قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ US https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Mueller Report: The 10 Most Urgent Missed Questions

Mueller Report: The 10 Most Urgent Missed Questions

The main conclusion is a very good one for President Donald Trump: Mueller found that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign interacted or coordinated with the Russian Government to help him win the election, according to attorney General Bill Barr's assessment of Mueller's report.

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

Below are the nine most urgent unanswered questions.

Why did Mueller not personally speak to Trump?

For months (and months), Trump and his legal team hung up and mocked whether the president would sit down with Mueller and answer questions. "I would love to talk. I would love that. Nobody wants to talk more than me," Trump said in May 201
8 before adding that his legal team had advised him to sit down for an interview with Mueller's team. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani's entire legal team work sometimes seemed to be focused on negotiating with Mueller about whether Trump would accept a personal withdrawal. In the end, in November 2018, Trump sent written answers to questions from Mueller – and limited his responses to questions of any cooperation in the presidential campaign in 2016 and insisted that issues related to the transition or his presidency were protected by executive privileges.
"It has been our opinion from the beginning that much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate inquiry," Giuliani told CNN in a statement at that time. "This is our position today, but the president has nonetheless provided unprecedented co-operation. The Special Adviser has received over 30 witnesses, 1.4 million pages of material and now the President's written answers to questions. One conclusion. "
One source told CNN that the Special Council's office had long discussed with DOJ officials the issue of a complaint to Trump for being interviewed, but ultimately it was decided to move on without it.

The question we still do not know the answer to whether Mueller was fully satisfied with Trump's written reply or whether he would like to follow up with a personal interview. And if the latter is true, Mueller simply didn't mean that Barr and / or Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein would have signed it?

Will we ever see Trump's written answer?

For all Trumps bluster about the Mueller probe – "NO COLLUSION" ad infinitum – the only time he ever answered questions during the punishment for perjury was when he responded in writing to Mueller's question. Which makes these written answers potentially very, very interesting. Asked about the possibility of releasing Trump's written answer, Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow said on Monday to CNN's Alisyn Camerota that he would oppose such a move. "It would not be an attitude that I would have just to make a statement where we would release confidential messages that took place between the US President and the Justice Department or the Specialist Office," said Sekulow. "As a lawyer, you do not waive privileges and you do not waive investigative details that are not from a court order or agreement between the parties. And you must weigh many factors about how it affects other presidencies."
It is worth noting here that when Bill Clinton witnessed in 1998 as part of Kenneth Starr's probe, he did it on closed television so grand jury could see him. At least parts of Clinton's testimony have also been released.

Will we ever see the full Mueller report?

Keep in mind that what we know about Mueller's 22-month survey comes from a four-page summary letter from findings Barr sent to Capitol Hill on Sunday. Outside Barr and probably a few others who helped him review Mueller's results, no one has seen the full report (except for Mueller and his team of course.) In this letter, Barr, as he did in his AG AGM, insisted on that he would do his best to be transparent to the public. "I am aware of the public interest in this matter," he wrote. "Therefore, my goal and intention is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can be in accordance with applicable law, rules and departmental policies."

It is the second part of this quote that gives plenty of room for interpretation. As Barr later states in the letter, he believes there are parts of the Mueller report that cannot be legally released. He also added that he still "needs to identify any information that may affect other ongoing issues, including those that Special Counsel has referred to other offices."

Given all that, it is unlikely that the public will ever see the entire Mueller report. The question is, how much does Barr hold back – and why. For his part, Trump said Monday afternoon that the release of the full Mueller report "wouldn't bother 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: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not release him either." By choosing not to offer any definitive conclusion on whether Trump prevented justice, Mueller knew that he left the issue to Barr, who as a citizen in 2018 had written a note in which he did so that Trump had not actually prevented justice when it came to the firing of former FBI director James Comey. Wrote Barr:

"Mueller should not be able to demand that the president submit to an interrogation of alleged obstruction. If this department is captured, this theory will have potentially catastrophic consequences, not only for the presidency but for the management industry as a whole. and the department in particular. "

During his confirmation negotiation, Barr sought to downplay the import of the note – insisting that at that time he was a citizen without access to the full facts of the case and that his point was a narrow, legal one. Nevertheless, Mueller had to know when he left Barr's obstruction decision that AG was very likely to choose not to pursue it.

