March 25, 2019
EXCERPT: We were hoping that a four-page letter would be clear enough for most people in media and political circles to read and understand the facts found by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over the 2016 Presidential Election. Apparently we were too optimistic. What are the key findings? We separate the facts from political fiction in this report.
written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON D.C. On March 24, 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr provided an initial summary of the Special Counsel Robert Muller’s Investigation into the 2016 Presidential Election. The initial findings were summarized in this four-page letter (PDF).
The Muller team was extremely extensive in their investigation, probably more than what most people knew.
“Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”
— AG Barr Letter Citing Special Counsel’s March 2019 Report (PDF, P1)
Needless to say, one might argue this just might be one of the most investigated cases in U.S. history.
Two Key Findings:
1. Russian Interference in the 2016 Election.
- Not one U.S. citizen was found to be involved in any U.S. Election Russian Collusion Conspiracy, and this includes the President.
‘Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference…”‘
— AG Barr Letter Citing Special Counsel’s March 2019 Report (PDF, P3)
Those indicted (Report, Point 22, #5-30) were Russian nationals, not in the USA, who basically bought Facebook ads to stir up political “discord” between Americans. These “ads” were part of a “disinformation campaign;” were Anti-Clinton, Anti-Trump and Pro-Clinton and Pro-Trump. So the Russians didn’t take sides, and most people never saw the ads.
What is a bit ironic is certain political parties and some in the media use the same type of propaganda and disinformation to sway voters to their cause.
If posting false political ads (or making unsubstantiated political statements) were illegal, then most of Congress, many in the media, and possibly half of America would be in prison.
NO ONE is going to trial, let alone prison for this – including the Russian nationals. If the Russian nationals were in the USA and captured, U.S. Special Counsel Muller would have arguably lost this part of the argument in trial based on the defendants use of 1st Amendment – Free Speech.
The other indictment claims that Russian hackers broke into the DNC’s/ Hillary campaign computers and released 1,000’s of emails.
The crime here is the hacking. Proving it might be an issue. The CIA has the technology to make it appear that anyone hacked into someone else’s computer (Report, Point 7).
The DNC knew about the hacking well before the 2016 election. The DNC also REFUSED to turn over their computers to the FBI to help investigate who did it. Despite DNC’s claims, no one in the Trump Campaign or associates were involved.
Next, the alleged hackers didn’t post any fake emails, but rather America learned the truth about Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and John Podesta. The DNC, Hillary campaign or John Podesta never denied that the published emails were false.
In 2016, a Romanian – not a Russian, admitted that he hacked into Hillary Clinton’s server and plead guilty. The U.S. State Dept. said that Clinton violated rules on emails.
But it looks good on paper to say, ah ha! — see, there were some Russian interference in the 2016 election?
No one is criminally charging many in the media for colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and ever since election night 2016.
For over two years, these so-called journalists, commentators and TV/ radio guests have propagated a massive deception campaign, lying to the American public (and to the world) that Trump ‘colluded’ with Russia to win the 2016 campaign; that Trump “stole” the 2016 election from Hillary etc, etc, etc.
“President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it (Muller Investigation) is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.”
— Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti for the New York Times, Sept. 20, 2018.
The world is still waiting for the “mountain of evidence;” that after two years, a Special Counsel with a virtually unlimited budget, blanket legal authority, 19 (mostly Democrat) lawyers, about 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff could not come up with anything on Trump or his campaign.
One reporter said that Facebook ‘likes’ helped Trump “steal the 2016 election.” Because voting at the polls don’t count, it’s how many Facebook ‘likes’ that determine elections?
No one blamed how Facebook and others worked with then Senator Obama on his 2008 presidential campaign.
“I haven’t seen it since 1860, this threat of de-legitimizing the federal government, and Trump is trying to say our entire government is corrupt and the whole system is rigged”
— Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University (Source: NY Times, Oct. 13, 2016)
It appears that Trump and Professor Brinkley were partially right.
