What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mueller Report: Volume 2 of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016
Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, commonly known as the Mueller Report, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, and allegations of obstruction of justice by Trump, as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". A redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It has two volumes: Volume I focusing on obstruction of Justice by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump
254 pages, Paperback
Published April 24, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 29, 2024
THE SECOND (AND MOST SIGNIFICANT) PART OF THE MUELLER REPORT
The Introduction to Volume II explains, “We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation… First… we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment… we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” (Pg. 1)
It continues, “Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the … standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes… The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President…” (Pg. 2)
The Report outlines, “The key issues and events we examined include the following: [1] The Campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump… Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information … about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow…” (Pg. 3)
It continues, “[2] Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn… On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside advisor, ‘Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.’ The advisor disagreed and said that the investigations would continue. Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” (Pg. 3) Later, it states, “In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate… the President publicly disputed several aspects of the story… Despite these denials, substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.” (Pg. 44)
It goes on, “[3] The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation… after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him… Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly. [4] The President’s termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey … but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey… The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing…” (Pg. 3-4)
“[5] The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him… The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was ‘the end of his presidency’ and demanding that Sessions resign… The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called [former White House counsel [Donald] McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel … must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.” (Pg. 4)
It continues, “[6] Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation… On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one… with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski… and dictated a message … to deliver to Sessions… Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President’s message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through… [9] Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed… the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed… The President then met with McGahn … and again pressured him to deny the reports…” (Pg.5-6)
It says, “[10] Conduct toward Flynn, Manafort… After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort ‘a brave man’ for refusing to ‘break’ and said that ‘flipping’ ‘almost ought to be outlawed.’ [11] Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President’s conduct towards Michael Cohen … changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s conduct in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness… the President … called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.” (Pg. 6)
The Report summarizes, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the power of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law...” (Pg. 8)
The Report notes, “Cohen recalled speaking with Trump … about Trump’s denial of any business dealings in Russia, which Cohen regarded as untrue. Trump told Cohen that Trump Tower Moscow was not a deal yet and said, ‘Why mention it if it is not a deal?’ According to Cohen… in response to Trump’s disavowal of connections to Russia, campaign advisors had developed a ‘party line’ that Trump had no business with Russia and no connections to Russia.” (Pg. 19-20)
It observes, “on January 27, the President … invited [Comey] to dinner… at one point during the dinner the President stated, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty’… Comey responded, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ The President said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ …After Comey’s account of the dinner became public, the President and his advisors disputed that he had asked for Comey’s loyalty… Comey’s memory of the details of the dinner, including that the President requested loyalty, has remained consistent throughout.” (Pg. 35-36) It points out, “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation… The anticipated effect of removing the FBI director, however, would not necessarily be to prevent or impede the FBI from continuing its investigation.” (Pg. 74)
It states that “On May 17, 2017… when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f__d…’ Sessions recalled that the President said to him, ‘you were supposed to protect me,’ or words to that effect. The President … said, ‘Everyone tells me that if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.’” (Pg. 78)
It says, “the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry… A threshold question is whether the President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed… the President publicly disputed these accounts… McGahn’s clear recollection was that the President directed him that … ‘Mueller has to go.’ McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.” (Pg. 88) When the President once asked McGahn why he took notes of their meetings, McGahn replied that he keeps notes because he is a ‘real lawyer’ and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.” (Pg. 117)
It states, “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” (Pg. 97) Later, it notes, “Soon after he fired Comey… the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President’s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it… Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.” (Pg. 158)
Ultimately, the Report concludes, “we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state… we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Pg. 182)
This Report will be “must reading” for persons on all sides of the political spectrum.
The Introduction to Volume II explains, “We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation… First… we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment… we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.” (Pg. 1)
It continues, “Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the … standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes… The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President…” (Pg. 2)
The Report outlines, “The key issues and events we examined include the following: [1] The Campaign’s response to reports about Russian support for Trump… Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information … about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow…” (Pg. 3)
It continues, “[2] Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn… On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside advisor, ‘Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.’ The advisor disagreed and said that the investigations would continue. Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” (Pg. 3) Later, it states, “In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate… the President publicly disputed several aspects of the story… Despite these denials, substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.” (Pg. 44)
It goes on, “[3] The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation… after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him… Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly. [4] The President’s termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey … but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey… The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had ‘faced great pressure because of Russia,’ which had been ‘taken off’ by Comey’s firing…” (Pg. 3-4)
“[5] The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him… The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was ‘the end of his presidency’ and demanding that Sessions resign… The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called [former White House counsel [Donald] McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel … must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.” (Pg. 4)
It continues, “[6] Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation… On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one… with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski… and dictated a message … to deliver to Sessions… Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President’s message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through… [9] Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed… the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed… The President then met with McGahn … and again pressured him to deny the reports…” (Pg.5-6)
It says, “[10] Conduct toward Flynn, Manafort… After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort ‘a brave man’ for refusing to ‘break’ and said that ‘flipping’ ‘almost ought to be outlawed.’ [11] Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President’s conduct towards Michael Cohen … changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s conduct in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness… the President … called him a ‘rat,’ and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.” (Pg. 6)
The Report summarizes, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the power of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law...” (Pg. 8)
The Report notes, “Cohen recalled speaking with Trump … about Trump’s denial of any business dealings in Russia, which Cohen regarded as untrue. Trump told Cohen that Trump Tower Moscow was not a deal yet and said, ‘Why mention it if it is not a deal?’ According to Cohen… in response to Trump’s disavowal of connections to Russia, campaign advisors had developed a ‘party line’ that Trump had no business with Russia and no connections to Russia.” (Pg. 19-20)
It observes, “on January 27, the President … invited [Comey] to dinner… at one point during the dinner the President stated, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty’… Comey responded, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ The President said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ …After Comey’s account of the dinner became public, the President and his advisors disputed that he had asked for Comey’s loyalty… Comey’s memory of the details of the dinner, including that the President requested loyalty, has remained consistent throughout.” (Pg. 35-36) It points out, “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation… The anticipated effect of removing the FBI director, however, would not necessarily be to prevent or impede the FBI from continuing its investigation.” (Pg. 74)
It states that “On May 17, 2017… when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f__d…’ Sessions recalled that the President said to him, ‘you were supposed to protect me,’ or words to that effect. The President … said, ‘Everyone tells me that if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.’” (Pg. 78)
It says, “the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry… A threshold question is whether the President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed… the President publicly disputed these accounts… McGahn’s clear recollection was that the President directed him that … ‘Mueller has to go.’ McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.” (Pg. 88) When the President once asked McGahn why he took notes of their meetings, McGahn replied that he keeps notes because he is a ‘real lawyer’ and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.” (Pg. 117)
It states, “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” (Pg. 97) Later, it notes, “Soon after he fired Comey… the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President’s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it… Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.” (Pg. 158)
Ultimately, the Report concludes, “we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state… we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Pg. 182)
This Report will be “must reading” for persons on all sides of the political spectrum.
Displaying 1 of 1 review