Part 2 of the Mueller report has to do with obstruction of the investigation and related other acts of obstruction of justice. This blog today will focus on part 1 and will rely heavily on an article in the Wall Street Journal by Dustin Volz and Alan Cullison. Paragraphs beginning with quotation marks are direct quotes from their article
* * * * *
"Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report is unambiguously clear on this point: Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and sought to help Donald Trump win the White House.
"That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.
The report from Mr. Mueller will likely serve as the definitive document about Russia’s use of an array of digital weapons to influence the American electorate in 2016. It will also bolster warnings from senior U.S. intelligence officials that Russia and other hostile foreign powers remain intent on disrupting future elections, including the 2020 presidential contest."
[The report then contains some historical context, clarifying that Russia's attempts to interfere in US democracy go as far back as 2014 at a time when US-Russia relations took "an abrupt turn for the worse" after Russia's seizure of Crimea. The point is that Russia's attempt to destabilize our democracy predated Donald Trump's plan to run for president. But, when he came along, the Russians apparently saw him as useful and began to make overtures to him and his associates. Now back to the WSJ article:]
"The report explains how Russia’s yearslong hacking and social-media operations coincided with a series of contacts between the Kremlin and Trump campaign officials and associates, including Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son. Those interactions included discussions about possible business deals, policy goals and getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The latter transpired during a well-known meeting in Trump Tower in New York. Investigators didn’t establish that a conspiracy existed between the two sides to work together to interfere in the election.
"The Russians also succeeded in getting a number of officials closely associated with the Trump campaign to promote the Russian government’s messages. Those officials included the younger Mr. Trump; then-digital-media director for the Trump campaign, Brad Parscale; and prominent members of the media. . . .
"Large portions of the report’s section on Russian interference were redacted due to concerns that details would reveal sources or methods of the U.S. investigation, or do damage to an ongoing probe. . . .
"Despite the redactions, new details are scattered throughout the report. Former national security adviser Mike Flynn embarked on an effort to find Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails at Mr. Trump’s direction in the summer of 2016, enlisting the help of a Senate staffer and a longtime GOP donor, according to the report.
"Mr. Trump 'asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails,' the report said. Mr. Flynn 'recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.'. . .
"The report doesn’t answer all Russia-related questions. Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukrainian-born aide to Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort, remains a riddle. . . . "
* * * * *
Kilimnik is suspected of having ties to Russian intelligence and has been long suspect as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Kilimnik is the one to whom Paul Manafort reportedly gave polling data, which we now know to have been from the swing states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
However, because Manafort and others lied so much to investigators, it was difficult to build an actionable case of collaboration or conspiracy based on this alone. Kilimnik has reportedly denied spying for Russia; and he is now in Russia and unavailable to be interviewed directly by the Mueller team.
Thus we have abundant evidence of the digital and social media interference in our election; and our counterintelligence agencies have been able to trace the hacking directly to certain Russian-controlled troll farms and bots -- and indictments for them have been issued. They will likely never be extradited and brought to trial; but the extreme detail of their operation has been exposed and the relation to the Russian government is based on solid evidence.
What can be said is that the Kremlin very actively pursued collaboration with the Trump campaign and that the Trump campaign was willing to accept the help. Their goals were largely in parallel.
What there is not the evidence for, and why no charges of conspiracy were brought, is the lack of evidence of any agreed upon plan to cooperate (i.e. a conspiracy) or to cooperate in a quid pro quo arrangement. There are suspicions and suspicious behavior -- but, ultimately, no cigar.
They found no emails or phone records that could show definite evidence of actual conspiracy. Having similar goals and both working to achieve those goals does not make a conspiracy. We may speculate that such evidence may have once existed but was destroyed or lied about; but you can't make a court case out of suspicions.
More evidence may turn up later, but that's the way I understand it at this point. There was assistance from Russia, gladly received by the Trump campaign -- but investigators were not able to establish that it met the criteria for conspiracy.
What we must do now is take steps to prevent Russia from doing the same thing in our 2020 election. There is ample evidence that the Russians never stopped their campaign to sew discord, and President Trump seems blithely unconcerned -- or rather he actively wants to avoid the whole thing. Any discussion of Russia's interference in 2016 sets off alarm bells in his head that clang our to him the message: "Your win was illegitimate. You have to suppress anything that suggests that you didn't win the election on your own."
To him, that's far more important than protecting our democracy. That's who Donald J. Trump is.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment