Mueller Hearings Matter Because Nobody Read His Report

Special Counsel, Robert Mueller
Special Counsel Robert Mueller arrives at a press conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, District of Columbia on Wednesday, May 29, 2019. Photo credit: © Ting Shen/CNP via ZUMA Wire
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Former special counsel Robert Mueller made it clear in May that, if he were asked to testify before Congress, he would not “provide information beyond that which is already public.” That has led critics of Wednesday’s hearings to suggest that they are a waste of time.

That would be true… if most Americans, including members of Congress, had actually bothered to read his report. But, in spite of various efforts to get people to understand what the report said, they did not — and that is something that is getting lost in the debate over whether it is worthwhile to have Mueller testify.

It’s pretty clear that these are crucial hearings. This is not only evidenced by the fact that the Department of Justice is trying to muzzle Mueller. The issues he and his team investigated are of vital importance: Did President Donald Trump obstruct justice? Did his campaign coordinate with Russia while Vladimir Putin’s regime did all it could to swing the 2016 election Trump’s way? And how, exactly, did Russia help Trump get elected?

Many of the answers to these questions are contained in the Mueller report, but, let’s be honest, most Americans would never read a 448-page document. We wrote about this shortly after it was released (see our story below). And although the US is not a nation of readers, it is a country full of people who watch TV and enjoy a spectacle. And that is precisely why Wednesday’s hearings are so important: This will be the only time most of them are exposed to the content of the Mueller report.

William Barr

Attorney General William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2019. Photo credit: © Douglas Christian/ZUMA Wire

When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Attorney General William Barr likely was comforted by one fact: it appears that most Americans have not read the actual Mueller report.

Barr’s slow reveal of the report seems to have worked: His brief four-page letter to Congress on March 24 — which claimed that no “collusion” with Russia was found, and soft-pedaled what the report did find on obstruction of justice — dominated the headlines. It also caused joy among President Donald Trump and his supporters.

We now know that Barr’s letter angered special counsel Robert Mueller, who wrote to Barr in late March. Mueller raised concerns that Barr’s letter had confused the public, and urged him to release his team’s own introductions and executive summaries to clarify things.

Barr refused Mueller’s request. For the next few weeks, the conversation was about how much of the report would be redacted, and whether House Democrats would have to issue a subpoena for the full report.

Then, on April 18, Barr’s “press conference” before releasing the redacted report continued to shape the news, shifting the attention from the report itself to media ire at Barr’s blatant attempts to spin its findings.

By the time the actual 448-page document landed on the nation’s digital doorstep, it had become old news, offering many print and broadcast outlets the opportunity to mark how many times their earlier reporting had been proven to be accurate, but not shedding much light on what Mueller actually said or failed to say.

Media accounts, particularly right after the report was released, focused on the most dramatic scenes, depicting an angry, emotional Trump hell-bent on quashing the investigation. It substantiated and enriched what had been reported, but it did not offer any surprises about the president’s character.

As Washington Post book editor Carlos Lozada put it: “In a sense, the Mueller report reads like a dozen anonymous New York Times op-eds from that internal White House resistance, except they are far more detailed — and they’re signed.”

In my DC circle, full of activists and journalists, there’s been almost no discussion of the Mueller report. Nobody’s citing from it, sending out tweets or otherwise expressing any views. Among my friends, I haven’t found anyone who’s actually read it.

Polling seems to validate my impressions.

While news reports about the Mueller report seem to have caused Trump’s popularity to drop, public opinion about the report’s findings on the role of Russia in the 2016 election and Trump’s attempts to obstruct the investigation barely moved.

After the redacted report’s release, 47 percent of registered voters agreed that Trump tried to obstruct justice, a jump of three points since February, while 41 percent thought Trump had colluded with Russia, an increase of only two percentage points over the same period.

If a flurry of panel discussions and webinars in DC is any indication, the only people who are reading the report as if it were a juicy mystery novel are lawyers, particularly those who have been prosecutors.

Behind the legal language and cautious conclusions, they see real evidence of criminal guilt, and real danger for democracy.

“If you read the report you will see that it does describe several incidents involving obstruction of justice,” and finds that these incidents meet all the evidentiary requirements, said Barbara McQuade. McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, is a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

She spoke at a webinar sponsored by the American Constitution Society on April 29, so lawyerly it offered a continuing legal education credit to those attorneys who participated.

