Over the past four days, I read the nearly-450-page report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding his investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections, its possible conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign, as well as possible obstruction of justice by President Trump in regards to the Special Counsel's investigation. The report concluded that Russia had indeed interfered in the 2016 elections through an aggressive social media campaign and hacking Democratic computer networks, but found no evidence of conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign, despite various links to persons within the campaign. Additionally, while the Special Counsel laid out President Trump's responses to its investigation (and the FBI investigation that preceded it), and analyzed each within a legal framework of obstruction of justice, it did not make a determination whether or not President Trump obstructed justice. To my understanding, the burden of proof regarding intent was outside of the Special Counsel's scope and would be very heavy to anyone who decided to take it up.
I didn't read it because I particulaly enjoy reading dry legal reports, but because I prefer the direct presentation of fact to the media frenzy that has surrounded absolutely everything to do with President Donald Trump. I have never cared to allow the media to curate what I need to know about what's happening in the world around me or what I should think about it.
I mean, have you seen the headlines? (Full disclosure: I have not read any of the articles falling under the following headlines, and remain blissfully ignorant of their contents).
Vox graciously highlights what we need to know: Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it's released and Mueller report: What you actually need to know, explained. The Washington Post kindly offers its summation of What's in the Mueller report, and S. E. Cupp reports "the good news from the Mueller report."
The Washington Post alleges Trump is accused of gross abuse of his office, when in fact, the Special Counsel refrains from making any such judgment because there is not enough evidence at this time to determine President Trump's intent, which is legally crucial to determine abuse of office. The Hill reports MSNBC's Mika Brzezinki's assessment that the report reveals President Trump's "unfit, impeachable behavior," when, again, that is not a conclusion reached in the Special Counsel's report.
I have slightly more respect for PBS Newshour, who called on 3 legal experts to analyze the report, and Time, who called on a Watergate Expert to do the same. I remain slightly cynical, however, because I know experts can be produced to support just about anything.
The most perplexing headline I've seen is from Vanity Fair: Mueller confirms: Don Jr. Was Too Stupid to Collude. I'm sorry ... did you want him to have colluded? Would that have somehow been better for the United States, or is it just your bottom line you're thinking of?
I would have read the Special Counsel's Report anyway, but seeing some of the headlines inspired me to push through the drier passages of legal jargon and precedent in order to form my own conclusions about all of it. These I have decided to share, not to influence the opinion of anyone else, but to encourage independent research and thought.
First of all, Russian interference in the 2016 election did not provoke any sentiment or ideology that was not already here, however dormant it may have been lying. The Special Counsel's report showed that Russian intelligence studied the citizens of the United States in order to find our buttons and push them. In particular, they manipulated and exploited the more dehumanizing aspects of social media to accomplish their ends of stirring us up against each other. It's evil. Had this taken place between two individuals, we would call the aggressor a psychopath. As it is, this played out on the international stage, and is, I fear, a common occurrence there, which brings me to my second thought.
I don't think the Russian government is guilty of anything of which the United States government is not also guilty. Many of the redacted passages relating to the IRA and GRU cite "Investigative Technique" as the reason for their blackout, suggesting to me, at least, that these are techniques our intelligence (also) uses, otherwise, why not let the American people know how Russia did what they did? I wonder if Russian interference in the 2016 elections is not retaliation for our government's "interventions" throughout the world, on some level.
I was surprised to find that Russian interference did not seem to be predominantly pro-candidate Trump, or even anti-candidate Clinton, despite assertions to the contrary from my liberal and feminist friends. On page 23 of the report, Mueller quotes an IRA directive: "Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except Sanders and Trump - we support them)." How Sanders might have aided the Russian government's agenda, I could not begin to say, though research into the matter might reveal some insight. Perhaps the Russian government thought Mr. Sanders would be a less formidable opponent for then-candidate Trump, or perhaps the Russian government prefers candidates who, like itself, display the ability to stir up a crowd.
I believe President Trump's actions in response to the investigation may be exactly what he indirectly claimed them to be: not wanting the success of his campaign attributed to anything but himself. It is entirely possible that President Trump has been concerned with the scrutiny of keeping promises potentially made to Russia in exchange for influencing the election, but overwhelmingly, conversations recorded in the report repeatedly show President Trump concerned with the legitimacy of his election. That does not mean I think President Trump did not obstruct justice; I simply think he might have done so with the motive of protecting his pride, not necessarily because he was covering up conspiracy or coordination with Russia. I certainly don't think it makes it any less offensive or should carry less of a consequence.
Finally, what I consider to be good news: President Trump is not surrounded by yes-men. The Special Counsel's report shows that Jeff Sessions (his own deceptions notwithstanding) stood his ground, refusing to unrecuse himself from and exert influence upon the investigation, in spite of tremendous pressure to do so from President Trump. Donald McGahn is another stellar example of refusing to cave to President Trump's often impolitic requests. Additionally, however I may disagree with their personal ideologies, I believe President Trump received good counsel regarding this investigation from chief strategist Steve Bannon and former-Governor Chris Christie, which he often chose to disregard.
Don't take my word for it. Read the report yourself. Determine that what catches your attention is what is important for you to know. Formulate your own thoughts on it. Talk or write about it.
But for the love of all that is good, please stop letting the media spoon feed it to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment