Mueller Shipwreck Reputation | RealClearPolitics

Now that Robert Mueller has closed his doors as a special advocate and fired fireworks at his last press conference, the country can step back and evaluate its work. The results are decidedly mixed.

Mueller made two essential contributions. The first was a thorough investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections. He concluded that it was systematic and favored Donald Trump. The second was a thorough examination of the possible coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign. He concluded that no charges were justified against Americans.

The country needed these investigations and Mueller deserves praise for leading them. More ambiguous was his non-finding of obstruction against the president, who, as one might expect, was the subject of deep partisan divisions.

Mueller's two-volume report leaves many unanswered questions unanswered, though Democrats and Republicans differ on who they are. The Democrats, focused on the second volume, firmly believe that Trump has interfered with Mueller's probe. All want additional investigations; some want dismissal. As the Senate is unlikely to condemn – the evidence is too meager to garner a two-thirds majority – the Democrats' practical goal is to harm Trump's chances in 2020. Their political problem, well understood by the President of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is the efforts will hurt even more Democrats.

Republicans reject allegations of obstruction, noting that Trump had provided millions of documents and given Mueller unprecedented access to White House staff. Although Mueller thought he could not accuse a sitting president, he could have said that the evidence justified him. He made no such statement, although he listed some cases that could be considered an obstruction.

Republicans add three more serious charges against Mueller. At first, his team was filled with Democratic supporters, many of whom were closely linked to Hillary Clinton and strongly backed by Trump. Second, the report itself was of poor quality and unfair, they say. He relied heavily on news articles, omitted exculpatory evidence, did not investigate the infamous "Steele dossier", and never asked why, if the Russians tried to penetrate the Trump campaign, the FBI did not not informed the candidate. Another serious accusation – deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – was pronounced by former president's attorney John Dowd. He showed that the Mueller report had altered one of his calls to change the meaning. Dowd is apoplectic, calling the report "fraud". Others will join it if distortions, inaccurate statements and additional omissions are found.

Third, Mueller should have known, at least a year ago and perhaps earlier, that Trump and his senior collaborators never cooperated with the Russians. Republicans say that he had a duty to quickly disclose it to the American public. He failed in his duties, leaving a useless cloud over Trump and preventing his presidency. Why? And why Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the investigation for the Department of Justice, did he intervene to solve these problems?

Of course, Republicans believe that the true subversion of justice has been committed by the DoJ, the FBI agencies and the Obama administration's intelligence services, both in their Trump investigations and in the laundering of the email case against Hillary Clinton. Attorney General William Barr is already reviewing these charges, along with DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and US Attorneys John Durham and John Huber. The Chief Justice of Secret Intelligence Courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already submitted a report to the DoJ stating that the court had not received complete and truthful information in the warrant applications.

These investigations could lead to a catastrophic scandal involving not only leaks, lies and illegal espionage, but also collusion by US government agencies to affect the outcome of an election. We do not know it yet and we do not know the role played by the Obama White House, but we must know it.

How do these problems affect Mueller's reputation? First, his entire investigation was based on two fragile pillars, which Mueller never questioned. If they collapse, Mueller is buried in the rubble. The first pillar is the "dubious history" of the FBI. The bureau says, and Mueller agrees explicitly, that his Trump investigation was opened in late July 2016 after George Papadopoulos, a low-level election campaign volunteer, spoke about Russia to an Australian diplomat. a bar in London. Apparently, Papadopoulos also made exculpatory observations, which were not included (as provided by law) in a subsequent search warrant application.

But more and more evidence shows that Papadopoulos was not the first target and that July 2016 was not the real start date. The counterintelligence investigations on Trump and his associates apparently began earlier and were never revealed. Illegal espionage of Americans by intelligence agencies and their private contractors was not widespread. Even more surveillance was outsourced to foreign intelligence agencies, who then forwarded their findings to Washington. Mueller never mentioned these problems – and possible crimes.

These omissions count. They illustrate the prejudices against Trump and suggest that the evidence of the report could be vitiated by omission and commission. They show the extraordinary efforts of Mueller to protect the law enforcement institutions where he served for so many years. This shield of protection is a problem because misbehavior at the DoJ and the FBI is at the center of the investigation.

The issue of bias erupted again after Mueller's press conference on May 29. His goal was to build a "Leaving Business" sign. As could have been done with a short written statement, its true purpose was debated. Three seem likely. First, he was obviously distorting the report's findings, perhaps to counter what he saw as Barr's mistake. Second, he reported to Congress that even though he could not charge him, he could certainly charge him. Finally, he said: "I do not want to testify and, if necessary, I will not say more than the report." His invitation to dismiss the president of Republicans furious. His "I will not say anything" statement may not make sense because the Congress can summon its testimony and demand answers. Trump and Barr have already indicated that they will not block it.

Mueller's statement about Trump is perhaps the worst self-inflicted damage. His exact quote: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so". This statement is a frontal assault on the oldest and most profound principles of Western law:

• Nobody has to prove his innocence. everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, including the president, the Supreme Court candidates and whoever; and
• Prosecutors should never declare guilt before a verdict or state that a person has committed crimes or "wrongdoing" without charging them. Accuse a crime or shut up. Mueller missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

By violating these basic legal principles, Mueller echoed the sad press conference of James Comey, then director of the FBI, in 2016, where he detailed Hillary Clinton's (alleged) misdeeds and then refused to allow him to do so. to accuse. The charge decision should have been taken by the Ministry of Justice, and not by the FBI, and the allegations should never have been mentioned, unless they were charged. The press conference of Comey is an act that will live in infamy.

It is amazing to see an experienced attorney like Robert Mueller repeat the mistake. The best explanation comes from a classic comedy skit by Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore. Moore eventually asks his friend, "Do you have the impression that you have learned here by your mistakes?"

This is unfortunately why Robert Mueller ends his public service. He learned from James Comey's mistakes. And he repeated them almost perfectly.