Home / US / Mueller report: The 10 most pressing, unanswered questions

Mueller report: The 10 most pressing, unanswered questions



Its main conclusion is a very good one for President Donald Trump: Mueller found that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign co-ordinated or co-ordinated with the Russian government to help him win the election, according to lawyer-general Bill Barr's assessment of Mueller Report .

In short: We know a hell much more about what Mueller found – and what that means for Trump and the country – than a week ago. Or even three days ago, when Barr admitted Mueller had completed his investigation and sent it. But there are also a number of questions left – about the Mueller report itself, about why so many people in Trump's course lied about their interaction with the Russians and whether we will ever hear from Mueller.

Below are the nine

Why did Mueller not personally speak to Trump?

For months and months, Trump and his team kept on and whether the president would sit down with Mueller and answer questions. "I would love to talk. I would like to. No one wants to talk more than I do," Trump said in May 201
8, adding that his team law had recommended him to sit down for an interview with Mueller's law. Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani's entire job on the law seemed sometimes to be focused on negotiating with Mueller about whether Trump would agree on a personal reduction. At the end of November 2018, Trump submitted written replies to questions from Mueller – and limited his response to collusion issues during the presidential campaign in 2016 and insisted that issues related to the transition or his presidency were protected by executive privilege.
"It has been our position from the beginning that much of what has been raised raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate investigation," said Giuliani CNN in a statement then. "This is still our position today, but the president has still provided an earlier collaboration. Special councils have received more than 30 witnesses, 1.4 million pages of material and now the president's written answers to questions. It is time to put this question to a conclusion . "
A source told CNN that the special council's office with long-term conviction with DOJ's officials about issuing a judgment for Trump to be interviewed, but ultimately a decision was made to move on without it.

The question we still do not know whether Mueller was completely satisfied with Trump's written response or whether he would have liked to follow up on a personal conversation. And, if the latter is true, Mueller simply didn't think Barr and / or Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein would have written it?

Will we ever see Trump's written answer?

For all Trumps bluster about Mueller's probe – "NO COLLECTION" ad infinitum – the only time he ever answered questions under the punishment of perjury was when he replied in writing to Mueller's questions. Which makes the written answers potentially very interesting. Asked about the possibility of releasing Trump's written answer, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow informed CNN's Alisyn Camerota on Monday that he would oppose such a move. "It would not be a position I would like, just to make a statement where we would release confidential communications that took place between the US President and the Ministry of Justice or the Special Affairs Office," Sekulow said. "As a lawyer, you do not waive privileges and you do not waive investigative details that lack either a court order or an agreement between the parties. And you have to weigh many factors about how it affects the other chairman."
It is worth noting here that when Bill Clinton testified in 1998 as part of Kenneth Starr's probe, he did it on closed TV so Grand Jury could watch him. At least parts of Clinton's testimony have also been released.

Will we ever see the entire Mueller report?

Remember that what we know about Mueller's 22-month survey comes from a four-page summary letter of bargain Barr sent to Capitol Hill on Sunday. Outside Barr and probably some others who helped him review Mueller's findings, no one has seen the entire report (except Mueller and his team, of course.) In that letter, Barr, as he did in his confirmation hearing for AG, insisted he should do its best to be transparent with the public. "I am aware of the general interest in this issue," he wrote. "For that reason, my goal and intention is to release as much of Special Counsel's report as I can agree with applicable laws, regulations, and departments."

It is the second part of the quote that gives much room for interpretation. As Barr later clarifies in the letter, he believes that there are parts of the Mueller report that cannot be settled. He also added that he still "has to identify all information that may affect other ongoing issues, including those that the special adviser has referred to other offices."

Considering everything, it is unlikely that the public will ever see the entire Mueller report. The question is how much Barr holds back – and why. Trump said in part on Monday afternoon that the release of the full Mueller report "would not disturb me at all".

Why did Mueller punt on obstruction and left the decision to Barr?

] In Mueller's report he wrote the following about the question of whether Trump prevented the probe in Russian interference: "Even if this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, he does not release him either." By choosing not to give a definitive conclusion on whether Trump prevented justice, Mueller knew that he left the question to Barr who, as a private citizen in 2018, had written a memo in which he made the case that Trump did not, prevented justice when it came to the shooting. by former FBI director James Comey. Written Barr:

"Mueller should not be able to demand that the president submit a questioning on alleged obstruction. If it is covered by the department, this theory would have potentially catastrophic consequences, not only for the presidency but for the administrative branch as a whole and the department in particular. . "

During his confirmation hearing, Barr attempted to record the import of the note – insisting that he was then a private citizen without access to complete facts of the case, and that his point was a narrow legal issue. Nevertheless, Mueller must know that when he made the decision to bar Barr it was very likely that AG would choose not to pursue it.