Mueller looked at a provision of the criminal code that “provides that whoever corruptly obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, is guilty of a crime.”

McQuade said that Mueller did as much as he could to explain Trump’s culpability, without violating Department of Justice legal opinions that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller judged that “it would be unfair even to accuse the president of a crime … because he is unable to defend himself in court.”

Barbara McQuade

Former US Attorney Barbara McQuade. Photo credit: DoJ / Wikimedia

Nevertheless, she said, Mueller found three incidents where all the elements for prosecution are satisfied: the president committed an “obstructive act,” he intended to obstruct, and his action was related to “a legal proceeding.”

Two episodes that met all the requirements for obstruction of justice were Trump’s ordering White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, and then directing McGahn to tell reporters that Trump had not ordered the firing, and to “create a memo for the files” documenting that “[Trump] never directed the firing.”

The third incident concerned Trump’s effort to influence the entire tenor of the Russia investigation, McQuade said. Trump asked Corey Lewandowski, who no longer worked for the White House, to tell then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions to give a speech stating that he was directing Mueller to look into Russian interference in future elections and not the 2016 race.

Trump’s orders were not obeyed, but many lawyers don’t believe that necessarily exonerates the president. Neither does the fact that the Mueller team had not proven a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.

Some experts also contend that there were grounds for accusing members of the campaign with campaign finance violations.

Robert Bauer, former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, and well-known in DC circles for his expertise on campaign finance law, found Mueller’s handling of the June 9 Trump Tower meeting “surprising” and raising “a lot more questions than it answers.”

Bauer faulted Mueller’s team for not putting the Trump Tower meeting in the context of decades of congressional concerns about foreign influence in US elections. Congress has made three attempts to tighten the ban on “any form of foreign national financial support for American campaigns or American attempts to assist foreign nationals in spending money to influence” US elections, Bauer said.

That context, he said, “becomes an important part of the story” when the “entire campaign staff” met with “Kremlin emissaries” in June 2016.

Donald Trump, Trump Tower

Photo credit: James Hughes / NY Daily News via Getty Images

It is difficult to understand why the Mueller team would have wondered whether Paul Manafort knew that cooperating with a foreign national on a campaign violated federal law, Bauer said. Manafort, with “years of political experience,” had “lived through very notorious cases where the foreign national ban was in the headlines.” After the 1996 Clinton campaign, Bauer said, the Republicans investigated whether foreign nationals illegally contributed campaign funds. “And yet Mueller concludes that he doesn’t actually have the evidence that … Manafort knew that engagement with the Russians” might be illegal.

An April 23 discussion of the report at the Brookings Institution was somewhat kinder to the special counsel. Chuck Rosenberg, a former US attorney for the Eastern District of New York, who worked for Mueller at the FBI, said the report was the “product of a remarkably talented and dedicated team of investigators and prosecutors.”

Legal experts also found the dense document a “page-turner.” They may have been comfortable reading it, because it’s essentially what one former litigator called a prosecution memo, which details the evidence leading to a decision to charge or not to charge.

But the report’s structure seems daunting to many members of the public.

One member of the Brookings audience said he was not a lawyer and had not read the report, had only read about it. “Some of it’s very arcane language,” he complained. “[W]hy couldn’t he [Mueller] just say in plain English, I can’t indict but some of this activity that we found is scandalous and a threat to democracy, and it’s really now up to Congress to make a decision? Why do they have to beat around the bush?”

In part, it’s because that’s the way lawyers work, said Wittes. The “general propensity of federal prosecutors when you speak in public [is] to not go beyond the question of whether crimes are committed and to not editorialize in any way about the facts that you’re reporting.”

Wittes, editor-in-chief of Brookings’s popular Lawfare blog, also said that Mueller was working under particularly restrictive conditions. Unlike Ken Starr, who was an independent counsel when he investigated then-President Bill Clinton, Mueller works for the Department of Justice. Congress let the independent counsel law expire because it seemed to give one prosecutor too much power. But, Wittes suggested, the special counsel regulations now in place may have other problems.

