Mueller Investigation Part 2: Release The Report

[fraurosena]

Oh sweet, loving Rufus, thank you for answering my prayers so promptly!  It turns out the transcripts really are to be made public. 

Here's the article linked in the tweet above:

Quote

A federal judge on Thursday ordered that prosecutors make public a transcript of a phone call that former national security adviser Michael Flynn tried hard to hide with a lie: his conversation with a Russian ambassador in late 2016.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington ordered the government also to provide a public transcript of a November 2017 voice mail involving Flynn. In that sensitive call, President Trump’s attorney left a message for Flynn’s attorney reminding him of the president’s fondness for Flynn at a time when Flynn was considering cooperating with federal investigators.

The transcripts, which the judge ordered be posted on a court website by May 31, would reveal conversations at the center of two major avenues of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. So far they have been disclosed to the public only in fragments in court filings and the Mueller report.

Sullivan also ordered that still-redacted portions of the Mueller report that relate to Flynn be given to the court and made public.

Sullivan’s orders came very shortly after government prosecutors agreed to release some sealed records in Flynn’s case. The release was in response to a motion filed with the court earlier this year by The Washington Post, which argued that the public deserved to know more about Flynn’s role in key events and cooperation with investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to one felony count of making a false statement to FBI investigators about his contact with the ambassador and awaits sentencing.

The purpose of the phone calls, and the motives of the callers, have been hotly debated.

In the December 2016 call, Flynn urged that the Kremlin not get too riled up about U.S. sanctions that President Barack Obama had just announced against Russia and to give Trump time to take office. That conversation, intercepted by U.S. intelligence, raised grave concerns about Russians’ secret and frequent contact with Trump allies and advisers during the campaign and before his inauguration.

In the second conversation, an attorney for Trump tried to learn whether Flynn had any problematic information about the president after Flynn’s attorney signaled his client might begin cooperating with Mueller’s investigators. The attorney was John Dowd, then a private attorney for the president, according to people familiar with the episode. The special counsel was then threatening to charge Flynn with lying to FBI agents about his call to the ambassador. Dowd’s voice mail was scrutinized as Mueller’s investigators probed whether the president engaged in obstruction of justice to try to thwart the probe, and whether he deployed his aides to assist him.

In one of the previously redacted filings released Thursday, prosecutors said Flynn described multiple episodes in which “he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation.”

In addition to the transcripts, it also is possible that the judge may release the audio recordings of the conversations. In his Thursday order, Sullivan directed that the government provide a copy of those recordings to him in his chambers, along with any other calls Flynn made to the Russians, so he can review them.

Dowd and the president’s current attorney, Jay Sekulow, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the White House.

Robert Kelner, the attorney for Flynn, could not be reached for comment Thursday night.

The newly unsealed portions of court records showed Flynn was a deep source of useful information to the special counsel’s team in 2017 and 2018, helping it probe the Trump campaign’s effort to gain stolen emails and the question of whether Trump sought to criminally interfere in the investigation bearing down on him.

The records confirm the questions that Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and former military intelligence officer, helped federal prosecutors answer after his guilty plea. Flynn admitted in 2017 that he tried to conceal the nature of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and then began cooperating with Mueller’s team to try to reduce and possibly avoid a prison sentence.

Flynn also provided the special counsel with information about efforts by the Trump campaign and Trump allies to seek out stolen emails during the campaign after WikiLeaks began publishing internal Democratic correspondence in July 2016, the records show. He also provided evidence of “multiple efforts” by people connected to Trump that could have impacted his willingness to cooperate with the probe, useful information as Mueller explored whether the president obstructed justice.

At the same time, Flynn assisted federal prosecutors based in Alexandria, Va., who were preparing criminal charges against his former business partner, Bijan Kian, for working as an unregistered agent of Turkey. Kian has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He is expected to face trial in July, and Flynn is expected to be a critical witness for the government.

The new material echoes the Mueller report findings, but helps explain why prosecutors told Sullivan they had found Flynn’s cooperation valuable and recommended he receive little or no prison time.

