It’s here. It’s finally here. After over 500 interviews, 2 years of investigation, hundreds of subpoenas, and over 400 pages of information, the Mueller report is here. As expected, flocks of sheep on both sides of the aisle jump to accuse or defend the Trump administration with the report that is now published for the public to see online and in books as well. The facts are in, there are no charges against President Trump for obstruction of justice or collusion with the Russians due to lack of evidence. Despite the ‘Innocence’ of the president though, it does not exclude the Russian’s actions of ‘Meddling’ with the elections. For something that was supposed to ease American’s minds and do away with the possibility that the president colluded with Russia, Washington seems to have other plans in mind.
In regard to the actual report, here are the key points from the investigation in a report published by CNN. In their article Takeaways from the Mueller report summary, the first bolded main point is that there is “No Collusion”. In relation to Barr’s letter it stated,”(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”. The letter states that,”Barr’s summary includes a footnote that explains how Mueller defined coordination: an “agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”In addition, Barr wrote that no Trump associate conspired or coordinated “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
The second bolded bullet reads,”No exoneration for obstruction”. This part of the piece goes into detail about the Justice department along with Mueller. It states,”The Justice Department decided not to prosecute the President for obstructing justice with his behavior — both public and in private –”. In further detail it says,”Mueller said he thoroughly investigated the obstruction question, though he didn’t interview Trump. Ultimately he left the question to the President’s political appointees, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to decide what to do. Barr and Rosenstein chose not to prosecute. They decided that they couldn’t press a case against Trump because they didn’t have evidence of an underlying crime, Barr’s letter said Sunday. Barr also said the President’s actions did not “constitute obstructive conduct” and were not “done with corrupt intent.” However, in Muller’s report it states that even though there is no evidence of such obstruction/collusion, it does not “exonerate” the president.
Within the publication, Shawn Wu, a CNN contributor, is referenced in stating in a interview that,”Perhaps without collusion, there could be no obstruction, “It’s possible Barr didn’t want to indict the President because an obstruction charge wouldn’t stand without an underlying collusion case”.
I would like to highlight other key areas of the report not covered by the CNN article. According to the Mueller report on page 219, the report reads,”Unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference”. This is at the cost though of some interviewees ‘Destroying” evidence, mentioned on page 18 of the report. The report states that,”The Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.
Many may point toward the firing of then FBI Director James Comey by President Trump shows some sort of cover up. However, on page 218 of the report reads,”The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official”. However, the report does entail that a possible FBI investigation could lead to other crimes but not limited to personal offenses that the President knew was illegal.
In regard to Trump’s “I’m F’d comment” in relation to learning about Mueller investigating him, all the writer will say is that these types of comments can be taken out of context to argue for or against the accused. One can say this shows how “Corrupt” the man is, yet another can say that he simply acted through the lens of a public relations one, for such an investigation could hinder the effectiveness of his presidency, and hurt votes and a future for reelection.
As of last week, United States Attorney General William Barr voluntarily came to testify in front of the Senate for over 6 hours. This, of course, entailed the expected grilling of the AG of the handling of the case along with his ‘Questionable’ summary of the Mueller report released to the public weeks before the actual report came about. The media will tell you that the AG’s report ‘Misinformed the public’, yet by going by the sworn testimony of the AG, in a phone call between Bob Mueller and the AG, Mueller’s concerns dealt with how the media interpreted the summary. The summary of the report was not questioned by the top investigator of the investigation, thus being accurate and not biased to sway the public in any way from the truth. Even if it was proven the AG’s intent with his testimony he gave in front of Congress and summary he gave to the public was to ‘Misinform the public’, it doesn’t matter. This is based on the sole reason that the Mueller Report is out for the public to view, thus allowing the public to draw their own speculation and conclusions on the matter. The same report that says there is no evidence to prosecute the president on obstruction of justice and collusion with the Russians.
Despite this knowledge though, Democrats still persist with the narrative that there was “Collusion” between the President and Russia. One should not blame them, considering that it is rather questionable that those officials surrounding Trump had either lied about Russian ties or broke financial laws. Yet again, there still is no evidence of such “Collusion” even after 500 interviews and a two-year-long investigation, end of story. These are hard pills to swallow for those apt on the narrative becoming reality. Yet the circus continues in Washington. The day after Barr’s 6-hour testimony, Barr was supposed to testify again to a House hearing for the special investigation, yet skipped due to his thinking that it was unnecessary, for right or wrong on his part.