It’s hard to argue to say the entire U.S. government is corrupt and rigged. However, as we have learned from Congressional testimony, extensive investigations, released documents, emails, text messages, etc., that part of the U.S. government had become not only corrupt, but appears to have participated in a soft coup to overthrow a duly elected U.S. President.
Professor Brinkley just incorrectly blamed the wrong person(s) who were involved in a political conspiracy.
We now know that members of certain U.S. intelligence agencies also made the FALSE claim that, “U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House.”
So, what did Muller and his team of mostly Democrat lawyers find?
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
— AG Barr Letter Citing Special Counsel’s March 2019 Report (PDF, P2)
Election Interference Summary:
The U.S. 2016 ‘election interference’ was really about some Facebook ads most people never saw, and hacked emails that disclosed the truth about Hillary and the DNC?
The number of Russians who actually helped change the votes or otherwise, the outcome of the 2016 election was ZERO.
According to AG Barr, the next part of the Mueller report investigated into the question whether Trump obstructed justice.
2. Was There Obstruction of Justice by Trump?
- In a word, No.
Some have tried to claim “The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
This is the fault of the Special Counsel. A prosecutor’s job is to investigate and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute or not.
In this case, Muller did not have conclusive evidence to prosecute Trump or anyone in his campaign over obstruction. We speculate a little here that the Muller report might talk about Trump’s tweets and other public statements slam-basting Mueller and his team running a “Witch Hunt” and a “Hoax.”
We speculate a little because of the hints derived from AG Barr’s letter (PDF, P3, last sentence) which refers to cataloging Trump’s public actions (statements).
It is probably not the best legal strategy to openly criticize people who are investigating you, even if you are innocent and correct.
Keep in mind that America didn’t elect orators like Cicero or Isocrates, they elected a person who says exactly what they think, and who is a person of action and results. U.S. Presidents also have First Amendment rights to criticize government, public officials and other public figures just like every other person in America.
To gain an obstruction charge, one has to prove intent (Mens rea). Intent is not proven by criticizing people publicly.
Intent are actions that create blocks to an investigation such as destroying documents after a federal preservation letter and or receiving a federal subpoena; destroying cell phones after receiving a federal subpoena; deleting tens-of-thousands emails after a federal subpoena for them; and lying to the FBI. Those are clear signs of intent – action to block, inhibit or prevent a criminal investigation from asserting the truth.
Muller deferred the obstruction question to the DOJ, even thought that was Muller’s job to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prosecute or not.
AG William Barr performed extra due-diligence and sought the legal counsel of multiple top U.S. government legal officials and departments:
“After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.”
— AG Barr Letter Citing Special Counsel’s March 2019 Report (PDF, P3)(bold text added to note key point).
If Special Counsel filed a criminal claim based on insufficient evidence, that could raise ethical violations of the prosecutor including under 28 CFR § 600.7(c)(d).
Did Mueller’s Team Obstruct Justice?
The Mueller team is accused of obstructing the U.S. Inspector General’s investigation by destroying “thousands of text messages exchanged between Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page…after Mueller’s team wiped clean the phones.”
No one is prosecuting this.
Summary: Mueller Findings
- There was No Russian-Collusion conspiracy with Trump or the Trump campaign.
- There was insufficient evidence to bring any obstruction charge(s) against President Trump.
- Special Counsel Muller determined that there are no other parties facing indictments.
- The Muller case is over.
Now most people want to see the full Mueller report. We’ll probably see much of it, but we could also see redacted parts.
Mueller Report May Not Be Fully Released
Social media have pounced on various trending topics such as “Release the Full Mueller Report.”
President Trump also called for the release of the Muller report. In reality, some Grand Jury information due to privacy rules may never get released. Additionally, any classified information may not be released for decades. For example, in 2011, the Obama CIA finally declassified certain documents from World War I. Yet in FY 2009 alone, the Obama Admin classified over 54 million new documents.
Attorney General Barr noted that under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title III, Rule 6(c)(2)(B) ‘limits disclosure of grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution.’ These laws went into effect beginning in 1976.
AG Barr further cited 18 USC § 401 and noted that any disclosure of such protected material ‘is a crime in certain instances;’ thus we could have some limitations to information in the Muller report.
