The news is going to be filled for several days with reactions to the redacted version of the Mueller report, being released this morning as I write this.
I would high recommend reading the column by Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes published by the Lawfare Blog (“Memo to the Press: How Not to Screw Up on the Mueller Report“).
Here’s the first portion of the column.
Back in February, writing with Susan Hennessey and Mikhaila Fogel, we laid out “Four Principles for Reading the Mueller Report.” The report was then still vapor, a document whose preparation was widely hypothesized by most analysts and in some form required by regulation. Its expected arrival at the Justice Department had been reported by a number of news outlets, but about its content, no solid information was available. While we were still self-consciously behind the veil of ignorance about what Special Counsel Robert Mueller had concluded, it seemed like a good time to lay out some ground rules for how to read it fairly. Our proposals were simple:
• People should be prepared to accept Mueller’s prosecutorial judgments, we argued.
• They should accept the factual record described in the report.
• They should not assume the report covers more than it, in fact, conveys—there being a lot of legal questions about President Trump’s behavior that lie outside the scope of the Mueller investigation.
•Nonprosecution decisions do not necessarily resolve questions of morality, ethics or impeachability—in other words, the judgments of history, journalism and Congress are not determined by whether Mueller finds the president’s conduct indictably criminal.
Their latest column expands on each of these principles, providing useful perspective for anyone who wants to read and report on the report.
I find two parts especially cogent. The first runs counter to the basic instincts of the mainstream news media, which is likely to cover the opinions or reactions of opposing players rather than the report itself.
“The big story, at least initially, is not how people are reacting to the report,” Jurecic and Wittes argue.
Their advice: “Do not let the story or stories Mueller tells get overtaken by the many spins that will vie to overtake it.”
And please excuse my use of another long excerpt:
…keep in mind that the decision not to prosecute someone based on the factual record does not end the analysis of that record. It just ends the prosecutorial analysis. Mueller’s job as a prosecutor was to investigate and reach decisions about whether or not to bring cases based on that evidence (which is exactly why his apparent decision to hold back on reaching a conclusion as to evidence of obstruction has caused many former prosecutors to scratch their heads). But indictability is not the only legitimate standard of evaluation. It may be perfectly appropriate for Mueller to decline a case and yet for observers to conclude that the conduct at issue merits the opprobrium of all decent people. Congress and the public have a different set of responsibilities. With the evidence Mueller has obtained on the table, it will now be for Congress to decide whether and how the report suggests new avenues for oversight or legislation or even if it merits the beginning of impeachment proceedings. It will also be for the public to determine whether the conduct described on the part of the president and those around him is befitting of the office of the president. These are not prosecutorial judgments, and the declination of prosecutions does not answer them.
There’s a whole lot more in this column from two very astute observers.
It’s highly recommended reading before digging into the Mueller report.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We now live in a world where not guilty means yeah but?? I don’t understand. It’s over. Find another way to waste 2 years and 25 million dollars. I’m sure there are lots of options that will allow congress to be totally ineffective and frozen in place but yet feel like they are busy doing “something”. The losers are the citizens of the country that continue to sit and wait for actual legislation to improve our lives. and so it goes…….
And I have an equally hard time understanding two things. First, have we agreed to lower the bar so far that simply not having a “slam dunk” case of criminal guilt is enough to hold the highest public office in the land? And, even if you believe that, how do you dismiss a report like this (and the evidence that supports it) without even trying to read it?
My grandmother loved to watch the soap opera “Day’s of our Lives”.
She died more than 40 years ago, but the show is still going on.
The article ends with, “Congress has final say”. With Congressional ability to enact sweeping change…keep expectations low! I think we sent “Ed Case back to Congress”, was similar to get out – go back – punishment. Does anyone like Washington NO, the folks that did died already.
