It’s been just a few days, but already some disturbing misconceptions about the Mueller report are beginning to set in among some folks.
Here are a few that have been heard and read by me in various national and local media outlets:
-There was insufficient evidence for Mueller to prosecute the president
-Since there were no charges filed against Trump by Mueller there was no obstruction
-There was no collusion
-Since the president didn’t succeed in his efforts to obstruct justice there was no crime
-Mueller recommended against impeachment
-The Mueller investigation was a “nothing burger” that was a waste of time
-A sitting President can’t be indicted or charged with crimes
Meanwhile, Trump and his apologists are continuing to go full steam ahead with their disinformation campaign with memes that try to bolster those misconceptions.
It’s to be expected that Trump and his apologists would do so. However, even some of the more liberal-minded media outlets seem to be buying into some of the disinformation.
In case anyone should tell you otherwise, we need to be clear and consistent as we go forward on the following:
a) The reason the president was not charged by Mueller was not because of a lack of evidence. It was because Mueller adhered to a Justice Department policy...established decades ago...that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Mueller provided ample specific evidence of crimes by Trump himself, including suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, fabricating evidence and obstruction of justice.
b) Not only did the Mueller report NOT say “there was no collusion,” it says right in the report that they didn’t even look into collusion (since collusion is not, technically, a crime...or, as Mueller put it, “has no legal force.”) The legal charge would be conspiracy and numerous conspiracy charges were filed by Mueller’s office).
But everything that’s become known about the 2016 election, including the Mueller report, clearly shows that there was collusion by the very definition of the word.
Merriam-Webster defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.”
So... there was most definitely collusion (secret cooperation...for deceitful purposes), including among the Russians who were charged with conspiracy for doing so. Democrats should not allow Trump and his apologists to continue to get away with claiming that the Mueller report proved there was no collusion. It didn’t.
c) Many national media outlets seem to be treating documented attempts by Trump spelled out in the Mueller report to obstruct justice as something other than crimes because they didn’t pan out. But they were still a crime. Many of these efforts are described as direct orders given by Trump that were simply not followed. The fact that Mueller detailed these attempts at obstructing justice has significance. A crime doesn’t have to be successful to be a crime. The attempt to obstruct justice is in itself a crime, regardless of whether it succeeds. (If someone went into a bank with a gun and tried to rob it, but was foiled in the process, the police wouldn’t just forget about the incident. They would still file robbery charges.)
A crime has been committed when someone tries to obstruct justice. Prosecutors don’t need to prove that justice was actually obstructed for the crime to have occurred.
d) Mueller did not recommend against impeachment as some people claim. In fact, he clearly stated that it was up to Congress to determine whether it felt the evidence he presented warranted impeachment. Here are direct quotes from the report:
“We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”
And :”Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses or fabricating evidence...”
e) As far as the Mueller investigation being a “nothing burger” and a waste of time, here’s my personal response to that:
The Mueller investigation resulted in:
More people charged and convicted in such a short period of time (a little more than two years) than any presidential administration in American history.
Plus, confirmation that there was, in fact, Russian interference in the 2016 election to elect Trump (and not just by lone Russian operatives, but by the Russian government itself, including the Russian military).
Plus, ore than 200 criminal charges against 34 people, including members of Trump’s administration and campaign, many of whom have already been convicted.
In addition, Mueller’s report said that there are 14 additional different investigations still underway by other law enforcement agencies which have jurisdiction from evidence he forwarded to them of possible additional criminal acts.
f) As far as the notion that a sitting President cannot be indicted or charged with crimes: There is nothing in the Constitution that says that.
Mueller stated in his report that he had consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel which confirmed the longstanding policy of the Justice Department that they believe a sitting president can’t be indicted. However, that’s a determination that has never been settled by the courts. And while the Constitution does say that a president can be impeached by Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors, it does not say in the Constitution that a president can’t be charged with crimes by legal authorities.
Are there any other misconceptions you’ve been reading or hearing that seem to be going unchallenged by the media and others?