The Mueller Report (notes)

I decided to read the Mueller report. (I hate reading legal documents. I scored quite high on the LSAT, but couldn’t bear the idea of reading legal documents as a career, so I decided not to become an attorney.) I’m taking notes herein on any specific statements that are made regarding anything that a Trump Campaign person has been found to have done or not to have done with regard to conspiring with Russians to influence the 2016 Presidential campaign. (We already knew that lots of Russians did things on their own, without the knowledge or cooperation of any Americans, so I am ignoring all of the statements within the Mueller report about Russian hacking and political campaign influence. Indeed, there was a tremendous amount of Russian activity.)

These are my notes. As of April 19, 2019, I am still reading through the Mueller report and adding to this page. Also note that the Mueller report, as published here on Bloomberg.com, has two sets of page numbers. The page numbers within the document, and the computerized page numbers at the bottom of the screen. My references to page numbers, below, coordinate with the computerized page numbers at the bottom of the Bloomberg screen.

p. 10, 1st paragraph — “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

p. 10, 4th paragraph — “In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion.’ …collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

On page 11, you learn that Volume I, Section V sets forth the Special Counsel’s charging decisions. I’m not positive what “charging decisions” are, but I’m guessing that section might cover the Cliff Notes version of the investigation’s findings.

p. 12 — I’ve found the first redactions. These sentences cannot be revealed to the public for a variety of legal reasons. The reasons on this page indicate “Harm to Ongoing Matter”, meaning there’s a separate legal case that could be affected by disclosing these sentences.

p. 12, 3rd paragraph — “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA [Internet Research Agency; a Russian organization].” This is the 2nd notable organization named “IRA”, in my lifetime, w/ major political involvement. The first was the Irish Republican Army, heavily involved in religious/political hostilities in Ireland.

p. 12, 4th paragraph — The GRU refers to the Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army.

p. 12, 5th paragraph — “In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks.” Impressive!

p. 13, 2nd paragraph — “…the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

p. 15, 5th paragraph — “On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election.” Seems like a sensible move.

(Various Russians associated with the computer hacking were charged with various crimes, which we already knew. But since those Russians have not been linked to any American individuals’ actions, I’m moving past this topic.)

p. 17, 4th paragraph — “Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”

p. 17, 4th paragraph — This paragraph repeatedly states that evidence was not sufficient to charge various people with various crimes. And then it says, “Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

I’m only up to p. 17 of a 448 page report, and I’ve come across at least five clear statements about insufficient evidence to charge Trump Campaign members with crimes related to Russia. This is surprising. I thought such statements might not exist, or be buried on p. 256.

p. 18, 2nd paragraph — “…the investigation established that interactions between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate’s April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C. and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public and non-substantive.”

p. 18, 2nd paragraph — “And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia.”

p. 18, 2nd paragraph — “The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions’s Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” Hmm. I also met w/Sessions in late 2016. We didn’t discuss Russia either.

p. 19, 2nd paragraph — “…the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.”

p. 20, 2nd paragraph — “…the authorization to investigate such individuals does not  suggest that the Special Counsel has made a determination that any of them has committed a crime.”

computer p. 21; document p. 13, 2nd paragraph — “…the Special Counsel assembled a team that … included 19 attorneys… These attorneys were assisted by a filter team of Department lawyers and FBI personnel…; a support staff of three paralegals..; and an administrative staff of nine…”

computer p. 21; document p. 13, 2nd paragraph — “The Special Counsel attorneys and support staff were co-located with and worked alongside approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligent analysts, forensic accountants, a paralegal, and professional staff assigned by the FBI to assist the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Wow.

computer p. 21; document p. 13, 3rd paragraph — “…the Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas…; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants; obtained more than 230 orders for communications records…; …made 13 requests to foreign governments…; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses…”

p. 22, 2nd paragraph — “The IRA [Internet Research Agency; a Russian organization] and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014.”

p. 22, 3rd paragraph — “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s [Internet Research Agency; a Russian organization] interference operation.”

p. 43, 1st paragraph — “…the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood that requests [for signs and other materials to use at rallies] were coming from foreign nationals.” Sounds right. We don’t ask voters to see their i.d. when they ask for campaign materials.

p. 53, 4th paragraph — “Wikileaks also explained [to Guccifer 2.0, through Twitter’s private messaging function] ‘we thing trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary…’ “ This is not related to anything that Trump Campaign personnel might have done — which is the ostensible focus of my notes — but rather I added it because I found it to be an interesting comment.

I’m noting, in page after page of details relating to Russians, WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, that there’s no mention of American involvement or American crimes until much later, when hacked information was offered to various Americans or exposed through the media. When American crimes are occasionally mentioned, those crimes are invariably about lying under oath, as opposed to participating in computer hacking or illegally influencing elections.

p. 56, 1st paragraph — “In total, WikiLeaks released over 50,000 documents stolen from Podesta’s [Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta] personal email account.” It’s my guess that these emails will contribute significantly to future criminal litigation, presuming that the parties involved don’t first mysteriously die from self-inflicted wounds or single-car crashes.

p. 69, 1st paragraph — With regard to the approximate 30,000 emails that had supposedly been permanently destroyed from Hillary Clinton’s email server, “The investigation did not find evidence that the Trump Campaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign.”

p. 69, 3rd paragraph — “… Alexei Rasin, a Ukranian associate involved in Florida real estate, … offered to sell [Roger] Stone derogatory information on [Hillary] Clinton. Stone refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.”

p. 70, 1st paragraph — With reference to the previously mentioned meeting between Alexei Rasin and Roger Stone, “Finally, the investigation did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach or the meeting and Russian interference efforts.”

p. 74, 1st paragraph — “In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia… Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.” Reminder: go back to the reference from page 21 to the sheer number of professionals devoted to this investigation. Then ponder their complete inability to establish “such coordination.” Then ponder whether evidence existed that warranted beginning the investigation in the first place.

p. 93, 3rd paragraph — In an email between Sam Clovis [the Trump Campaign’s national co-chair and chief policy advisor, identified on p. 90, 2nd paragraph], George Papadapolous [a new member of Trump’s foreign policy and national security advisory team, identified on p. 92, 1st paragraph], and other member’s of the Campaign’s foreign policy advisory team, Clovis addressed Papadapolous, stating, “My thought is that we probably should not go forward with any meetings with the Russians until we have had occasion to sit with our NATO allies, especially France, Germany and Great Britain.”

computer p. 97; document p. 89 — In a meeting on April 26, 2016, “… Mifsud [a London-based professor who had connections to Russia] told Papadopolous that … he learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. As Papadopolous later stated to the FBI, Mifsud said that the ‘dirt’ was in the form of ’emails of Clinton’ and that they have ‘thousands of emails’ … that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” (this entry relates directly to the next entry)

computer p. 102; document p. 94 — “No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office [Mueller’s investigation], shows that Papadopolous shared this information [the existence of the hacked Clinton emails] with the [Trump] Campaign.” (this entry relates directly to the previous entry)

computer p. 103; document p. 95 — “However, the investigation did not establish that Page [Carter Page, foreign policy advisor to the Trump Campaign] coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election.”

 

Research to be continued on computer page 131(6); document page 110.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/mueller-report-final-version/?srnd=premium