to gain indictments or they indictment themselves based on their belief there’s sufficient evidence to sustain a trial judgment of guilt. The report states there’s insufficient evidence to base an indictment. In normal prosecutions that would be the end of it, but the last six words of the conclusion infer it was within Robert Mueller’s purview to exonerate. That’s just false. Only a judge or jury can exonerate. Exoneration is a conclusion of a trial. A trial is preceded by an indictment. An indictment is sustained by evidence. Insufficient evidence? What does that mean? What is the standard being used? Insufficient is a term that means somewhere between zero and provable evidence. If the charge of obstruction ever went to trial we’d see something of a repeat of the famous “if the glove doesn’t fit” statement from defense. That glove doesn’t fit. What the Mueller report attempts to do is place doubt into the minds of the public. It attempts to set up a climate where President Trump can be tried in the courts of public opinion - not based on what he did, but solely on allegations of things he may or may not have said.
This nation’s legal system is based on Common Law; British Common Law, to be precise. One tenet of all common law systems, even as far back as Roman times, is that a defendant is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It’s the burden of prosecution to prove guilt, not the burden of the accused to prove innocence. Only under Civil or Sharia Law is a defendant expected to prove allegations are false. The Mueller Report’s fatal flaw is that it puts the onus on the accused. To me, that’s clearly legal malpractice. Consider this as well: if an investigation is undertaken on a pretext known to be false at the time of the beginning of the investigation, how can that investigation be legitimate?
When I stand back from the Mueller Report I conclude several things. I conclude over two years was wasted in trying to push rumors and false narratives to the point of indictment. I conclude the public treasure was drained of $34M for political purposes only. I conclude there were gross misdeeds by a lot of people, but mostly by those in the senior reaches of the FBI and DoJ. I conclude nothing alleged regarding any infraction of law can stick to Donald Trump because none of them occurred. I conclude that most of the wrong-doing was on the part of people within the federal bureaucracy. I conclude that mountains were made out of mole-hills solely for political purposes. Lastly, I conclude the Mueller Report contains a huge component of intellectual dishonesty and is contrived to feed the anti-Trump narratives of the media. It contains salacious material that cannot be independently corroborated and does it very cleverly. By not reaching a proper conclusion the report incites media speculation. It appears it was written with Rachel Maddow in mind, not Lady Justice. It reads as if an attempt is being made to bolster the causes of those who contend President Trump is unsuited for office and quite possibly mentally deficient in some respect. In other words, it appears to me to be an attempt to feed the narrative of
those who wish to exercise the 25th Amendment because they have no other means of pushing Donald Trump out of office.
The report is trash.
Lady Justice should be weeping under her blindfold.
In Liberty, Steve