(One possible explanation for why Mueller did what he did is simply not to do so, has no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and given that he dealt with the US president, he did not just want to push the envelope – leave that decision to the highest law enforcement officer in the country.) [19659002]

Why did Barr choose to include and directly quote Mueller on "not releasing" the line of obstruction?

This one is complicated. Barr, a Trump employee, is well aware that he is regarded by many Democrats as a Trump patron – someone the president put the job to ensure that nothing attached to the Mueller probe ever came to the Oval Office. Barr also knows that according to the Special Council Act, he is the gatekeeper of all information that Mueller obtained during the 22-month survey and as such will be heavily examined for what he approves for being released and, more importantly, what he does not.

And so Barr wants to send a very clear signal that he does not tip the waves when it comes to what he included in his summary of the Mueller report. So, well, the big headline is that Mueller did not show that there was coordination or collaboration between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But Barr also quotes directly from Mueller as to the issue of obstacles – isolates himself from fees that he protects Trump from difficult conclusions of special councils.

Did Mueller discover any evidence of collaboration?

Trump and his administration immediately seized Barr's summary of the Mueller report by insisting on his often repeated claims that "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's probably right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T] he did not investigate that the members of the Trump campaign cooperated or co-ordinated with the Russian government in their election interference activities."

There is a difference between some kinds of evidence that may suggest collaboration and the ability to establish synergies beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there is a relatively wide sewer between these two things. So did everything that Mueller turned in that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no interaction, there were so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And why did so many lie to them?

This is the question that disturbs me most in the wake of Barr's summary of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump employees had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them – National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump Fixer / Lawyer Michael Cohen and Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos – lied to either Congress or Federal Investigators on these interactions. And in any case, these lies led to criminal charges.

If they didn't lie to protect a wider collaboration, why did they lie? Perhaps keeping investigators away from other crimes that are not related to Russia's involvement in the 2016 campaign. Trump campaign president Paul Manafort ended up being sentenced with financial crimes related to his relations with the Ukrainian government, for example.

Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and lures) were simply as comfortable as saying the truth. Despite Trump's repeated claims, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly the best and brightest senses in the political and legal worlds.

Will we ever hear from Mueller himself about the report?

In the day leading up to the end of Mueller's investigations, people such as House Intelligence Committee, President Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) And Judiciary Committee Chair proposed Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.) to call Mueller to testify about his results. After the report, Nadler at least released his attention to Barr. "In view of the many circumstances related to compliance and final decision-making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not release the president, we will call General Barr's attorney to testify for @HouseJudiciary in the near future," . Nadler tweeted Sunday night . (It remains to be seen if Barr would agree).
If attention to Capitol Hill returns to the idea that Mueller is witnessing, it is not clear that it would happen, or if it did, if it were obvious. According to the special Council regulation that Mueller pushed, decisions on what should be revealed with regard to his investigation are entirely in the hands of Barr and Rosenstein. So Mueller would be seriously limited about what he could say without telling his two bosses. And, as WaPo Aaron Blake points out, Mueller would be as limited in discussing information obtained through a large jury or details that did not lead to a prosecution. And since Trump was not prosecuted, Mueller could be limited from telling what his investigation was up to the president.

How much of the Steele dossier was confirmed by Mueller? And what parts?

We know because of the congressional testimony from Comey and others that the Justice Department had confirmed some of the documentation compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. (The Fusion GPS opposition research effort was originally paid for by a conservative newsroom, but was later funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee.) But what parts of the documentation the Justice Department confirmed were true, we have never known. Mente Mueller's results confirm parts of Steele's documents that the original FBi survey did not have? Again, if so, what parts?

Although the Steele case has turned into a political football – and the most blessed parts of it have never been confirmed – it is still one of the most important documents in this study. So, how true is that?

How useful was the collaboration between former Trump associations such as Flynn, Gates and Cohen to the Mueller survey?

The special council office and the Southern District of New York cut slander are about each of these men – and more – because we thought to use information they and they alone had to catch larger fish in the operation. But now, the Mueller survey has passed, and none of those assumed to be "bigger fish" – Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner – has been charged or will be charged.

Was the decision to cut agreements with such as Cohen etc. only aimed at catching once Trump's political swindle Roger Stone, who is responsible for lying to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign? On this occasion, it must be adopted, given that there are no other prosecutions waiting from the Mueller probe. And if so, why does Mueller Sten's prosecution consider it so important that he was willing to contract with Flynn, Gates, Cohen and others?


Source link