,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ The White House calling the Special Counsel report the "no-collusion, no-conspiracy, no-obstruction Mueller report" is dishonest. Let us now take a look at the report's own language to explore why.
justice.gov/storage/report…
justice.gov/storage/report…
2/ First, re "no-collusion" -- Mueller makes clear from the beginning of the report that "we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion.'" This is right on page 2 of Volume I.
Mueller did not even address collusion.
Mueller did not even address collusion.
3/ Mueller did that because "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."
4/ Okay, now let's look at "no-conspiracy." Here Sanders' rhetorical case is stronger. Mueller writes of Russia/Trump contacts: "the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia,...
5/ "...including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the
Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination." (p 66)
Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination." (p 66)
6/ (Mueller of course does establish a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 elections by Russians, plus other conspiracies such as Manafort & Gates conspiring to cover up non-campaign related crimes, etc etc. So "no-conspiracy" here refers just to POTUS/campaign/Russia.)
7/ Now let's look at "no-obstruction."
Mueller definitively did not reach a conclusion on the matter. Barr did -- and concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction, but Mueller did not.
Mueller definitively did not reach a conclusion on the matter. Barr did -- and concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction, but Mueller did not.
8/ Mueller's report could have stated "no-obstruction." It chose to state the following instead:
9/ "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...
10/ "...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...
11/ "...Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
12/ Mueller notes that after he was appointed the President engaged "public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both
public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."
public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."
13/ As has been reported, Mueller deferred to the DOJ OLC guideline that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." So he would not indict.
14/ But Mueller also reaches "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."
15/ THREE times Mueller writes: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (pp 2, 8, 182, Vol II)
16/ So Sanders' description of the Mueller report contains at least two blatant lies. It is not "no-collusion" and it is not "no-obstruction."
17/ This has been my TED talk.
