The US Presidency 2020

[Brad Sallows]

>Are you aware of any mechanism Mueller could have used to dampen any perception of partisan bias?

Pick roughly equal numbers of D and R donors, no party activists, and none with a record of a bungled major prosecution.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>1) is it demonstrable that Mueller took political affiliation into account when selecting his team?

The politically unbalanced composition of his team could mean that either he did, and did so wrongly; or that he did not, when he should have.

>2) is there evidence that the members of his team allowed partisanship to influence the performance of their duties?

Yes.  They couldn't stop themselves from editorializing the report.  It's unlikely that the passage about exoneration is the only example.  And you can search the text for instances of "we found X, which could be interpreted as evidence of Y".  (I'm not going to do it; for me it suffices that I've read articles by critical commentators who have.)  All that belongs in the report is "we found X".  No speculation is appropriate in a report which is likely to be publicly released.

> 3) what mechanism exists (or should be created) that would alleviate the perception of political bias in future campaign investigations?  i.e.how do you vet team members while respecting their constitutional rights?

The same mechanisms that support affirmative action or any other application of criteria to mitigate bias, which result in people being excluded from positions on the basis of something other than pure merit.  I don't know exactly what those are.

>4) where is it evident that Mueller caused a delay in the release of his report, and then complained about said delay?  Does it make sense for a Special Counsel to redact a report that another official is responsible for summarizing and potentially releasing?

First part, see quoted bit of Barr's testimony and then do a web search for Mueller's public comments following Barr's initiation of redaction process and release of summary.  Second part, don't know if it makes sense, but the investigative team is probably in the best position to know what all the 6-whatever material is, and he was asked to do so.

 

[Mick]

The first instance I could find of what seems to be at least a partial transcript of Barr's testimony is here.

"On March 5 I met with Bob at the suggestion of the deputy and the principal associate deputy--Bob Mueller, I met with Bob Mueller--to get a readout on what his conclusions would be. On March 25--and at that meeting I asked--I reiterated to Special Counsel Mueller that in order to have the shortest possible time before I was in a position to release the report, I asked that they identify 6(e) material. When I received the report on March 22--and we were hoping to have that easily identified, the 6(e) material, unfortunately it did not come in that form, and it quickly became apparent that it would take about three or four weeks to identify that material and other material that would have to be redacted. So there was necessarily going to be a gap between the receipt of the report and getting the full report out publicly."

Color highlighting mine.  Are we done with redactions?

No.  But thanks for highlighting.  And I appreciate the link to Barr's testimony. 

I will ask again, why would the Special Counsel redact his own report for release, when, under federal law, the authority to release is held by the AG.  If the AG decides to release it, then it is entirely up to his office to redact it.  Is there a flaw in my logic?

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
(a) Budget.
(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.
(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.
(b) Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.
(c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.


Feel free to highlight where federal law provides for the Special Counsel to redact his confidential report for release.  I will state once more, that I'm not criticizing Barr in any way.  I am refuting your claim that Mueller delayed the release of his report by failure to follow the rules.  A request by the AG to perform work outside of his mandate is not within the rules, would you not agree?

And once, again, I will ask you to kindly provide evidence that Mueller publicly complained or "*****ed" about the delay of the release.  A reminder that Mueller submitted his report 22 Mar, and responded to Barr's summary 25 Mar.

I assume the letter below is what you base your claim that Mueller failed to "follow simple instructions to produce a report with redactions identified, and not "*****" when release is delayed because clear instructions were not followed" on.

Kindly highlight where Mueller complains about a late release.  Members of congress already have the 4 page summary.  Mueller clearly states that he understands any delay in releasing a redacted report to the public, and encourages the AG to release associated materials in the interim.  You'll note that Mueller's team did include 6e redactions despite not being required to.  These redactions have no impact on the summary that AG Barr delivered to Congress - again, the chief complaint of Mueller's is the content of Barr's 4 page summary.


"March 27, 2019

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest").

