On the passing of Former FBI Director, and of his Report on the 2016 Election
"Either this nation will kill racism, or racism will kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO." (S. Jonas, July 2025)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
Before getting to the substance of this column, just a note on Trump's lying. It is indeed very well known that he lies a lot. But, in the passing of the former Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, it is truly refreshing to hear him tell the truth for once, e.g., that he, Trump, is glad that Director Mueller died. Ahhh!
As for the substance of this column, I am re-running an edited version of an earlier one on Director Mueller and his famous "Report." Briefly (as is well-known), the events described in the Report and what subsequently happened to/with its findings, were together a thorough unmasking of Trump and his allies in their work to use Russian interference to help Trump win the 2016 election. But, "Katy Barred the Door," as in Attorney General William Barr. (Oh yes. Then-FBI Director Comey, now being roundly attacked by Trump, also played a major last-minute role in the Trump win. But that's another story.)
Ah yes, The Mueller Report. I and many others have written much about it. It presented many significant findings by the Office of the Special Counsel headed by the former FBI Director, Robert Mueller, about various possibly criminal activities of the Trumpites both during the 2016 election campaign and then once ensconced in the White House. (And yes, for example, conspiring with a foreign power to influence a U.S. election is a crime.) Of the former, it found 65-70 elements that amounted to collusion between the Trumpites and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor. But, and it was a big BUT, they concluded that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (in court-room terms), that these actions, even when put together, amounted to a criminal conspiracy to commit same.
As for the other principal focus of their work, the President's obstruction of justice aimed at the carrying out of the work of the Special Counsel, they found about 10 instances of obstruction. But since that danged opinion of the Dept. of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting president cannot be indicted for anything, stood, Mueller would not come down on one side or another, in his Report, about whether the reported and recorded obstruction amounted to a crime.
Nevertheless, there was "lots of stuff" in the Special Counsel's Report that could have laid the wood, as it were, to Trump and his folks. In fact, as is/was well-known, the Mueller Team did obtain a number of criminal indictments, and convictions, of members of the Trump team. (Did you ever wonder why Trump refused to be interviewed himself? Duh!) And so, even with its limitations in what could actually be done legally with the "obstruction stuff," there was a whole lot in there, politically.
But then came, unfortunately packaged as the Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr (real title: General Attorney for Trump, Trumpism, and the TrumPublicans) . As I have said previously, "Katy Barr the Door." In brief, Barr first mis-represented what was in the Report, then he held up its release, and then when he did release it, it was in a heavily redacted version. For the public, Barr managed to suck all the air out of the Mueller Balloon, which was exactly his intention.
But nevertheless, the Report's second volume, on obstruction of justice, still did contain some potentially impeachable stuff. How do we know that? Well, even the subsequently released redacted version shows that to be the case. (A Trump "Justice" Dept. is always doing redactions, aren't they? See, of course, The Epstein Files.)
And there was Director Mueller's appearance before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. It has generally been characterized by all sides as "undramatic" (which some would consider to have been an understatement). Yes, Director Mueller was a man of (very) few words. Nevertheless, what he said was most revealing. And so, just below, I am presenting some of the key questions, highlighted, with the Director's answers in plain type. The Hearings transcripts from which these excerpts was taken are, for the Judiciary Committee here: Click Here, and for the Intelligence Committee here: Click Here.
And so, from the Judiciary Committee hearing.
Chairman Jerrold Nadler: The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?
Director Mueller: Correct. That is not what the report said.
NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "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," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: So, the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct[emphasis added]?
MUELLER: That is correct.
NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.
MUELLER: It does.
NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, "in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels," unquote, to exert undue influence over your investigations, is that right?
MUELLER: That's correct.
NADLER: Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2 of your report, you wrote, quote, "The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry. At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving 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," close quote.[SJ: Note the evidence of witness tampering, also a Federal crime, referred to there.]
. . . . .
