Home / US / The Mueller Report: The 10 Most Urgent Unanswered Questions

The Mueller Report: The 10 Most Urgent Unanswered Questions

His most important conclusion is a very good one for President Donald Trump: Mueller stated that neither Trump nor anyone in his election campaign was nested or co-ordinated with the Russian government to help him win the election, so Bill Barr's assessment of the miller's report.

In short, we know a lot more about what Muller has found – and what Trump and the country mean – than a week ago. Or even three days ago, when Barr acknowledged that Müller had finished his investigation, and presented it. However, there are still a number of questions – about the current Müller report, why so many people in Trump's orbit have lied about their interactions with the Russians, and whether we'll ever hear from Muller.

Below are the nine most urgent unanswered questions.

Why did not Mueller speak personally with Trump?

Trump and his attorney team were locked for months (and months), squatting over whether the President would sit down with Müller and answer questions. Nobody wants to speak more than me, "Trump said in May 201
8, before adding that his legal team had advised him against settling for an interview with Müller's team. Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani seemed to focus all his time on the legal team to temporarily negotiate with Muller if Trump would agree to a personal meeting. Finally, in November 2018, Trump sent written answers to Müller's questions – confining himself to answering questions about collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign. He insisted that issues related to either the transition or his presidency were protected by executive privileges.
"From the outset, it has been our position that much that has been asked raises serious constitutional issues and goes beyond the scope of a legitimate investigation," Giuliani said in a statement to CNN at the time. "This is still our position, but the President has done an unprecedented amount of cooperation, with more than 30 witnesses and 1.4 million pages of material available to the Special Representative, and now the President has written answers to questions
One source told CNN that the Special Representative's office had consulted with the DOJ officials in detail about receiving a summons to interview Trump, but ultimately decided to go without them.

The question we ask I do not know yet whether Mueller's answer is completely satisfied with Trump's written answers or whether he would like to have a personal conversation. And if the latter is true, does not Müller believe that Barr and / or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have signed the contract?

Will we ever see Trump's written answers?

For all Trump's hubbub of the Mueller probe – "NO COLLUSION" ad infinitum – the only time he answered questions under the penalty of perjury was when he wrote in response to Müller's questions. That may make these written answers very, very interesting. Asked about the opportunity to publicize Trump's written answers, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulov said Monday that CNN's Alisyn Camerota said he would oppose such a move. "Well, that would not be the position I would just like to make a statement in which we would publish confidential communications between the President of the United States and the Ministry of Justice or the Office of the Special Representative," Sekulov said. "As a lawyer, you do not forego privileges, and you do not forego investigative details unless there is a court order or agreement between the parties, and you must weigh many factors as to how this affects other presidencies."
Here it is Noteworthy that when Bill Clinton testified in 1998 as part of Kenneth Starr's investigation, he did so on closed television so the grand jury could watch him. At least parts of Clinton's testimonies have also been published.

Will we ever see the full Mueller report?

Remember, what we know about Mueller's 22-month investigation comes from a four-page US government summary letter that Barr sent to Capitol Hill on Sunday. Outside of Barr and presumably a few others who helped him review Müller's results, no one has seen the full report (except for Muller and his team, of course). In this letter, Barr has, as he has confirmed in his hearing AG insisted that he would do his best to be transparent with the public. "I am aware of the public interest in this matter," he wrote. "For this reason, my goal and intention is to release the Special Counsel report as much as possible, to the extent consistent with applicable laws, regulations and departmental policies."

It is the second part of this quote that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. As Barr clarifies later in the letter, he believes that there are parts of the Müller report that can not be released by law. He added that he still needed to "identify any information that might affect other ongoing affairs, including those that the Special Counsel referred to other offices."

Given this, it is unlikely that the public will ever see the full Mueller report. The question is how much Barr holds back – and why. Trump said on Monday afternoon that publishing the full Mueller report "would not bother me at all."

Why did Müller pounce on obstacles and leave the decision to Barr

In Mueller's report he wrote about the question whether Trump had obstructed the investigation by Russian intervention: "Although this report does not address that It comes to conclusion that the President has committed a crime, he does not relieve him. " By deciding not to make a definitive conclusion about whether Trump would obstruct the judiciary, Mueller knew that he left the question to Barr, who as a private citizen had written a memo in 2018, in which he made the case that Trump did not actually hinder the Justice when former FBI director James Comey was released. Wrote Barr:

"Mueller should not be able to demand that the president submit to an alleged disability, and if adopted by the department, this theory could have devastating consequences, not just for the presidency but for the executive as a whole and especially the department. "

During his hearing, Barr tried to downplay the meaning of the memo, insisting that at the time he was a private citizen with no access to the full facts, and this point was narrower , legal point. Nevertheless, Mueller had to know that the AG did not want to give up the decision on the obstruction of Barr.