(One possible explanation of why Mueller did what he did is that he simply has no evidence of a reasonable doubt, and aware that he was dealing with the president of the United States, simply did not want to push the envelope – left that decision to the highest law enforcement official in the country.) [19659002]

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

This one is complicated. Barr, a Trump employee, is well aware that he is considered by many Democrats as a Trump Protector – some chairman put the job to make sure nothing attached to the Mueller probe ever came to the oval office. Barr also knows that at the special law of law, he is the gatekeeper of all the information that Mueller collected during the 22-month survey, and as such he will be heavily investigated for what he authorizes to be release and more importantly what he Dont do.

And then Barr will send a very clear signal that he does not overturn the scales when it comes to what he included in his summary of the Mueller report. So yes, the big headline is that Mueller did not state that there was coordination or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But Barr also quotes directly from Mueller when it comes to the issue of obstruction – isolates himself from accusations that he protects Trump against hard conclusions by the specialist adviser.

Has Mueller uncovered any evidence of the interaction?

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

There are differences in some threads that may indicate the interaction and the ability to establish conversations beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, there is a relatively wide gap between these two things. So did something that Mueller showed up fall into that hole? If so, what?

Why were there so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign if there was no cooperation? And why did so many suffer from them?

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

Why didn't they succeed if they failed to protect a broader collaborative effort? Perhaps keeping investigators away from other crimes not related to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign. Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being sentenced for economic crimes in connection with his contacts with the Ukrainian government.

Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated claims, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly the best and clearest minds in the political and legal worlds.

Will we ever hear from Mueller even though the report?

In the days that led to the completion of Mueller's inquiries, people like the House Intelligence Committee rapporteur Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) And Judicial Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.) suggested that they call Mueller to testify to his results. After the release of the report, Nadler at least changed his attention to Barr. "In view of the much-discussed inconsistencies and final decision-making at the Justice Department after the Special Council Communication, in which Mueller did not liberate the President, we will call Justice Barr to testify for @HouseJudiciary in the near future" Nadler tweeted Sunday evening . (It should be seen if Barr would agree with that.)
If the attention to Capitol Hill returns to the idea of ​​Mueller to testify, it is not clear that it would happen or if it did, if it would be revealing. According to the special Council Act under which Mueller operated, decisions on what should be published regarding his investigation are entirely in the hands of Barr and Rosenstein. So Mueller would be very limited to what he could say without the two bosses saying. And as WaPo Aaron Blake points out, Mueller would also be limited to discussing information obtained through grand jury or details that did not lead to prosecution. And since Trump was not prosecuted, Mueller could be limited from talking about what his inquiry came to the president.

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

We testify that Comey and others had the Congress's testimony that the Ministry of Justice had confirmed some elements of the case composed of the former British spy Christopher Steele. (Fusion GPS's opposition research efforts were initially paid by a conservative news center, but later funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee.) But what parts of the dossier that the Justice Department confirmed to be true, we never knew. Did Mueller's results confirm parts of Steele's dossier that the original FBi study did not? Again, if so, which parts?

Although the Steele dossier has become a political football – and the most tasty 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 partners such as Flynn, Gates and Cohen for the Mueller study?

The Special Council's office and the Southern District of New York cared for each of these men – and more – for believing that they used information they and they alone had to catch larger fish in the operation. But now the Mueller study is over, and none of those supposed to be "bigger fish" – Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner – has been charged or will be charged.

Was the decision to cut dealing with similar Cohen, etc. Only aimed at capturing single-trunk forces, Political Swede Roger Stone, responsible for lying to Congress about his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign? At this point, it must be assumed since there are no other charges awaiting the Mueller probe. And if that were the case, why did Mueller Stone's accusations consider it so important that he was willing to cut deals with Flynn, Gates, Cohen and others?

Source link