Ultimately, Flynn opted to postpone his sentencing when Sullivan said he was distressed by Flynn’s conduct and said he was inclined to give him prison time if he hadn’t yet finished cooperating with the government.

The Mueller team analyzed the Dowd call to Kelner and other allies’ outreach to Flynn for possible obstruction of justice, but ultimately determined the evidence of Trump’s intent was “inconclusive.” Mueller’s team noted its inquiry was hampered because much of the conduct involved Trump’s legal team, and concerns about attorney-client privilege limited the special counsel’s investigation.

Mueller’s team noted in particular that, in November 2017 — after Flynn withdrew from his joint defense agreement with the president — Trump’s “personal counsel,” who was Dowd, left a voice mail for Kelner that urged him to give a “heads up” if they had anything that implicated the president. He added: “Remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn.” In a later call, Kelner repeated that he could not share information with Dowd, and Dowd grew indignant and said he believed the president would be very displeased, the report said.

Trump seemed particularly eager to convey his affection for Flynn after Flynn left the White House in the wake of reports about his calls with Kislyak. Former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and the former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland told investigators Trump asked them to reach out to Flynn to check on him and tell him to stay strong, according to Mueller’s report.

 

Looks like it's my cake day.

This is just the cherry on top. 

 

[fraurosena]

More cherries! 

Please, please, pretty please, let the House do this!

[fraurosena]

Yes. Inquiring minds want to know why politics are more important than upholding the Constitution, defending national security and safeguarding democracy.

 

[Howl]

As I said on twitter, Land the plane, Judge Emmet Sullivan, land the plane! 

Flynn sang sweet arias, trying to stay our of prison.  Has Flynn provided more info since his hearing in Judge Sullivan's court, where Judge Sullivan threatened him with some seriously hard time in late winter or early spring? 

[fraurosena]

And here it is!

Here's a link to the pdf:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

I'm going to read it now.

[fraurosena]

Well, that was dumb of me. It's the same freaking document released a month ago... 

[fraurosena]

Justin Amash has some horrible views on equality, but holy Rufus, he is the first Republican to take a stand on impeachment that a lot of Democrats should. This thread is awesome.

Now all we need is for just one more Republican to find his conscience and for the Democrats to find their backbone.

[Howl]

@emptywheel on Mueller at DoJ. Important thread: 

 

[fraurosena]

I'm sorry Bob, but if you're such a stickler for the rule of law as you say you are, you know the witness doesn't get to decide how they testify before the committee. Begs the question why you are so anxious to hide from the public...

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 5/24/2019 at 1:56 PM, fraurosena said:

I'm sorry Bob, but if you're such a stickler for the rule of law as you say you are, you know the witness doesn't get to decide how they testify before the committee. Begs the question why you are so anxious to hide from the public...

 

I think it would be a good compromise. Personally I don't like the spectacularisation of such important matters. And the wide perception of Mueller being super parties is now more important than ever. Trump has been trying to undermine Mueller's reputation for years, he never succeeded because Mueller always stuck to his role never giving anyone the slightest reason to doubt his ethics. He has been all work and zero chatting, I think that those conditions were requested specifically for underlining once again that  this is not a show and most of all it's not a partisan show.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

He has been all work and zero chatting, I think that those conditions were requested specifically for underlining once again that  this is not a show and most of all it's not a partisan show.

This is true, and I can appreciate his not wanting to make a sideshow out of his testimony. But there is a very big drawback to a private testimony: people (i.e. repugliklans) can say the tapes were doctored, or the transcripts were falsified, or deny anything and everything they can think of relating to his testimony. In order for Mueller's testimony to withstand any deniability, he must appear in person, in public, for all the world to see. And if that means it turns into a partisan show, well, so be it. That is the political climate in America at the moment, and that's what everybody will have to deal with. Also, if it is turned into a show, it will show up all those participating in those actions. The public will be witness to that too, which in itself is a powerful message.

So although it was a good and admirable thing for Mueller to remain silent and from view during the investigation itself, it is now time for him to be seen and to speak out.