In an effort to make fun of the AG, Representative Steve Cohan ate Kentucky Fried Chicken and placed a plastic chicken on the witness chair where Barr was supposed to testify on Thursday. It’s nice to know the professionalism of such an act of an U.S Elected official in a matter that should be bipartisan; a rather tasteless move. There are now talks about putting the AG in contempt of Congress for missing the deadline of providing the full and unredacted version of Mueller’s report and other evidence connected with the piece. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also put her two pennies in, accusing Barr of lying to Congress with the statement that he,”Was not telling the truth to Congress of the United States that’s a crime”. As to what “Lie” the speaker of the house is referencing in regard to the AG’s testimony is stated in a Politico’s article Pelosi accuses Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress. Pelosi’s accusation comes from,”An apparent reference to Barr’s response to Crist last month during a House Appropriations Committee hearing, when the attorney general said he was not aware of any concerns that Mueller’s investigators might have expressed about his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings. Barr’s response appeared to contradict the revelation earlier this week that Mueller himself wrote to the attorney general, saying he was worried that Barr’s summary “threatens to undermine … public confidence” in the Russia probe”. Mueller also said Barr’s memo “Did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the investigation”. However, Barr defended himself that he was making “distinctions between the members of the Mueller team and Mueller himself”. Because of this accusation, Representative Pelosi has received backlash from the Department of Justice for her “Reckless, irresponsible, and and false” comment.
Pelosi is not the only one calling the AG a liar, but Senator Blumenthal is also. Yet the irony at play here comes from a man who has lied to the America public about serving in Vietnam in which he states,” “On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service. And I regret that, and I take full responsibility.” This quote is found on Politifact’s piece of Donald Trump: Sen. Blumenthal ‘lied about his service’ in Vietnam.
In regard to holding the current AG in contempt, this has not been the first time in history that this has occurred. Eric Holder was also kept under contempt of congress, the AG under the Obama Administration. In politico’s article “Lawmakers dispute precedent for holding Barr in contempt”, it states the following that,” If the House holds Barr in contempt, it will be only the second time in history it has done so to a sitting attorney general. In 2012 the GOP-controlled House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over documents linked to the botched Fast and Furious gun-running sting”. In the same piece, it is mentioned that Attorney General Janet Reno also faced the trouble of being in contempt with,”A House resolution cited then-Attorney General Janet Reno for contempt in 1998 for not turning over internal memos related to a campaign finance controversy in the middle of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, but the full chamber never voted on the resolution”.
It will not happen that our representatives will move onto more important national matters. The report is finished and the verdict is here. Yet time WILL continue to be wasted on arguments of speculation and argumentative points by those wishing to push the narrative of the collusion of “RUUSSIIAAA”. The complete social collapse in Venezuela due to socialist policies and other matters should be the main focus of the country now. Yet The Russia probe will continue to distract us from the real problems that are occurring. For those pushing the narrative, look at the real collusion of the United States elections of illegal immigrants that overcompensate states with more votes in Congress, thus affecting the amendment of the constitution of equal representation of states.
Speaking of collusion, the Russian interference dilemma can also be directed back to 2014 during the Obama administration. Politico’s piece Obama team was warned in 2014 about Russian Interference states,”The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials”. The underlying question of the article stands as to whether the Obama administration could have done more to prevent such interference by the Russians”. Even with the precautions though and the work that the Obama administration is stated to have done, the article states,”But subsequent events — including Russia’s interference in the American election through hacks of the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, among other intrusions identified by U.S. intelligence — have left many in the former administration wondering whether they could have done more”.
In reference of the Obama Administration, recent reports have suggested that Obama had spied on Trump. In reference to the 2016 election, the New York Post’s piece FBI sent a blond bombshell to meet Trump aide Papadopoulos: report describes a peculiar meeting with a Trump Aid and a FBI Agent written by the Washington Post. The piece states,”The “sexy bottle blonde” woman whom a former Trump campaign adviser says came on to him in a London bar was sent there by the FBI to investigate suspected campaign collusion with Russia, according to a new report Thursday.The woman, who used the name Azra Turk, was working for the feds when she posed as a research assistant who wanted to discuss foreign policy with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, the New York Times said.”.
It is said that Turk traveled to London to work with professor Stephan Halper from Cambridge University who is noted as being,”A longtime FBI informant whom the feds had told to set up a meeting with Papadopoulos, according to the Times”. Between Turk and the Trump Aid on September 15, 2016, no new information was documented”. The report of the Times though has gained attention throughout the week, especially from Trump and his supporters. The article mentions this with,”The revelation of the FBI’s role in arranging the meetings came amid claims by Trump and his supporters that US officials under then-President Barack Obama spied on his campaign.Last month, Attorney General William Barr told a Congressional committee that he thought “spying did occur” and that he’d be looking into the “genesis” of the FBI probe that was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller”. To add to the matter, the Trump aid George Papadopoulos was later sentenced to 12 days in prison for lying to the FBI about Russian contacts”. Papadopoulos though had written a book about his experience with his novel,”Deep State Target”, in which he talks about being grilled about “Russian collusion” with the Trump campaign by the woman in London. The book lists the comments from Turk in which she stated,”“She wants to know: are we working with Russia? ‘I don’t know what you are talking about,’ I say with a nervous laugh — her question is creepy,” he wrote”. She is also noted as asking,”“I’d love to hear more about the campaign. It is such a fascinating subject. How is Trump going to win? How can he beat Hillary Clinton?” he recalls her saying”.
During an interview done by political commentator Tucker Carlson, Papadopoulos believes that he was grilled by the “CIA” agent sent by the Obama administration in order to bring the Trump Administration down. Papadopoulos noted that the main purpose of the ‘Agent’ was to extract information not only about him but also from ‘possible’ Russian ties with the Trump campaign. During the interview, it is noted that the Obama administration was involved due to the fact that the president was in charge of operations of both the CIA and the FBI. In regard to his jailing, it is laid out in the interview that he was falsely accused and jailed of ‘colluding’ with Russia, thus motivating him to write his book about how he was unjustly treated.
With the argument of not releasing the “full report” to the public, there is a major flaw with this argument. In ABC New’s 7 key questions and answers about Mueller’s report on Trump and Russia, it gives the reasoning as to why the entire report will not be released to the public. The reasoning is that the report entails “grand jury material’ that is not made to be seen by the public eye for legality reasons. We do know however that Barr will release as much as he can for the public to see, a statement given to congress from a letter.
In regard to AG Barr not showing up to testify in the House, let me show you as to why he chose not to. In NPR’s piece GOP Rep. Doug Collins Says AG Barr Was Right Not To Attend Thursday’s Hearing, NPR’s host Audie Cornish questions Representative Doug Collins of Georgia about Barr not showing up. Collins states the reasoning of Barr with ,”I think he made it very clear; he was voluntarily willing to come. And just over the past weekend, the chairman made a decision that he wanted to have staff involved in the questioning”. The host questions with,”and not just staff – lawyers, right?” which is followed by the response of Collins with,” Oh, yeah, the staff lawyers, yes. And I think the interesting thing is, this is 206 years of breaking precedent in the House Judiciary Committee. And the reason they want to do it is because they want it to appear to look like an impeachment hearing. The Democrats can’t bring themselves to bring an impeachment hearing right now, so they’re trying to feed, I think, and mollify their base by saying, look – we’ll make it look like an impeachment here. Because the only times that that has ever happened is during an impeachment hearing. So really, there’s only one person – yeah”. By questioning the AG with attorney’s of the House’s own, the entire hearing would end up to be an impeachment hearing instead, thus wasting time. It is up to the American people to decide if he made the right call on that, yet this is the leading factor behind Barr’s decision in not showing up.
As the war of testimony, facts, and speculation continues on, there is yet to be a journalist who raises the question of the true conspirator behind the scenes, the Russians. Why isn’t anyone talking about the future plans to prevent another election meddling crisis to happen again? As Americans across the nation watch cable news, I cannot help but think that this is exactly what the Russians wanted: To tear our country apart; ripping away the United. Instead of coming together as one in search for the truth to do away with the red menace, we find ourselves again on separate sides of the aisle. It’s time to move on from fiction land and go after the real enemy of American democracy.
Title Image: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-doj-prosecutors-cosign-letter-saying-trump-would-have-been-charged-if-not-president