The Mueller Report is out and it seems that everyone in Washington DC and throughout its political and media class is going crazy with mixed feelings of exultation, justification, fear and revenge.
This site is and always was sceptical of the Trump/Collusion allegation. The last two posts showed that well enough. Reason for suspicion was out there everywhere and whilst a flood of information (and very good summaries) came from numerous investigative journalists, the drawn-out Mueller investigation itself was a cause of it remaining hidden from open view. Even when full documentation was made available to members of Congress, being classified it was unable to be released publicly because of “Mueller”. When President Trump said last year that he would declassify large sections of it (as he had power to do), he held back. As he explained in a tweet, foreign powers asked him to and that other advisers thought it might interfere with ongoing investigations.
Well, now the preliminaries are over and the report (and with it, Mueller’s role) is finished. The publication and the lack of any finding of collusion or recommending any other action against Trump has rendered most of the thousands of articles, leaks and conclusions invalid at a stroke. And they hate it. So obstruction is now the issue for the opponents.
For Donald Trump and the whole government, though, it is all happening. The groups and interests who have maintained the Collusion narrative for over two years, acting as if Mueller would prove every Trump allegation that had ever been made, fell in a heap. Some of the millions on social media who were mesmerised by the carefully-worked and constructed plot lines and “evidence” – all hidden from view waiting for Mueller to expose it all – have had to accept the inevitable that the Report alone was not going to do it for them. The hatred for Trump was so extraordinary that you could expect that the gullible who swallowed the Russia Collusion “evidence” so easily might be stunned at first whilst waiting for the official response from the “influencers” they had relied upon for so long. There was so much to the contrary out there for analysis, however, and being reported on in multiple places, that the total surprise of so many is a guide to the state of politics today and the openness of the minds analysing it.
Everyone could expect that the main players in creating that narrative, those who had ruled over the US intelligence apparatus which had spread and vouched for the Collusion narrative (ex-CIA chief Brennan calling it “Treason” would you believe?) would try to cover their “mistakes”. However, even Collusion skeptics could hardly expect such a stunning outpouring of new disinformation and spin from the Democrat-owned section of the legacy media. This was the media which had been handmaiden to every single release and spin of the failing Collusion narrative, every pro-Clinton article and anti-Trump hit piece. Their reaction and lack of professional self-reflection, their doubling-down into the new spin is hard to credit as possible unless every previous allegation against them of being partisan and a captive media was true.
The report is so important in so many ways that it will be a constant presence in this section of the website referring to the USA under Trump. There is so much happening, however, that needs demand that other US and world topics be covered.
Mueller and his report are both going to be held to account.
The quality of the report is subject to savage attack by a variety of political and legal writers. Stunned by no recommendations for charges of any kind, even “obstruction” in the report, media and political partisans are still fixated on both Collusion and Obstruction. As was noted earlier in time Mueller reversed the onus of proof for determining whether Trump could even be guilty on obstruction charges, but now a number of partisans of the left and Democrat politics are insisting that Obstruction is a charge against Trump yet, apparently, not one in which they would trust to be used to actually impeach Trump
Mueller will be analysed into the ground in forthcoming and ongoing posts, but, as for the report itself, let me start by just listing some major criticisms of it (other than the “results” of course).
First up, and for an introduction in this post, there is criticism that it failed to even report on highly relevant allegations, questions being asked as to why this was. Journalist Ben Weingarten of The Federalist mentions various omissions from Mueller consideration They include:-
Failure to even address the irregular underpinnings to the whole inquiry, including spying on a presidential campaign, information based on suspect information from a political opponent, such information being mainly based on a “salacious and unverified” dossier.
Real doubts about the legality of the Mueller appointment in the first place, in that this was a counter-intelligence investigation and not, as the Special Counsel law requires, that there be an underlying criminal offence to be investigated.
The biased and conflicted team Mueller assembled about him, the Clinton supporters and the questionable ethics of some members of the team.
Commencement of the official investigation is an area where the report is said to skim over the detail of the alleged actions of George Papadopoulos, as well as there being a glaring (and questionable) gap when dealing with the notorious Professor Mifsud. (NOTE The whole report is especially and mysteriously flimsy on the position and role of the mysterious professor, Mifsud, about whom much will be shown later on this web site)
Steele and the notorious dossier isn’t even mentioned in the collusion section and only in passing in the obstruction section. Because the dossier played such a major part in commencing the investigation in the first place, such an omission is beyond curious.
Other omissions include the company commissioning the hiring of Steele and his dossier (and which has been involved in so many incidents over the whole campaign and post-campaign era, FusionGPS, and its leading light Glenn Simpson did not even get a mention by name in the whole report. Critical information about Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the key figure in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, is said to be missing. The section on Carter Page, the man whose life has been changed forever by being used to start the whole FISA secret warrant process and who was never charged with anything, is deficient in its coverage of him. Not surprisingly, the failure even to mention Steele or his unverified dossier in the Collusion section hardly helps Page as the dossier is the sole material mentioning him upon which allegations against Page were based. It is also suspicious directly as to Page in that it misuses the earlier Page association with Russian agents in 2013 by omitting that he was an FBI informant in that case and assisted the prosecution of those agents. (NOTE An over-suspicious observer might think that a more thorough investigation of Carter Page – and Mifsud, for that matter – might have been inconvenient).
Finally, for this post, unequal treatment of Trump as against Clinton. Weingarten mentions interesting applications of the campaign finance law to the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016, the proposed derogatory information about candidate Clinton being a “contribution in kind”, without ever mentioning its equal application to the Clinton campaign, with its bought-and-paid-for dossier. While the report does not assert such a breach in its conclusion, its discussion was deficient in that it never even mentioned the similar Clinton actions.
Quite frankly, things are moving so fast and the action and reactions of the vested political interests are so serious that there isn’t time to move methodically through the report in a series of consecutive posts. However the site to download the report has been mentioned here and it is available to be read, so this site will be noting and referencing the report many times in the short and longer term, always relating-back all posts and links.
However, the report and Mueller himself are subject to renewed analysis on the basis of alleged ongoing association with anti-Trump forces and it will have to be explored as to whether it is or is not a supposed explanation for some of the “problems” with the report.Follow