[fraurosena]

Whoah Rufus! 

 

[fraurosena]

Well that didn't amount to much. In essence he reiterated what was stated in the report. He did not answer questions, and he hinted that questioning by the House would not result in more information than the report contains. And he will only speak about the report, nothing else.

What he did do, however, was stress the fact that the Russians interfered with the elections. He did this multiple times, at the beginning of his speech, during and at the very last he repeated it again. Apparently he finds this the most important message to get out there.

[SassyPants]

Different day, same shite. President can’t be charged per the constitution, so we didn’t pursue him with regards to the Russians, conclusion and obstruction. 

It is clear Russia tried to interfere (did interfere?)in multi ways, into the 2016 election. The Russians took sides and it hurt a candidate.

He basically punted to Congress.

Mueller will not be testifying beyond the report and is retiring.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

4 hours ago, SassyPants said:

President can’t be charged per the constitution

I am not American so I could very well be wrong, but it is my understanding that the Constitution doesn't say this anywhere. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[GreyhoundFan]

5 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Different day, same shite. President can’t be charged per the constitution, so we didn’t pursue him with regards to the Russians, conclusion and obstruction. 

I was driving, so I was listening to it on the radio, but I heard it was not because of the constitution, but because of DOJ policy, and Mueller was being employed by the DOJ.

[SassyPants]

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I was driving, so I was listening to it on the radio, but I heard it was not because of the constitution, but because of DOJ policy, and Mueller was being employed by the DOJ.

Evidently he said constitution, but since then the talking heads on TV have all corrected that misstatement. I suppose once he retires, congress will Subpoena him to testify.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

According to this Reuters article you are right @GreyhoundFan 

Spoiler

The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question. [...]

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.

In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

"The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination," the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is "constitutionally immune" from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would "violate the constitutional separation of powers" delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the memo stated.

But some lawyers have argued that the nation's founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible. According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.

Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him.

Starr did not indict Clinton in his investigation involving the president's relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, but lawyers in his office concluded he had the authority to do so, according to a once-secret internal memo made public by the New York Times in 2017.

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I am not American so I could very well be wrong, but it is my understanding that the Constitution doesn't say this anywhere. Please correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding, limited as it is, is that the Constitution does not mention this directly. The whole premise that a sitting president cannot be indicted is based on DOJ regulations. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Now, don't get me wrong, but.. I agree with this. It is counterproductive to the institution of president if the person inhabiting that position is indictable. That would mean that this person can be prosecuted whenever, for whatever, which could possibly render them incapable of doing their official job. So politically speaking, it's shouldn't be possible to indict a sitting president, so they can keep on doing their job instead of having to constantly defend themselves in court whilst in office. However, the Constitution does have a provision for the event that the person filling the office of president is a criminal or engages in criminal, indictable acts, and that is the possibility that Congress can remove that person from office. In order to do so, the president needs to be impeached. And if that impeachment concludes that yes, the president actually engaged in criminal activities, said person can be removed from office. And then, and only then, can that person be indicted in a criminal court.

Oh, and to be clear, impeaching an official is much easier to do than indicting them. The burden of proof is much less than for criminal indictments. Congress needs only to have an indication that maybe offences occurred. They don't need actual proof. What they need to do is start an impeachment inquiry, which investigates the alleged offences. If the inquiry shows that the probability of offences is high, then an official impeachment can be started. 

So. No indicting a sitting president. And impeachment is quite easy. The Mueller report in and of itself is reason enough to at least start the impeachment inquiry, but it could also easily be the foundation for impeachment itself. And Mueller himself, or his testimony, isn't really necessary to do it. All that is needed is the political will to do it.

Edited May 29, 2019 by fraurosena
I should read the posts that are uploaded whilst I'm typing mine

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo published an annotated transcript: "Mueller’s statement, annotated: ‘If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so’"

I can't copy the notes here, but this is the transcript:

Spoiler

On Wednesday morning, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III spoke about his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It was his first public statement since accepting the position. Here is a transcript of his remarks, with The Fix’s annotations. Click on the yellow highlighted text to read them.

