Robert Mueller Special Investigation Dirties Trump Presidency
Donald Trump Presidency is Tainted Forever: The Robert Mueller Investigation Results We Know and Barr’s letter to Congress.
While US President Donald Trump literally yells distractions at the media about his ‘collusion’ with Russian operatives who won him the 2016 election, or lack thereof, it is no less true that Russia won the 2016 election for him.
by Micheal John
What else seems apparent is that Donald Trump knows it to be true that Russian operatives made the significant difference that won him the 2016 election and therefore his hard-core campaign with almost hysterical distraction rhetoric repeating over and over again, “No Collusion”. The Mueller report apparently notes that would be very difficult to prove.
Donald Trump wants the world to believe that his obvious friend Vladimir Putin and he did not conspire together to harm the electioneering of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, and help the electioneering of Republican candidate, himself, Donald Trump.
Moreover, Trump wants the world to believe the Russian President ordered these actions in Trump’s favour to help him win the 2016 election independently without the consent or knowledge of Donald Trump. Was this really a ‘no strings attached‘ secret gift from his friend Vladimir for whom Trump was planning to gift with a lavish Penthouse in a new Trump Tower-Moscow?
- Donald J. Trump was helped significantly by Russia in winning the 2016 presidential election.
- Trump had many criminals surrounding him as part of his executive campaign management and Trump’s administration team.
- There are likely more prosecutions ahead as a result of Mueller’s team ‘farming out’ indictments to other jurisdictions.
- The Trump Administration is doing its utmost best to avoid disclosing the most sensitive parts of the Mueller report claiming they relate to ongoing prosecutions.
- The reactions from the opposition leaders and spokespersons in Washington DC imply there is no trust whatsoever for the Trump Administration.
- “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”.
- Several journos have commented to the extent that William P. Barr is figuratively jumping steeplechase hurdles to defend the US President in his report to Congress. If you wish, read for yourself his full letter below.
Indicted Criminals, Once Surrounding Donald Trump
- Alex van der Zwaan
- Bijan Kian
- George Papadopoulos
- Konstantin Kilimnik
- Michael Cohen
- Michael Flynn
- Paul Manafort
- Richard Pinedo
- Rick Gates
- Roger Stone
- Skim Alptekin
Indictments of Russians
“The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.” – William P. Barr
- The netyksho_et_al_indictment (<- click to read indictment) explains how Russian Military Intelligence officers allegedly used hacking, phishing and other attacks to obtain files illegitimately from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign, then exploited WikiLeaks to distribute the information to damage Clinton to the advantage of Donald Trump. In or around 2016, the Russian Federation (“Russia”) operated a military intelligence agency called the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (“GRU”). The GRU had multiple units, including Units 26165 and 74455, engaged in cyber operations that involved the staged releases of documents stolen through computer intrusions. These units conducted largescale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The list of accused is as follows:
- Viktor Borisovich Netyksho
- Boris Alekseyevich Antonov
- Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin
- Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov
- Aleksey Viktorovich Lukashev
- Sergey Aleksandrovich Morgachev
- Nikolay Yuryevich Kozachek
- Pavel Vyacheslavovich Yershov
- Artem Andreyevich Malyshev
- Aleksandr Vladimirovich Osadchuk
- Aleksey Aleksandrovich Potemkin and
- Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev
2. In the internet_research_agency_indictment (<- click to read indictment) specific Russian persons are alleged to have misled Americans on social media to connect to “troll farm” accounts filled with pro-Trump and anti-Clinton propaganda. The indictment names two companies and 13 Russians including Yevgeniy Prigozhin, who has been identified as a person with close ties to Vladimir Putin.
Defendant Internet Research Agency Llc (“Organization”) is a Russian organization engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes. Defendants Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, And Vladimir Venkov worked in various capacities to carry out Defendant Organization’s interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.
The list of accused is as follows:
- Internet Research Agency Llc A.K.A Mediasintez Llc A.K.A Glavset Llc A.K.A Mixinfo Llc A.K.A Azimut Llc A.K.A Novinfo Llc
- Concord Management And Consulting Llc
- Concord Catering
- Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin
- Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov
- Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik A.K.A Mikhail Abramov
- Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova
- Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva
- Sergey Pavlovich Polozov
- Maria Anatolyevna Bovda A.K.A Maria Anatolyevna BelyaevaRobert Sergeyevich Bovda
- Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov A.K.A Jayhoon Aslanov A.K.A Jay Aslanov
- Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev
- Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko
- Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina
- andVladimir Venkov.
Trump-Appointed Attorney General William P. Barr Report to Congress Writing in Defence of the US President
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explain the prosecution of declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 Subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first described the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans — including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempt by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United State designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved in the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the questions and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed and obstruction-of-justice defense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as this process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
William P. Barr