Sometimes the assumption of guilt cuts across the entire psyche, and a large mass of people lose the ability to reason. In this case it has reached the obsessive level. At some point it takes on some who, like golum, chasing the “precious” ring of impeachment at all costs until they fall into the abyss. The country is filled with people walking the streets who have come within a breath of being the subject of a Grand Jury presentation and may have deserved to face charges – like Clinton – and never did. The Senate and House are rife also and most informed people realize it. Can you imagine how lucky someone – politician or average person – whose alleged guilt was not publicized must feel if they squeaked through and went on to live normal lives? So we should not pretend to be so naive to assume that a healthy number of those known and unknown subjects of investigation at the national are politicians, some successful ones who you would and probably will someday vote for. They remain free and they hold office or hold jobs because there is a presumption of innocence. I have heard all the word-splitting, word-twisting, and rationalizations of Trumps foes. It all, of course, starts with a presumption of guilt. This reminds me of college when the teachers said, “torture the data long enough and it will fit your theory.” Mueller probe: 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 witnesses. Does that tell you anything? Nine times out of ten a prosecutor who wants an indictment will get it. Being reluctant to go for an indictment speaks volumes and it does not say there is a new standard for some people who hold office. It says, if you are going to keep throwing a country into these torments it better be based on a lot more than the per-conceived conclusions and outright erroneous reporting and baseless allegations we have been treated to for years already. There is the possibility of something strange and “stinky” here – like the Kealoha case taken to cosmic proportions: The whole story of our local “Kealoha” investigation seems to center on an attempt by the Kealohas to construct a “gallows” built on a baseless yet seeming “slam dunk” case against a family member. Of course we see the irony of the Kealohas now as they will be “walking their own plank.” It is time to examine all of this nonsense on the Russian “investigation.” Declassify everything, examine the basis for the FISA warrants and who ordered what, etc. and when. It may be that the DNC is playing a “Kealoha” role in this whole mess.
For the true believers who might be disturbed that the Mueller report shows Trump lying, ordering his minions to lie, and being barely saved only because some of those people did not listen to him and refused to break the law… Devin Nunes went on Hannity to suggest you should simply not read the report. It might give you a headache because the truth hurts.
A relative of mine is a member of a religious cult. The reason I can’t get her out is because it’s a part of the cult mentality to reject outside information that might disprove their beliefs as coming from satanic sources. You could easily substitute “fake news” or various other epithets Trump bestows on his enemies, and see what’s going on here. Once that kind of conditioning has taken place there is no fact or evidence that would ever be good enough that doesn’t come from the governing body of the cult.
There are always signs before you get fully sucked in, and even after you’re indoctrinated sometimes a little crack of light can seep in. Allow me to try to illuminate you: If someone tells you not to read something and judge for yourself and to trust only their self-serving version of whatever it is, and you think that’s a great idea, you might be thinking like a victim of brainwashing. For real.
I am fascinated with the extent that some will go to smear those who do not necessarily see things their way. It is like we are now living in the midst of something that is like Stalin’s Politburo, where anyone who did not march in lockstep with certain viewpoints were branded anti communist or, worse yet, mentally deranged – only to be swept out to the Gulag for “treatment” never to be heard from again. Equally fascinating is the fact that so many people assume anyone who would defend the obvious weaknesses in the case as a staunch Trump supporter. People, you better start defending the process and applying the constitution in fairness against your enemies as well as your friends. Personally, I believe that Democrats and Republicans look equally good in Orange jumpsuits, where a substantial number on each side belong. I have a right to have questions – I am not a political hack, a blind follower or a mindless agenda driven progressive or conservative. Neither am I “brainwashed.” I was taught to think, ask questions, and come to decisions based on facts, fairness and thoughtfulness. The line between good, bad, right, wrong does not depend on political party. Politics is ruining people’s ability or desire to think, evaluate and live independently, because parties are starting to tell us what to think. I will make my own decisions, thank you very much. I don’t particularly care if what I believe is liked by the “in crowd.” I say, go ahead and charge him with “attempted obstruction” or whatever charge you can put together. Heck, charge him with whatever you want and go into impeachment hearings. See how far it gets with the paucity of evidence. this system is built on presumptions, protections and an adversarial system ruled by law. That means two sides, at minimum. And a right to speak. That is, I think, a progressive idea.
I know you’re going to ignore this too. The worst liberals are the ones that can’t acknowledge they have any bias at all, or that their ends justify the means. Welcome to the echo chamber, but at least let’s not fool ourselves.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/
Liberals believe that Trump would conspire to win the election, but Trump did not want to win the election, he dreaded the prospect of winning and he was horrified when it happened. Trump dealt with Russia because he wanted to do business in Russia, it was his dream to open hotels in Russia. So liberal rhetoric about “collusion” went to far and missed the point, but if you take away the liberal exaggerations, the picture is still damning: a president who has no interest in politics (or family), only money.