And then:
Rep. LOFGREN: So, you wrote on -- in Volume 1 that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. You've also described in your report that the then-Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, shared with the Russian operative, Kilimnik, the campaign strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states and internal polling data of the campaign. Isn't that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.. . . . .
LOFGREN: . . . . .
Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?
MUELLER: Yes.
LOFGREN: And which candidate would that be?
MUELLER: Well, it would be Trump.
LOFGREN: Now, the Trump campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take Russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn't that correct?
MUELLER: That's correct.
And now we turn to excerpts from Director Mueller's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
Chairman SCHIFF: Thank you, Director Mueller. Your report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by Russia to influence our presidential election. Is that correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
SCHIFF: And during the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
MUELLER: Yes, that occurred.
SCHIFF: In fact, the campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
MUELLER: I think we have in our report indications that that occurred, yes.
SCHIFF: Numerous times during the campaign the president praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?
MUELLER: That did occur.. . . . .
Representative HIMES: Director, your report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. The first statement is one that is, as of today, not acknowledged by the President of the United States, and that is, quote, "the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion". The second statement remains controversial amongst members of this body, same page on your report, and I quote, "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." Do I have that statement right?
Mueller: I believe so.
HIMES: Director, who did the Russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
MUELLER: Donald Trump.
Representative SWALLWELL: Thank you. Director Mueller, as a prosecutor you would agree that if a witness or suspect lies or obstructs or tampers with witnesses or destroys evidence during an investigation that generally that conduct can be used to show a consciousness of guilt. Would you agree with that?
MUELLER: Yes.
SWALWELL: Let's go through the different people associated with the Trump campaign and this investigation who lied to you and other investigators to cover up their disloyal and unpatriotic conduct.(And he then proceeded to do that, naming, among others, Mike Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort. Subsequently, Roger Stone, one of Trump's longest-lived advisors, could have been added to that list.)
SWALWELL: And your investigation was hampered by Trump campaign officials' use of encryption communications. Is that right?
MUELLER: We believe that to be the case.
SWALWELL: You also believe it to be the case that your investigation was hampered by deletion of electronic messages. Is that correct?
MUELLER: It would be, yes. Generally, any case would be if those kinds of communications are used.
SWALWELL: Did you want to interview the president?
MUELLER: Yes.
SWALWELL: Director Mueller, on January 1, 2017, through March 2019, Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin in person 6 times, called him 10 times and exchanged 4 letters with him. [During] that time period, how many times did you meet with Donald Trump?
MUELLER: I'm not going to get into that.
SWALWELL: He did not meet with you in person. Is that correct?
MUELLER: He did not.
SWALWELL: Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this?
MUELLER: Because the testimony of the witness goes to the heart of just about any criminal case you have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, as I said back then, some excerpts from Director Mueller's Congressional testimony and the questions that led to his answers, unfiltered by anyone, highlighted some of the major findings of his Report. It is on those findings that the focus should have been, as the full case was developed for removing from office, either by impeachment or the then-upcoming election, of the first President in U.S. history who, along with the TrumPublicans (tm) in Congress, presented, as a clear and present danger, the embodiment of a 21stcentury form of fascism in this nation.
And, of course, as P2025TrumpRepubuloFascism proceeds in its intensifying efforts, on a variety of fronts, to replace our present Constitutional system, which is centrally based on the concept of the separation-of-powers, with a unitary, all-powerful/all-controlling executive, the understanding of their methods and goals becomes evermore important.)
But the work of the Master Water-Muddier William Barr, combined with the totally, visually and orally, underwhelming presentation by the witness Robert Mueller, did in fact very much help to lead to the subsequent public burying-for-the-most-part of the contents of the Report, and their implications for the future of U.S. Constitutional Democracy. And so it lies.
But oh my. Going down the distant pathways of history-as-it-will-be-written, how many major works, from Doctoral-dissertation proposals to insightful books by future historians and political scientists, will this period of TrumpRepubloFascist evil supply for future readers. That is assuming that either U.S. Constitutional Democracy survives the current assault on it, or in the future arises from the ashes created by that assault, should the latter be successful.