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Special Counsel"


Once again, Mueller acknowledges that AG Barr has the authority to release or not.  Again, I don't see any evidence of rules not being followed, or any complainints about a delayed release.  In fact, Mueller has complied with redaction requests and is encouraging the release of associated enclosed materials, not the report itself.  And his concern for output legitimacy is evident.

Maybe now we are finished with redactions.

edited to remove unrelated hyperlinks

 

[QV]

I would argue that if there truly had been a concerted effort deep within government to falsely accuse, plant evidence, coerce testimony, knowingly prolong dubious investigations, then why wasn't the Mueller investigation much more damaging to Trump?  The fact remains that Mueller was given a task by the DOJ.  He carried it out.  Had the team truly been biased, hyper-partisan, flouting the law, and carrying out illegal acts, wouldn't they have found a way to secure more indictments, convictions, and sow more uncertainty?  Rules were followed.

I'm sure the Durham investigation will shed light on the origins of the investigation.  In the meantime, I still have not seen any evidence that Mueller team members were "activist".  Is sending text messages to a colleague unduly "activist"?  Do you consider posting on this site to be activist?  One can still perform their duties dispassionately, while holding personal political views.  I would argue that most people on this site express personal political views to family, friends, coworkers, and yet are still able to perform their jobs.  What examples of "activism" have come to light?

Members were fired from the team to preserve the integrity of it.  If even the appearance of bias led to termination, obviously Mueller / DOJ officials weren't tolerant of partisan activity tainting the investigations.  Of course Inspectors General also exist, as well as internal offices of professional standards etc.

I'm not dismissing what you are arguing, but I don't believe the Mueller investigation was tainted, even though the circumstances leading up to it may eventually be shown to be improper.  We'll see what current investigations yield.

Any indictments flowing from a corrupt investigation would still have to pass the test of the court(s).  So I suspect they generally wouldn't chance committing felonies that would be discovered later (though in some cases that did happen - Kevin Clinesmith).  That is why people like Brennan when under oath said the very opposite he was saying for public consumption (in public Trump was a Russian asset vs under oath he had no evidence of that).  No desire to perjure themselves when the MSM will perpetuate the cause for them.

I believe the objective was to delay, smear, and so on to damage politically, and maybe in the broad sweeping mandate they find something else (maybe they were hoping to find a financial crime given Trump's extensive private business in NY).  This was just another tool like Nanci Pelosi's "wrap up smear".  The mere existence of the Mueller investigation and the daily false leaks were very politically damaging to Trump and the Republicans, look at the mid term results. 

What makes Mueller's investigation tainted is there was no legitimate predicate for it to begin or continue.  The Trump opposition hoped the broad powers of the special counsel would allow them to find something.  This was a "show me the person and I'll show you the crime" situation.  Again, this is where Durham comes in.   

 

[Mick]

>is there evidence that Mueller or his investigators conducted themselves in a demonstrably partisan way

It's right there in front of everyone and has been repeated extensively.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

They weren't charged to find evidence to exonerate; they didn't come across evidence to exonerate; they had no business commenting on exoneration.  Someone had to think about putting that in the report; I can guess that many of the participants at some point read it.

"He might be guilty but we couldn't prove it" doesn't belong.  It especially doesn't belong in a report that they knew that the AG intended to release.

I'll agree with you here, to a point.  Mueller has acknowledged that a sitting president is immune from indictment.  Does the inclusion of that single sentence invalidate the investigation's work?  From that single sentence, can we infer that the processes of the investigation were flawed, or skewed?

Or does that single sentence merely indicate that Mueller acknowledges that regardless of what the rest of his investigation uncovered, that on the subject of Obstruction of Justice, his team doesn't have the ability to indict or prosecute the president, but Congress does.

 

[Mick]

>It is also worth noting that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos are all American.

If it wasn't clear from the context, I meant with respect to the central purpose of "colluding with Russians".

Regarding Flynn, Mueller must have known or could have known all the dirty details of how that unfolded.  My view is that the Flynn prosecution was so compromised by undue influence, bad intentions, and misconduct (or "mistakes" as everyone calls it now), that Mueller should have dropped it.  But if he had, it is unlikely all the dirt would have been dug.  I don't know whether that means that Mueller is a by-the-book straight arrow, or that he or members of his team insisted on collecting that scalp.  Regardless, kudos to Mueller for his left-handed contribution to unearthing scandal.

Point taken.  I suppose my whole point in this debate, is that I do believe that Mueller is a by-the-book straight arrow, and that a lot of the derision and accusations against him are unwarranted, regardless of how his investigation was born, or actions taken by other actors prior, during, or after his appointment.

 

[Mick]

>Are you aware of any mechanism Mueller could have used to dampen any perception of partisan bias?

Pick roughly equal numbers of D and R donors, no party activists, and none with a record of a bungled major prosecution.

Registered does not equate donor.  Does donating indicate a more extreme degree of partisanship?  Am I more likely to shirk my oath of office because I donated to a party?  How do you define activist? 

Bungled major prosecution seems like a reasonable disqualifier.

 

[Mick]

What makes Mueller's investigation tainted is there was no legitimate predicate for it to begin or continue.  The Trump opposition hoped the broad powers of the special counsel would allow them to find something.  This was a "show me the person and I'll show you the crime" situation.  Again, this is where Durham comes in. 

I think your quarrel is with Comey, Sessions, and Rosenstein.  Mueller followed the rules.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"I asked that they identify 6(e) material."

How hard is that to understand?

 

[QV]

I think your quarrel is with Comey, Sessions, and Rosenstein.  Mueller followed the rules.

Disagree on Mueller.   

Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant US Attorney, writing for the National Review has been analyzing the Mueller probe from the beginning.

It is almost certain that Mueller knew by autumn 2017 that there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy.

  https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/04/22/the-folly-of-the-mueller-investigation/

Yet they dragged this on through the midterms. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

"While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation."

That's a complaint, and it's a complaint about delay.

 

[Mick]

"While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation."

That's a complaint, and it's a complaint about delay.

Nope.  Re-read your original accusation against Mueller.  How can the above be a complaint about a delayed report, when the SC staff is actively helping to review said report for release?  Attributing any delay to Mueller is patently false.

Mueller is advocating the release of materials related to - but separate from - the report itself, which once again, Mueller acknowledges is under review.  Deliberately misinterpreting an otherwise clear statement is disingenuous at best.  As you point out, "helps to be clear".

The report the was released in Apr, when review was complete, and there was no complaint from Mueller.

 

[Mick]

"I asked that they identify 6(e) material."

How hard is that to understand?

Very easy. 

How hard is it to understand that under federal law, there is no requirement to do so?  I can quote it again, if you'd like.

How hard is it to understand that Mueller did in fact include 6e redactions on 25 Mar, as indicated in his letter, despite the fact that he had no legal obligation to?  I can quote that again too.

Your argument that Mueller delayed the release of the report (he didn't), by failing to include 6e redactions (he did include them 25 Mar), and then complained about the release (he didn't, as he was actively assisting in the review of the report), is wrong on all accounts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>From that single sentence, can we infer that the processes of the investigation were flawed, or skewed?

My interest is in the politics, not quibbling over terms of reference, and at this point I depart into the realm of conjecture.  Where I find one piece of bias, I assume it's not isolated.

 

[Mick]

Disagree on Mueller.   

Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant US Attorney, writing for the National Review has been analyzing the Mueller probe from the beginning.
  https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/04/22/the-folly-of-the-mueller-investigation/

Yet they dragged this on through the midterms.

I'll read the article, thanks for the link.

As a special counsel investigating Russian interference writ large, would it have been appropriate, or in the national interest, to curtail the investigation despite uncovering other crimes?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>How hard is it to understand that under federal law, there is no requirement to do so?

I understand that, but it's irrelevant.  My point isn't that Mueller had a legal obligation; my point is that he was asked to do something, it wasn't done, and that it wasn't done set in motion a chain of events that a large number of people found dis-satisfactory, including Mueller.  The absence of the legal requirement to do so has no bearing on Barr's request to provide something in order to expedite release, or the resulting delay which could have been reduced by meeting the request.

Barr's memo, which incensed so many people because it short-circuited the first impression they wanted the report to make, could potentially have been avoided or influenced to suit at least some of them.  Mueller could have complied with the request, and maybe there would have been no memo.  If Barr still decided to sum up the findings because the other redactions (the categories he had not asked Mueller to deal with) necessitated delay, Mueller had the opportunity to review the document and declined.  When asked by Barr, Mueller conceded that the summary was accurate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>As a special counsel investigating Russian interference writ large, would it have been appropriate, or in the national interest, to curtail the investigation despite uncovering other crimes?

Although you didn't ask me, it's an interesting question.  Should there be a permanent standing investigation to look into the affairs of the president and his cronies, and maybe other senior officials and their cronies?  I assume it's a target-rich environment, and that diligent investigators could continue finding in the sea of grifters a never-ending series of people whose financial dealings might be shady or who could be pressured or tricked into making false statements.

Separately, maybe an agency - say, the FBI - could be charged with maintaining a standing counterintelligence team to look into foreign election interference, but without permission to dip into domestic political campaigns and administrations "on spec".

Trump at one point early on expressed the sentiment that he was happy to have investigators investigate, but that if he was not under investigation (suspected), to affirm that publicly.

 

[QV]

I'll read the article, thanks for the link.

As a special counsel investigating Russian interference writ large, would it have been appropriate, or in the national interest, to curtail the investigation despite uncovering other crimes?

My opinion, if the investigation were entirely legitimate it wouldn't have primarily limited itself to Trump and his associates. 

As the case on Trump fizzled they should have followed the actual foreign interference all the way to the Clinton campaign and the DNC who, through a few firewalls (like Fusion GPS), hired a foreign former spy, Christopher Steele, to provide "opposition research" to sway the outcome of an election.  The Steele Dossier made it's way to Bruce Ohr who worked at a senior level in the DOJ and his wife, Nelly, worked at Fusion GPS.  It was also provided to Senator McCain and leaked to the media.  There are interesting developments coming out of UK civil court regarding the Steele Dossier, Steele is being sued.  Actual foreign interference occurred, but Trump wasn't facilitating it.   

An indication Mueller wasn't much more than a figurehead was his dismal performance when giving testimony, he didn't even know what Fusion GPS was and it's relationship to the Steele Dossier or the DNC.  My estimate is that Weisman ran the show, Mueller was the decorated figurehead to give more credibility. 

 

 

[Mick]

>How hard is it to understand that under federal law, there is no requirement to do so?

I understand that, but it's irrelevant.  My point isn't that Mueller had a legal obligation; my point is that he was asked to do something, it wasn't done, and that it wasn't done set in motion a chain of events that a large number of people found dis-satisfactory, including Mueller.  The absence of the legal requirement to do so has no bearing on Barr's request to provide something in order to expedite release, or the resulting delay which could have been reduced by meeting the request.

Barr's memo, which incensed so many people because it short-circuited the first impression they wanted the report to make, could potentially have been avoided or influenced to suit at least some of them.  Mueller could have complied with the request, and maybe there would have been no memo.  If Barr still decided to sum up the findings because the other redactions (the categories he had not asked Mueller to deal with) necessitated delay, Mueller had the opportunity to review the document and declined.  When asked by Barr, Mueller conceded that the summary was accurate.

I guess there's not much point in debating if you're going to completely dismiss the fact the Mueller DID provide 6e redactions.  I suppose the fact that they were provided on 25 Mar (3 days late), may have caused whatever delay you keep referring to.  Perhaps the redacted report would have been released on 15 Apr, instead of 18 Apr.

Either way, Mueller didn't complain about any delay - in fact his team was facilitating the review and redaction for release alongside the AG team.

I don't understand how you are linking Barr's summary with Mueller's redactions.  They are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mick]

Barr explicitly states that his letter is a supplement to the notification he provided (as legally required) to Congress, that the Special Counsel investigation was complete.

"Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the
report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results
of his investigation." - AG Barr (taken from his summary).

The review is ongoing, as of 24 Mar 19.  6e redactions received the next day, while review is ongoing.

Are you done trying to link 6e redactions as precipitating Barr's letter?