MUELLER: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here.

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel, and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I’m speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work, but beyond these few remarks, it is important the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an — an election.

These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood, and that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance, and it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work, and as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The department’s written opinion explaining that policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would — would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

That is the office’s — that is the office’s final position. And we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people.

At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The attorney general preferred to make that — preferred to make the entire report public all at once. And we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

And I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself.

And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation, or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it is for that reason I will not be taking questions today as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, and analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity.

And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

The notes are worth reading, if you are so inclined.

[Howl]

10 hours ago, fraurosena said:

In essence he reiterated what was stated in the report. He did not answer questions, and he hinted that questioning by the House would not result in more information than the report contains. And he will only speak about the report, nothing else.

I guess he didn't bother to mention that no one in Congress has read the unre*fucking*dacted Report, all of the supporting materials, or read the grand jury testimony.  Maybe if Congress had access to that, they could do their job better. 

Upstanding Bob Mueller is doing us no favors. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Howl

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

I guess he didn't bother to mention that no one in Congress has read the unre*fucking*dacted Report, all of the supporting materials, or read the grand jury testimony.  Maybe if Congress had access to that, they could do their job better. 

Upstanding Bob Mueller is doing us no favors. 

It isn’t upstanding Bob Mueller’s job to tell Congress to do it’s job though. And still, that is precisely what he did. In essence he told them to impeach already.

I have two big problems with Mueller.

One is the language he uses. He couches his words so carefully, that they cannot be understood by the average American listening to them. He should have spoken clear and concise language that leaves no room for doubt as to his meaning. 

Two is his apparent aversion to testifying to Congress. I’m sorry, but he simply doesn’t have a choice. And as for him stating he could only say things that are already in the report, I call bullshit. He doesn’t get to choose the questions he is asked. And there is one, all important yes or no question that is paramount that he needs to answer: would he have indicted if Trump were not in office? Because if the answer to that is yes, it will obliterate any attempts at denial from the Trump camp. McConnell and his cronies can no longer say ‘case closed’. And it will be the best foundation for impeachment procedings you could think of.

So if Mueller really wants Congress to do his job, he should testify to Congress and speak staightforwardly in understandable and clear language.

Edited May 30, 2019 by fraurosena
riffle

[AmazonGrace]

If your founding fathers really thought presidents should be able to get away with crimes they were stupid and/or evil and never should have been allowed to lead a country

[laPapessaGiovanna]

@fraurosena I completely (and politely) disagree. I think Mueller is doing a better job than pretty much anyone else in this story. He was talking to history yesterday, he was not going to reduce his vocabulary to less than 200 words. And even if he had done, his speech would still have been beyond the Branch Trumpvidians comprehension because he is being as carefully non partisan as he can to adhere as strictly as possible to his role and not sully the investigation.

He has been pretty adamant in saying that he is not going to do Congress's job. He presented the naked results of a non partisan investigation, the political significance of which is not his under his authority.

It's obvious that he is not going to tell Congress anything beyond what's written in the report, because his position is that his report is complete and contains all his investigation's findings. Its interpretation is the Congress's exclusive job, he is not going to do it in their place, simply because he can't. If only Congress could stick to its role and carry out its duty as carefully and completely as Mueller is doing!

Anyone who read the whole report knows that there is more than enough evidence to impeach the moron for obstruction, it's the political willingness to do so that's lacking and it's not Mueller's job to do something about it. The Congress needs to weigh the opportunity of such a move, grow a fricking spine and do something.

5 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

If your founding fathers really thought presidents should be able to get away with crimes they were stupid and/or evil and never should have been allowed to lead a country

They didn't. They made clear provisions for the impeachment proceedings in the Constitution. If Congress doesn't do its job it's not their fault.

Edited May 30, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna
Grammar

[AmazonGrace]

Yes it is... It was completely foreseeable that politicians might be tempted to let their buddies get away with it.