Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
And that truly sums up what we know, don’t know, know we don’t know, and don’t know what we don’t know about the 300+ page Mueller report. The reality is that we only know what AG Barr wrote in a 3+ page letter to Congress, and that letter hints at a whole lot of unknowns that we don’t know.
In other words, when it comes to the Mueller report, we know what we don’t know, and we also don’t know what we don’t know. And Rumsfeld got it right, the most difficult category is the unknown unknowns - “the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
A close reading of the Barr letter is instructive, and I recommend everyone read it (it is easy to find on the internet). There are a lot of key unknowns between the lines. Barr’s letter is in two sections, one dealing with collusion with Russia, the second concerning obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. Let’s look at the knowns, the known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
It is important to understand the scope of the Mueller investigation; the knowns. There were 19 lawyers assisted by 40 FBI agents working on the investigation. The work consisted of:
- >2,800 subpoenas issued;
- Executing nearly 500 search warrants;
- Obtaining >230 orders for communication records;
- Issuing almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers;
- Making 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence;
- Interviewing approximately 500 witnesses.
Mueller issued numerous indictments and gained a number of convictions for crimes, and referred several matters to other offices (of the USDOJ and other jurisdictions).
In regards to interference with the 2016 U.S. election by Russia, Barr quotes the Mueller report (the Report): “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” This is not the conclusion folks on the left fantasized, but it is actually a good thing that a sitting President was found not to have “conspired or coordinated” with Russia to influence the election.
There are some important unknowns related to this first conclusion; mainly that we don’t know anything about the evidence collected by the Mueller team about possible coordination/conspiring with the Russian government. I can think of all kinds of questions: was there any coordination/conspiring with independent Russian actors, not the “Russian government;” were there any incidents of persons associated with the Trump campaign seeking to coordinate/conspire, but did not succeed; was there information exchanged between persons in the Trump campaign and Russians that could have or did influence the election, but were not legally determined to fall into the “coordination and conspiring” categories? (In a footnote, Barr points out that the Special Counsel “defined “coordination” as an “agreement - tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.””) Does this leave a question open about activities carried out by people in the Trump Campaign that were troubling, but did not exactly meet the definition of coordination? We know that we don’t know these answers, and we don’t know what else we don’t know.
It is also very important to consider this: the Mueller investigation found criminal wrongdoing by agencies and individuals of the Russian government, and indicted a number of Russian individuals involved in these activities. The investigation concluded that the Russian government actively worked to influence an American election. Donald Trump, however, has stated publicly that he does not agree with this conclusion, because Vladimir Putin told him that Russia did not do these things, and he apparently believes Putin more than he believes the U.S. intelligence agencies.
In the second part of his letter, dealing with obstruction of justice, AG Barr leaves a lot of unknown unknowns hanging in the breeze. Special Counsel Mueller punted a determination on this issue to AG Barr, declining to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment.” Barr lets us know that, for each relevant action investigated, Mueller set out evidence on both sides of the question and purposefully did not reach any conclusions, based on various considerations of law. The Special Counsel did state that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Whoa Nellie! Read that statement again. In other words, the Special Counsel stopped short of a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, and left it an open question for the Attorney General to wrestle with. And therefore, AG Barr made the decision that the evidence presented in the Report is not enough to establish that Donald Trump committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
The problem with this is that we don’t know what the evidence is in the Report upon which AG Barr based his decision. We know that we don’t know the evidence; we don’t know what evidence we don’t know. Barr then goes on to explain that, if there was no crime committed re: coordination and cooperation with Russia to influence an election, then there can be no obstruction charge because an obstruction-of-justice offense requires an underlying crime. And the circle of known and unknown unknowns is neatly closed.
And so, as Rumsfeld pointed out, we are left with the most difficult questions, the unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know. The only way these unknown unknowns will become known is the release of the complete Mueller Report. AG Barr has said that he will release a redacted copy of the Report in April. This will introduce another set of unknowns - the redacted parts of the report.
It is easy for Trump and his allies to strut and crow about “total exoneration;” however, he has not been totally exonerated, and will not be until the unknowns and unknown unknowns are known. Suffice it to say that there is enough contained in the Barr letter to cause every thinking and objective person to take pause and consider the totallity of the Special Counsel investigation, and the known facts of criminal activity, possible criminal activity, and activity that might be just short of legal lines of criminality. It is factual to say that Donald Trump surrounded/surrounds himself with shady characters, a number of whom have been found guilty of criminal activity. This is not “total exoneration” by any stretch of the imagination.
The fat lady has not yet sung.
—-
No comments:
Post a Comment