Renato Mariotti Profile picture
Sep 21, 2020 23 tweets 5 min read Read on X
THREAD: What can we learn from today's revelation from former Mueller lieutenant Andrew Weissmann that Mueller's team failed to take investigative steps because they feared that Trump would fire Mueller?
1/ Today the Atlantic published an article by George Packer in which Packer explores the forthcoming book from Andrew Weissman, who was one of Mueller's top deputies.

The article features an interview of Weissmann, and some significant revelations. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
2/ Weissman's revelations are shocking. @AWeissmann_ said the threat of being fired by Trump caused the Mueller team to pull punches.

He claims the decision not to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. to testify about the Trump Tower meeting was due to fear of Trump's reaction.
3/ Weissmann also said that Mueller's team did not subpoena Ivanka Trump, who spoke to Trump Tower participants after the meeting, because they feared "risk enraging Trump, provoking him to shut down the Special Counsel's Office once and for all."
4/ Pulling punches in an investigation in response to threats by a subject of that investigation to obstruct justice is completely indefensible.

Obviously, Mueller and his team were in the very difficult position of investigating someone who could shut down their investigation.
5/ The Mueller report sets forth multiple attempts to fire Mueller and impede their investigation, and it's clear from the report that they concluded that those activities constituted obstruction of justice.

That makes their reaction to the obstruction highly disturbing.
6/ Mueller's most perplexing decision was not to subpoena Trump to testify, which any investigator ordinarily would have done.

(Trump ultimately agreed to provide answers to written questions, which were misleading and clearly written by his lawyers, as one would expect.)
7/ The report claims that the reason Mueller did not seek Trump's testimony is that it would have unduly delayed the investigation.

Weissman claims that the "real reason ... was "Mueller's aversion to having an explosive confrontation with the White House."
8/ If true, that is hard to understand or defend. Prosecutors routinely push subjects of their investigations to do things they don't want to.

Weissmann's account suggests Trump was treated differently from other citizens, and the special treatment was hidden from the public.
9/ Weissmann is also critical of how the report was written, calling one passage "mealymouthed" and concluding that "one reason the president and his enablers were able to spin the report was that we had left the playing field open for them to do so."
10/ That is a fair criticism, but I think part of the issue is that prosecutors typically don't write reports. They either obtain an indictment or remain silent.

Mueller was concerned about accuracy and fairness, not about writing something that couldn't be spun by others.
11/ It is hard for me to fault a prosecutor for trying too hard to be fair-minded and careful. We need more prosecutors like that.

Weissmann is particularly critical of Mueller's decision not to come to any conclusion regarding obstruction of justice.
12/ As he points out, it's obvious to anyone reading the report that they concluded that Trump had obstructed justice, and the lack of clarity was an issue.

I wouldn't have done what Mueller did, and I doubt most prosecutors would have either.
13/ That said, I admired Mueller's desire to treat Trump with the utmost fairness even after Trump smeared him and tried to fire him repeatedly.

His sense of fair play and restraint may have gone too far, but I will never criticize a prosecutor for being overly fair to anyone.
14/ I have faced prosecutors who abused their discretion and were unfair to defendants. Prosecutors who are careful and fair should be admired, not criticized.

The real issue with Mueller's investigation wasn't being overly careful or fair in a particular line of his report.
15/ Mueller faced an extraordinary challenge, given that the full power of the presidency and Trumpworld were arrayed against him.

Prosecutors typically do not face the unprecedented attempts to obstruct and smear that Mueller faced.
16/ They aren't trained as politicians and their job is to investigate, bring charges, and move on to the next case.

Many in the public wanted Mueller to be more than a prosecutor.
17/ Perhaps something more than a prosecutor would be needed to "take down Trump," but that was never Mueller's goal or his mandate.

Mueller's job was to investigate, prosecute, and report. He did so.
18/ The revelations from @AWeissmann_ that are significant and troubling to me are his statements suggesting that Mueller's team curtailed their work in response to obstruction.

That suggests that they didn't fully do their job.
19/ But arguments that Mueller was outmaneuvered by Trump and Barr, and should have done more against that, to me are wishful thinking that Mueller would be more than what he actually was.

He was a prosecutor and sought to remain above the fray and outside the political fight.
17/ That's typically what prosecutors do for a lot of good reasons, and when they don't, they usually run into trouble.

