Note: Robert Mueller’s “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” is available at no cost through the Department of Justice’s website. It can be downloaded at www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf. Hardcopies are available on Amazon and other sites for around $10.
By Jack Pladziewicz, for the CVPost
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or an Independent I urge you to read Robert Mueller’s Report and decide for yourself about the seriousness of the President’s behavior as documented by Mueller. Don’t allow pundits, politicians or others to spin the results of the investigation to fit their political agenda. Read the report and decide for yourself.
That said, here is my opinion, after reading Volume II of the Report.
That second volume summarizes Mueller’s findings on the obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President. Mueller clearly states in the introduction to Volume II that he decided not to make a “traditional prosecution or declination decision” because the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had issued an opinion stating: “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
Mueller, as a Justice Department employee in his role as Special Prosecutor, believed that he was bound by this opinion and therefore could not indict the President regardless of the evidence. Consequently, that Mueller did not indict the President is no vindication of the President whatsoever.
Further Mueller statements
Mueller also stated that he decided not to make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime because, to do so in the absence of the ability to indict and prosecute, would taint the presidency while denying the President the opportunity to go to court and clear his name or otherwise defend himself.
Nonetheless, Mueller says that if the facts clearly showed that the President did not obstruct justice, he would say so. Mueller concludes by saying: “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The second half of this statement is more telling than the first because Mueller had already determined not to make a determination of whether the President committed a crime but, rather, to clear him if the facts so indicated. But Mueller did not clear the President.
By following the OLC’s opinion with regard to indictment and the related impact on determining whether or not a crime had been committed, Mueller limited himself to two options. These were either clearing the President of obstruction of justice or completing a timely investigation; gathering, recording and preserving evidence while it was fresh.
Mueller says this in his report. Since Mueller did not clear the President of obstruction, his role was limited to thoroughly investigating and preserving the information obtained from the investigation. But to what purpose if no determination of a crime or indictment would follow?
‘No one stands above the law’
Mueller further states than “no one stands above the law.” For most of us this means prosecution in a timely manner for any crime we commit, as it did for Michael Cohen. However, for the President this means either prosecution after leaving office – whether by losing an election, resignation or impeachment – or else impeachment in the US Congress.
Consequently, it is clear that Mueller viewed his obstruction-of-justice investigation as a means of providing Congress with the evidence it needed to determine whether a crime sufficient to justify impeachment had occurred and that this role belongs to Congress. Not to him, not to Attorney General William Barr or to other Justice Department officials.
Consequently, further investigation and evaluation of the information Mueller gathered is not only appropriate, but also necessary, if the principle that no one stands above the law is to be upheld. Further, unlike Mueller, the Congress is not limited to investigating Russian interference in the election and obstruction of that investigation.
It can investigate and consider other serious crimes as well, such as money laundering, campaign finance law violations and violations of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Where crimes occurred in areas outside of Mueller’s purview – such as violations of campaign finance laws – he passed the related information to other jurisdictions for potential prosecution, which could include prosecution of the President after he leaves office.
For example, Cohen was prosecuted in the federal Southern District of New York immediately and is now in jail for his crimes. The President, identified as a co-conspirator of Cohen’s in violating campaign finance law, could face charges after leaving office or such charges could be part of an impeachment trial.
‘Mainstream Media’ got it right
Another crucial message is imbedded in the details of the Mueller report. Over the past two years the President and his defenders have accused the “mainstream media” of publishing “fake news” every time a story appeared that they disliked. As one reads the Report it is clear that The Washington Post, The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations repeatedly got the story right.
The same aides who denied various stories as they broke in these publications eventually testified under oath before Mueller to their accuracy. The Report is filled with citations to such testimony and other corroborating evidence gathered by Mueller’s team.
In hindsight it is remarkable how accurate those stories were – a tribute to dogged, professional investigative reporting in search of the truth, not fake news. This is important, since the President, his staff and others sought to undermine reporting of the mainstream news outlets by labeling it fake news; with some aides providing “alternate facts.”
A free press, often acting in the face of government power, is a cornerstone of democracy. Demonizing and then suppressing a free press is often the first act of dictators and other authoritarian leaders – think Russia, China, Turkey and North Korea.
We should be deeply grateful for the efforts of journalists to make the workings of our government transparent. Their work is crucial to our freedom and to the strength of our democracy.
About the Author: Prof. Emeritus Jack Pladziewicz was a member of the UW-EC Chemistry faculty from 1973-2002. Between 2003-2014 he worked in various capacities for Research Corporation for Science Advancement (rescorp.org), a private foundation dedicated since 1912 to funding basic scientific research in the U.S. He retired as president of the foundation in 2014.