He said he’d really like to ask Mueller whether “fear of DOJ intervention … encumbered” him. “Was he able to do the investigation that he wanted to do? Was he afraid of this investigation being cut short, being managed?”

Robert S. Mueller

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller. Photo credit: FBI

Even so, Susan Hennessey, a former National Security Agency (NSA) attorney, found the report compelling. Volume 1 of the report, she said, particularly deserves more attention, because it “documents in excruciating detail … a criminal conspiracy on the side of the Russians to interfere in the US election.” And, she charged, it depicts a “campaign who welcomes [that interference] … who delight in that assistance” and “who brazenly, serially lied to the American public” about what was happening.

“I would really encourage people, even those who aren’t lawyers, to pick up and read the report. It’s more readable than you might think.”

Unfortunately, unlike a lot of beach reading, the report doesn’t have an ending — happy or otherwise. House Democrats are wary of launching an impeachment proceeding without more public support. Nearly a third of Democrats are not yet endorsing impeachment, and more than half of independents oppose moving forward.

That situation is fluid, said Margaret Taylor, a former senior aide to Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “As people on the Hill and the public actually start to read the report and see just how bad it is,” she said, there may be less wariness about impeachment.

“Tthe weight of public opinion could change,” she added, if Americans were to become educated about the report, perhaps through hearings on “what is really in this report.”

While politicians fear the backlash against impeaching a president, an effort that will fail in the Republican-controlled Senate, Hennessey contended that not acting to impeach also has consequences. “Because if we stare down the barrel of this, if these facts are on the table and Congress shrugs and it’s up to the American people maybe 18 months from now to figure this out, that’s a really scary place,” she said.

Her concern? What she terms “constitutional rot … when the branches stop performing their functions, when the President stops meaning his oath of office, when the Congress stops meaning the oaths that they swear to faithfully and well execute their duties.”

When that “rot” sets in, she said, “it can be very, very difficult to recover.”

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


9 responses to “Mueller Hearings Matter Because Nobody Read His Report”

  1. MarkInBoson says:

    “– Mueller absolutely did NOT say he didn’t have enough to indict, only that he doesn’t have the power. He literally SAID your hero could be indicted if he were not president.”

    WRONG! When asked if the reason he did not indict Trump was because of OLC policy not to indict a sitting president he said, “yes.” The same day before the Senate Intelligence Committee he walked back that answer and in his opening comment he stated he misunderstood the question and that the OLC policy was not the reason he didn’t indict, but that there was a lack of evidence to indict.

    IMO the best reporting on Russiagate was by Aaron Maté, who won the 2019 Izzy Award for his Russiagate reporting. What’s emerging is that the Russiagate narrative is looking more and more like the Iraq WMD narrative — a myth created by intelligence agencies. For a while now, Ray McGovern (CIA) and Bill Binney (NSA) have speculated that all appearances indicate John Brennen is the likely originator of the Russigate myth. They are now joined by Princeton Prof. emeritus Stephen Cohen, who of late has been giving numerous numerous interviews with the same hypothesis. WWW should interview Cohen in pursuit of the truth.

    Russian meddling?

    “Special counsel Robert Mueller’s claim of “sweeping and systematic” Russian meddling in the 2016 US election just took another body blow, as a federal judge ruled that his indictment of a ‘troll farm’ is not actual proof of it.
    Mueller’s charges against Concord Management & Consulting, the Russian company accused of running a “troll farm” and “sowing discord” on US social media in 2016, do not establish a link between that private company and the Russian government, US District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich pointed out.

    Yet the special counsel’s much-publicized final report claims to have “established” and “confirmed” Russian government activities based in part on the indictment against Concord, which is a breach of prosecutorial rules, Friedrich said.

    For example, Mueller’s report says that Concord CEO Yevgeny Prigozhin “is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.” That’s an assertion, not evidence.

    Judge Friedrich’s ruling was issued on May 28, but only unsealed on July 1, and went largely unnoticed by the media until this week. That’s not surprising, given the commitment of the US political establishment to the ‘Russiagate’ narrative, journalist and author Daniel Lazare told RT.

    “It’s quite a dramatic ruling,” Lazare said. “Essentially what it says is that half of Mueller’s case doesn’t make any sense, it has no evidence to back it up.”


    People really interested in the truth need to listen to all sides. IMO the best spokespersons of an alternative narrative are Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Aaron Maté (for sure) and Stephen Cohen.