House Thinks They Are a Court?
On March 14, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed (420-0), Resolution 24 to have the full Muller report released into the public domain.
This was really a show vote to demonstrate that Congress wants openness and transparency into an investigation. The problem is the resolution is by its own admission as “non-binding.” In other words, the resolution has no legal effect, even if the U.S. Senate passed the same resolution and the President signed it.
WHY? – Congress is not a Court. Congress cannot subvert its own laws. Congress’ job is essentially to Legislate, Regulate & Tax.
Congress could change the laws, however Congress still cannot change any law that violates the U.S. Constitution. IF Congress wants to change the Constitution, then Congress is required to do so under Article V, which requires two-thirds (66%) vote by the House AND Senate, then another three-fourths (75%) vote by U.S. State legislators.
These Constitutional protections including under 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments were designed so the government could not make simple or even false allegations, then conclude criminal conduct based on those allegations alone.
Analysis: Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Many in the media and political circles have repeated claimed over two years that Donald J. Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 Election. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly accused Trump as being a “puppet” of Russia’s leader.
Despite these repeated claims, not one of the accusers have been able to provide a single piece of evidence to support their public statements.
America is just supposed to believe anyone who makes allegation(s), and such allegation(s) is sufficient to act as legal conclusion?
Therefore, based on allegation(s), the subject is thus deemed guilty without evidence or trial and thus should be imprisoned, or in this case “impeached.” That is what Totalitarian, Communist, and Social-Marxist Dictators have done in their countries.
Can you imagine living in a country where accusers act as the Judge, Jury and Executioner? This is exactly the drive of some in the media and elected political officials have been pushing.
“The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday lawmakers have found “enormous amounts of evidence” into potential collusion between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians during the 2016 election.”
— Source: Politico, 03-03-2019
Take a look at this statement. Here we have a “top Democrat” on the Senate Intelligence Committee. A person who has access to classified information? Yet, a person who claims there is “enormous amounts of evidence” of Trump-Russia conclusion – “potentially?”
We’ll, if you have “enormous evidence,” what is it?
We’ll we don’t have any evidence.
So the argument here is qualified with the word “potential” (collusion).
We’ll potentially, you could win the lottery; potentially you could fly like Superman; potentially you could die from a direct hit by a meteor; potentially, he has no evidence, and the lack of providing any evidence suggests he is potentially lying.
So, you’re in court and it’s like this:
Your Honor, potentially he could have robbed the bank.
Your Honor, since potentially he could have robbed the bank, and we don’t have any evidence other than we don’t like him, he is therefore guilty and should be sent to prison for 20 years?
This is EXACTLY the kind of justice system Democrats have pushed for the last two years and not just against Trump:
“A US judicial council on Tuesday dismissed 83 complaints that had been lodged against new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arising largely from statements he made during his contentious September confirmation hearings.”
— Source: CNN, Dec. 18, 2018
Political operatives in the media, and politicians themselves will likely continue to falsely spin the Muller report with the same baseless claims to protect their own egos from over two years of public deception.
Before the Muller report was even released in summary, Democrats have said they will investigate and issue their own report. This suggests they are not interested in the truth, but rather display their hatred of the President.
OK or Not OK? – You Decide.
It’s OK not to like or support a political figure.
It’s OK to disagree with them.
It’s one’s right to have ill-feelings about someone I guess…
…but is it OK to spread propaganda?
Is it OK to make false criminal allegations about someone and never provide any evidence?
Is it OK for public officials to blatantly lie about other public officials?
These later questions should raise concern for all Americans as to who is holding people accountable for ethical standards in media, in government and in other leadership?
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.
Related Reports:
- 2019: Cohen Plea Deal Does Not Implicate Trump – Here is Why
- 2018: Mueller Probe Seems to Ignore the Real Instigators
- 2016: Some 250 Hillary Clinton Scandals & Controversies
Photo: U.S. Attorney General William Barr from video screen shot © Fox News.
Original content copyright © 2019 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
