First of all: Bach, I feel you are entitled to your moment. The outcome of the Mueller Report was as sure as the outcome of the 2016 election, and a lot of the pundits were equally as wrong.
But I would point out of a couple of things: The Special Counsel's Office was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether or not the President or members of his campaign conspired with or cooperated with the Russians. They found a lot of interference by the Russians. Many people have been indicted. We learned valuable information on how the Russians used Facebook and other social media platforms to influence the election. If you genuinely care about trying to minimize foreign interference in our elections, on that single investigation and finding the Mueller report was worth the cost, right now at 25 million, or about 20 Stormy Daniels.
If the President wants to call it exoneration when his National Security Advisor, campaign manager, deputy campaign manager and personal lawyer are all going to jail, congratulations.
But we are told that the President is exonerated and did not collude. What we have seen is Barr's summary, which I do urge everyone to read. Here's a sample:
The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
Now it could very well be that I am reading a little daylight here where there is none, but I will be interested to see what exactly defines
knowingly coordinating.
Read with respect to obstruction of justice:
Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. 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.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,
There is a lot of room in there. Basically they are saying that in evaluating obstruction, the fact that the President said things in public that when combined with the SCO's finding that no collusion occured, led to the conclusion that obstruction of justice did not occur because there was no crime for justice to obstruct. Again, I would like see some of the facts that contributed to that argument.
But again, the headlines today are very good for Donald Trump. However, neither supporters or detractors of the President to start singing 'Happy Days are here again'. Barr's summary is about half of a 4 page letter. It is based upon:
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.
So I would like to see a little more than a 4 page cover letter before coming to a final judgement. But again, especially with respect to the President's personal knowledge of collusion, a great day for the President.
Republicans will now be saying 'witch hunt' in House hearings and SDNY investigations that are not as restricted in scope as the Special Counsel's Office. Things are just going to get uglier.