    • Jeff Clyburn says:

      Provide a reputable link supporting the following claim, thanks:
      “When asked if the reason he did not indict Trump was because of OLC policy not to indict a sitting president he said, “yes.” The same day before the Senate Intelligence Committee he walked back that answer and in his opening comment he stated he misunderstood the question and that the OLC policy was not the reason he didn’t indict, but that there was a lack of evidence to indict.”

      No where does he say “lack of evidence.” He simply reworded the conclusion of Rep.Lieu to more properly reflect the report, saying:
      “That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

      You appear to just be blatantly lying. Linking to a Russia Today story doesn’t help your cause, either.

    • MarkInBoson says:

      A prosecutor is supposed to look at evidence to determine whether someone committed a crime. He could not determine that Trump committed a crime after two years of looking at evidence. There is no other way to interpret his statement other than lack of evidence.

    • Jeff Clyburn says:

      so you don’t have that link… you just conceded, in a laughable redirect, that Mueller never actually said they didn’t have the evidence to the Senate, despite definitely confirming to the House he DID have the evidence.

      You, sir, just got caught trying to deceive the readers here. Mueller never said that, and no amount of frozen caveman lawyer logic helps you get away with declaring “there is no other way to interpret his statement.”

      Do better.

    • MarkInBoson says:

      Mueller’s report did not reach a determination on obstruction of justice in his 448-page report, although he laid out 10 possible instances of obstruction. Mueller’s report referenced a longtime Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but his report did not explicitly claim that that was the only reason Trump wasn’t charged in the investigation. Moreover, Barr said in April that Mueller told him that Mueller was not saying that he would have charged Trump with a crime but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and, in addition, a joint statement from the offices of Mueller and Barr in May reiterated that point.

      But Wednesday morning, Mueller reversed course, saying that he would have charged Trump with a crime if not for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

      Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona pressed him on this after his comments to Lieu, saying “that is not what you said in the report and that is not what you told Attorney General Barr.” Lesko also pointed to the joint statement he put out earlier this year, saying there was no daylight between himself and Barr on that issue. She quoted from that statement, reading, “The attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice.”

      “So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement that you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?” Lesko asked. Mueller declined to stand by the official statement from his own office from less than two months ago.

      “I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it,” Mueller said.

      -Washington Examiner

      If anyone is trying to deceive anyone, it’s Mueller.

  2. Robert Cannon says:

    In any case such a long investigation or witch hunt turned up nothing of significance apparently, so it’s time to move on and get on with other issues.

    • Jeff Clyburn says:

      actually, it turned up quite a bit. The president is a serial liar, a traitor and he obstructed justice in order to get away with it. Mueller clearly said it’s up to Congress to do something about it. Anyone who insists it’s “nothing” is quite obviously sympathetic to his agenda.

    • Robert Cannon says:

      The FBI report said no votes were changed. Russians are always meddling. US meddles in other elections. News media supported Hillary. That’s just the way things are, you can’t stop it. Trump a traitor? I don’t think so. Mueller said he did not have enough evidence to indict Trump if he could. It’s water under the bridge, move on.

    • Jeff Clyburn says:

      K, we’ll take these ridiculous misdirections one at a time, shall we?
      – it doesn’t matter if no votes were changed (they absolutely were, it’s just impossible to quantify). If you endeavor to rob a bank, entering armed and disguised, but no money is taken, is it not a crime?
      – it doesn’t matter that Russians are “always meddling.” We’ve finally acknowledged it, and your dear leader isn’t doing anything about it. That, alone, makes him unfit
      – it doesn’t matter if the US meddles in other elections. At least, not so far as this particular argument is concerned. That’s a separate issue, and does nothing to support your own tired argument.
      – news media didn’t support Hillary, evidenced by all the free air time this moron got last summer.
      – Trump is absolutely a traitor, evidence by his removal of sanctions, business dealings, his campaigns embrace of foreign dirt on an opponent, and his handling of Syria, among a few dozen other examples.
      – Mueller absolutely did NOT say he didn’t have enough to indict, only that he doesn’t have the power. He literally SAID your hero could be indicted if he were not president.

      No one is moving on. He is unfit, and the pressure is mounting.