Part 1:
The Special Counsel’s investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials has dominated the news cycle since 2017. Coverage of first the investigation, then the report, and finally Mueller’s testimony has been marred by sensationalism and spectacle, leaving citizens confused about the ongoing issue.
Additionally, the investigation has become notoriously partisan, making it difficult to parse out which facts should be the focus of average Americans. Since 2017, Democrats have begun looking at Mueller more favorably and Republicans less favorably. Similarly, the share of Republicans who trust the integrity of Mueller’s investigation has continuously dropped over the last two years. It can feel impossible to dig through the weeds and partisanship to determine what we should take away from the investigation and report. The cloud of confusion around the Mueller investigation allows those in power to control the narrative and make the truth appear even more incomprehensible. Nonetheless, Mueller himself highlighted during his testimony that the investigation “deserves the attention of every American,” and it remains crucial that we comprehend the shocking nature of the crimes uncovered.
When the 448 page “Mueller report” was released in April 2019, Trump and Attorney General William Barr were quick to announce “NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION!” and thus retained control of the media narrative. However, when Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler asked Mueller if he exonerated Trump, Mueller said no.
With the advent of the Ukraine scandal and the subsequent impeachment hearings, it can feel easy to move on from the Mueller investigation and the confusion surrounding it. The findings of the investigation do, however, shed light on Trump’s relationship with Ukraine and the report merits continued focus.
I. Overview of the Mueller Investigation:
Outcomes:
37 people have been indicted
14 referrals for future indictments
3 companies have been indicted
4 prison sentences
1 not guilty verdict (Greg Craig)
10 obstruction of justice instances by Trump
Magnitude of the investigation:
2,800 subpoenas
500 warrants
1,000 footnotes
230 orders for documents
50 pen registers
500 witnesses
80 grand jury testimonies
II. Takeaways from the Mueller Report:
Though the media largely panned Mueller’s testimony as “boring,” and even “a farce and a tragedy,” in his opening statement Mueller highlighted the momentous implications of his investigation. “Over the course of my career,” he stated, “I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian’s government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious… This deserves the attention of every American.” Additionally, the Mueller report did not exonerate Trump from involvement in Russian interference during the 2016 election
Page 10 of the Mueller Report highlighted the issue of incomplete information, explaining that “while this report embodies factual and legal determination that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest possible extent, given the identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in new light) the events described in the report.” The report also makes clear that “a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
What is the significance of how redacted the report was?
“Even the parts that aren’t redacted are damning enough that there’s grounds for impeachment,” says Levine. “There’s enough evidence of obstruction of justice alone where you can argue he should be impeached.” Some parts of the report were redacted, because the CIA is conducting an ongoing investigation relating to the information and cannot cannot reveal facts of the case that would jeopardize their investigation. According to Levine, the issue, therefore, is not that there are redactions. Instead, “the issue is do you trust William Barr to make those decisions on his own given how inaccurate his summary was?” It’s important to note that, eventually, the grand jury evidence will be given to the house House Judiciary Committee and the American public will be able to see the report in full. “It’s a matter of when, not if.”
Part 2:
III. The Reflexive Control Strategy: What is “Collusion?”
Reflexive control is a “uniquely Russian” concept based on “maskirovka,” an old Soviet concept in which one “conveys to an opponent specifically prepared information to incline him/her to voluntarily make the predetermined decision desired by the initiator of the action.” Levine emphasizes the Trump administration’s successful utilization of this strategy to control the narrative surrounding Mueller’s investigation.
The administration’s approach revolves around its fixation with the word “collusion.” Outside of antitrust law, the word “collusion” is largely meaningless as a legal term. As such, nowhere in the Mueller appointment letter by the Department of Justice is the word “collusion” used, but rather “links and/or coordination.” In fact, Mueller himself stated that none of his conclusions were about collusion. Nonetheless, both trump supporters and the media have defined Mueller’s investigation by the idea of “collusion.” This characterization is of course incorrect, as he was investigating conspiracy.