(One possible explanation for why Muller did what he did is that he simply did not have any reasonable doubt and are aware that he had and wanted to deal with the President of the United States simply did not hit the envelope – he handed that decision over to the country's chief police officer.)

Why did Barr choose to include Mueller in the "Do Not Relieve" line on obstacles and direct leads?

This is complicated. Barr, a Trump envoy, is aware that many Democrats consider him a Trump Protector – someone the President has used to make sure nothing connected to the Mueller probe ever enters the Oval Office has arrived. Barr also knows that through the special statute statute, he is the gatekeeper of all the information Mueller has gathered in the 22-month investigation, and as such, is intensively scrutinizing what he approves of his release and, more importantly, what he does not.

And so Barr wants to set a clear sign that he does not tilt the scales when it comes to what he has included in his summary of the Müller report. So, yes, the big headline is that Müller could not find any coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. However, Barr also quotes Müller directly when it comes to the issue of disability – protecting himself from prosecution for shielding Trump from hard conclusions by the special advocate.

Did Müller reveal any indications of collusion?

Trump and his government immediately resorted to Barr's summary of the Müller Report, insisting that his oft-repeated allegations of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he is probably right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted the report as saying, "[T] The investigation did not reveal that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in their election interference activities."

There is a difference between some lines of evidence that suggest collusion and the ability to make collusion without reasonable doubt. In fact, there is a relatively large gap between these two things. So, did anything that had come to Mueller come into that void? If yes, what?

Why was there, when there was no collusion, so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign? And why did so many of them lied about it?

This is the question that puzzles me the most after the summary of Barr's report Mueller. We know that at least 16 Trump employees were in contact with Russians during either the 2016 campaign or the presidential transition. And we know that at least three of them – national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump lawyer / attorney Michael Cohen, and foreign affairs consultant George Papadopoulos – have either lied to Congress or state investigators about these interactions. And in any case, these lies led to criminal charges.

If they did not lie to protect a broader understanding, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes that have nothing to do with Russia's intervention in the 2016 campaign – the chairman of Paul Campaign, an electoral campaign organization, was eventually convicted of financial crimes in connection with his relations with the Ukrainian government.

Or maybe the people Trump put on (and puts on) was just as pleasant to lie as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated claims, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly the best and brightest in the political and legal world.

Will we ever hear from Müller himself about the report?

In the days before the end of Müller's investigation, people like Chairman of the Lower House of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), And Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.), suggested that that they could call Müller well to report on his findings. After the report was published, Nadler at least shifted his attention to Barr. "In light of the disagreement and final decision-making in the Justice Department following the Special Counsel's report, in which Mueller did not discharge the President, we will testify before Attorney General Barr at @HouseJudiciary in the near future to testify." Nadler tweeted the Sunday night . (It remains to be seen if Barr agrees.)
When attention returns to Capitol Hill's idea of ​​Mueller's testimony, it is not clear whether this would happen or whether it would be a revelation. Under the special law under which Mueller worked, the decisions on what to disclose in the course of his investigations are entirely in the hands of Barr and Rosenstein. So Mueller would be very limited, what he could say, without the say of his two bosses. And, as Aaron Blake of WaPo states, Mueller would be similarly restricted in discussing information he received from a grand jury or details that did not lead to prosecution. And since Trump was not prosecuted, Müller could only talk about what his investigations against the president had revealed.

How much of Steele Dossier was confirmed by Müller? And which parts?

We know from the congressional statements made by Comey and others that the Department of Justice has confirmed some elements of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. (Fusion GPS's opposition research efforts were originally funded by a conservative news agency, but later funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee.) But what portions of the dossier the Department of Justice has confirmed to be true have never been discovered. Did Müller's findings confirm some parts of Steele's dossier that did not exist in the original FBi investigation? If so, which parts?

Although the Steele dossier has turned into political football – and the worst parts of it have never been confirmed – it remains one of the most important documents in this investigation. How true is it?

How useful was the cooperation of former Trump employees like Flynn, Gates and Cohen in the Mueller investigation?

The Office of the Special Representative and the Southern District of New York cut plea looks at each of these men – and much more – in our view, to use information that they alone possessed to obtain larger fish in the operation catch. But now the Mueller investigation is over, and none of the alleged "bigger fish" – Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner – has been charged or charged.

The decision was to cut deals with people like this Cohen, etc., which was exclusively aimed at catching former political Trump player Roger Stone, who was accused of having Congress because of his interactions with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign lied? At this time, this must be the assumption, since there are no further charges from the Müller investigation. And if that's the case, why did Mueller consider Stone's indictment so important that he was willing to cut deals with Flynn, Gates, Cohen and others?

Source link