For that reason, if you do read the Atlantic piece, I would set aside the commentary of the author, George Packer.
18) He proclaims that Mueller's investigation was "the greatest potential check on Trump’s abuse of power" and that the "whole constitutional superstructure of checks and balances rested on Mueller and his team."

That is too much weight to put on a criminal investigation.
19) If you expected Mueller to take on our entire constitutional superstructure, you misunderstood the role of a prosecutor.

If Mueller caved to obstruction, as Weissmann claims, that's alarming. But his failure to "beat Trump" was not. That wasn't Mueller's job. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Renato Mariotti

Renato Mariotti Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @renato_mariotti

Nov 8
This election feels different than 2016, when we weren’t sure what a Trump presidency would bring.

Trump has indicated he will take direct control of the DOJ and FBI. A “cleansing” of the ranks, and abuse of prosecutorial power, may follow.

But the Constitution remains intact.
If Trump prosecutes his political rivals, they’ll be entitled to due process and a public trial overseen by a judge with life tenure.

Ultimately they can’t be convicted unless 12 ordinary citizens unanimously find them guilty. Even one person on the jury can derail the verdict.
Our criminal justice system is highly imperfect, as I tell my own clients when they face unjust results. But it has fundamental protections against tyranny that matter.

Those protections can’t just be “set aside” with the wave of a hand. Our institutions and laws still exist.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 22
THREAD: What are the key issues in the criminal trial of Donald Trump.
1/ Trump has been charged with Falsifying Business Records, *not* with making the hush money payments themselves.

That’s why the defense is going to focus on whether Trump knew about the false statements in business records.
2/ Prosecutors will try to prove his knowledge in two ways.

First, they’re introducing documents and testimony proving that Trump signed checks to pay Michael Cohen, and arguing that Trump knew that these checks were falsely suggesting Cohen was paid for legal services.
Read 12 tweets
Nov 6, 2023
1/ Donald Trump’s testimony today is not moving forward a purely legal strategy.

His legal team’s strategy was always defensive and focused on limiting liability elsewhere, which is why he took the Fifth hundreds of times in his deposition.
2/ You don’t frequently take the Fifth in a civil case if you plan to win.

Trump’s team likely saw the need to essentially concede defeat here and mitigate collateral damage coming from a loss.

But Trump’s ego has forced a change in strategy. But it’s not a *legal* strategy.
3/ You don’t attack the judge constantly if you want to win the trial.

The primary focus today is about PR/spin/politics. Trump wants to convince his followers that the trial is rigged and that he’s a victim, not a fraudster.

Secondarily, he’s trying to provoke the judge.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 26, 2023
THREAD: Why did the Hunter Biden plea deal fall apart?
1/ Earlier today, during a hearing when Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty, the plea deal was scuttled after the judge asked whether he would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes as a result of the deal.
nytimes.com/live/2023/07/2…
2/ After prosecutors said that it would not do so, Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that the deal was off.

Why did they do that?

To borrow the name of my podcast with @AshaRangappa_, it’s complicated.
Read 12 tweets
Jul 19, 2023
1/ The Michigan AG’s charges against fake electors are more important than you might realize.

Our electoral system is run at the state level, and as we saw in the last election, there is room for bad actors to get to subvert the process.

These charges will be a real deterrent.
2/ Remember that the “fake electors” aren’t billionaires. They’re not raising money off of these criminal charges. These charges won’t lead to fortune or fame.

They’re GOP party operatives who will be devastated by an indictment like a typical person is.
3/ Getting indicted isn’t fun. It is a stressful, costly, and humiliating experience.

Just like the charges of individual January 6th insurrectionists, these charges may deter foot soldiers who would consider joining an effort to overturn the *next* election.
Read 4 tweets
Jul 13, 2023
THREAD: What should we make of today's Ripple #XRP decision?
1/ Earlier this afternoon, federal judge Analisa Torres issued a long-awaited decision in SEC v. Ripple, a case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Ripple Labs, a company that issues a token called #XRP.

Why should you care about this decision?
2/ Right now, the U.S. has no established regulatory framework for crypto. Other countries, like the UK, are working to create new, comprehensive regulatory regimes.

In the U.S., Congress hasn't done that, so the courts have to sort this out using existing law.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(