“It’s manipulative language to try and get people off track and off-focus from what’s really going on,” explains Levine. “One of the unintended consequences of the way Mueller did things is the stakes were very high; you have people all around the world caught up in this. You have to remain silent, otherwise you’re gonna tip people off. But when you’re silent, you lose control of the narrative. The one thing the Trump administration was good at because of Mueller’s silence—which was necessary—was controlling the narrative. Take the word collusion. It’s not a crime. Collusion itself, again, only matters in antitrust law. But it’s individual acts, like witness tampering, obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax evasion, conspiracy to defraud the United States, treason—if it goes that far. Those individual acts you could count as types of collusion.”
“So when Barr says there was no collusion, the media just ran with it. ‘Mueller found nothing. There was no collusion, so Mueller found nothing.’ Well no, he found a lot. So not only are you manipulating the language, and you’re throwing words out ahead of time and telling people what they want to hear, so when you release the actual report you cause confusion. You very easily could have just said, ‘Mueller’s investigating conspiracy,’ but that’s not the language they used. They kept saying collusion. So when Trump says there was no collusion—well okay, technically there was none, but that’s not what we’re actually investigating.”
IV. How does the Mueller Investigation connect to the Ukraine scandal?
We know of at least two different Moscow Trump Tower projects: one through Aaras and Emin Alagarov and one through Felix Sater. These projects incentivized Trump to lift the sanctions on Russia, and the deals he made in doing so connect with the Ukraine scandal currently being parsed out in the Impeachment hearings. Trump, both during his campaign and during his first months in office, wanted to lift the sanctions against the Russians, but “career diplomats ginned up pressure in Congress to block the move,” according to two senior former State department officials. As such, it is possible that he turned to Ukraine itself as a means to lift the sanctions, since we know that the Trump Administration has pressured Ukraine “to play ball” and make a deal with Putin. The implication is that Trump hoped if Ukraine were to sign a deal with Russia, it would become easier for him to lift sanctions against Russia originally implemented as a response to the Crimean annexation and continued violence.
“If you’re going to run those kinds of projects in Russia, they’re going to get financed through the Russian banks,” Levine explains. “Those Russian banks are sanctioned, so [Trump] needs the sanctions to come off to build his real estate in Moscow. If he can’t get the sanctions off himself and Congress won’t get rid of the sanctions either, then he has one choice. Part of the quid pro quo that was in there, besides the Biden stuff, was that ‘we want you to make a deal with Putin.’ If Ukraine announces that they have an agreement with Putin and the fighting is going to end, you don’t need the sanctions anymore. You can’t justify then having sanctions if Ukraine agrees to peace with russia. Who cares about Crimea? Who cares about Ukraine? Who cares about your country? [It all comes down to] getting Trump the financing for his towers.”
V. The future of the Trump Operation:
“The State of New York is coming after Trump:”
In May 2019, the New York Assembly passed a bill closing the state’s "double jeopardy" loophole, thus permitting state authorities to prosecute someone who receives a presidential pardon. The loophole could have allowed any president to abuse the presidential pardon power by unfairly pardoning close associates, which Trump threatened to do. When Cuomo eliminated the loophole, he commented that "no one is above the law and New York will not turn a blind eye to criminality, no matter who seeks to protect them."
“The State of New York is coming after [Trump,]” says Levine. “Just because you cut a deal with federal prosecutors, doesn’t mean the State of New York has to. State charges are not pardonable, so if the State of New York indicts the Trump organization—Trump himself, Trump Jr., Kushner, etc. —no pardons for you. The governor of the State can pardon you, but if there’s one thing Cuomo is not going to do: it’s that. And so that’s something Watergate with Nixon or Whitewater with Clinton didn’t have; there were no state charges with those things. There are state charges involved now and it’s very different.”
Trump vs. Statutes of Limitations:
Presidents do not have immunity once they leave office, so if the statutes of limitations for various potential Trump crimes outlast a second term, he could still be prosecuted after he leaves office, even in the event of reelection.
“The statute of limitations now are starting to really go against [Trump,]” explains Levine. “The statute of limitation for obstruction alone is five years. So if he was to obstruct today and never obstruct again, that would carry into November 2024. He could technically finish a second term, let those charges die out, and walk away scott free, but these are not going to be the last of his crimes...reelection won’t save him.”