The Mueller Report
Volume II, Section C
The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
This web page discusses Volume II of the Mueller report, section C, which begins on page 48 of Mueller’s volume 2. In the PDF copy obtained from a DOJ site, the two volumes are combined and this section begins on page 260 of 448. The table of contents for Volume II in on PDF page 209. When the document is referenced the page number in the report is provided along with the PDF page numbers in parenthesis.
This review of the report contains conclusions I have reached from reading this section of the report. In some places it is difficult to reach a conclusion without extensive quotes. However, the report is easily available in the complete, although redacted, form via a simple internet search. Here is a direct link to the document.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
AG Sessions announced his recusal from overseeing the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. Election. From Business Insider[1]: The attorney general cited a "pretty reasonable" Department of Justice regulation that forbids DOJ officials from investigating campaigns of which they were a part.
Trump took exception, tried to force Sessions to reverse that decision, and ultimately fired Sessions. Noting that the investigation was into Russian interference in favor of Trump, Trump had a vested interest in wanting Sessions to protect Trump from the FBI investigation. Trump’s intention was to have Sessions stop the investigation. That is a clear action of obstruction of justice.
Trump pressured FBI directory Comey and other national intelligence leaders asking them to push back on any suggestion the Trump was involved in the Russian meddling. Trump was using the authority of the office to exert control over an investigation in which he had a clear interest.
That is Obstruction of Justice.
This site has a web page describing the crime of Obstruction of Justice here: https://ca23rd.org/mueller/vol_2_obstruction.htm
The report presents the evidence for its conclusion in pages 48 (260) through 61 (273), in four sections:
1. Attorney General Sessions Recuses From the Russia Investigation 48 (260)
2. FBI Director Comey Publicly Confirms the Existence of the Russia Investigation in Testimony Before HPSCI 52 (264)
3. The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia 55 (255)
4. The President Asks Comey to "Lift the Cloud" Created by the Russia Investigation 57 (269)
In all these discussions the reader is asked to bear in mind that Russia did indeed interfere in our 2016 election and that they had an explicit preference for Trump. Regardless of your opinion of Trump, he was rightfully involved in the investigation. Even if you elect to declare that Trump played no part in the Russian meddling, the fact that Russia wanted him elected, makes him a legitimate part of that investigation. He was not a bystander.
Footnote 285, page 49 (261) provides details of Sessions recusal. Sessions met with senior department career officials over several weeks. Sessions noted that the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was clear on the matter and that he was obligated to follow regulations.
Trump was angry about this and took great exception.
Prior to the recusal White House Counsel McGahn, at Trump’s request attempted to put pressure on Sessions to not recuse. He contacted Sessions multiple time and even asked for assistance from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Shortly after the recusal, from the report: White House Counsel's Office directed that Sessions should not be contacted about the matter.
The next day Trump met with McGahn, Priebus and Bannon expressing anger at McGahn about the recusal. Trump revealed his motives when he said, quoting from the report:
The President then brought up former Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder and said that they had protected their presidents.
Trump wanted protection from the investigation. Sessions would not provide that protection and Trump was furious. Another quote:
Bannon recalled that the President was as mad as Bannon had ever seen him and that he screamed at McGahn about how weak Sessions was.
That weekend at Mar-a-Lago, Trump pulled Sessions aside and again asked him to un-recuse.
On March 9, 2019, Comey briefed selected Congressional members about the Russian investigation. On March 20, he testified before the HPSCI, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Comey was authorized to speak about the Russian Investigation but not to mention any specific people that might be involved. He did state that there would be an assessment as to if any crimes were committed. When asked directly he declined to answer as to if the President was being considered in the investigation.
That strikers me as meaning: Yes, but we don’t want to poke him with that really sharp stick right now.
Press reports indicated that FBI was investigating the President.
Notes from the White House Counsel's Office dated March 21, 2017, indicate that the President was "beside himself' over Comey's testimony.
Trump pressured McGhan to intervene with the DOJ. White House Counsel investigated into if the President needed reason to fire Comey.
Trump asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Michael Pompeo to publically state that he had no link with Russia. Coats said he had no role in the matter. Pompeo did not admit to remember the meeting. There are conflicting reports about Trump’s behavior, but Coats is reported as refusing to get involved.
Three days later on March 25, Trump again called Coats complaining about the investigation. Coats took no action but in testimony to Congress stated that he felt no pressure. As I read this section the tendency is to think that Trump did intend for Coats to take action on Trump’s behalf and that Coats wanted to keep a distance from the situation.
The next day Trump called NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers and “expressed frustration” about the investigation and asked if Rogers could do something about it. After the call Rogers and Deputy Director of the NSA Richard Ledgett, who was present for the call, wrote and signed a memorandum about the call.
So Trump was doing everything he possible could, and attempting to pressure anyone he could to stop the investigation. Again, this meets the definition of Obstruction of Justice.
Section 4, Trump pressures Comey
On March 30, 2017, Trump reached out to Comey again about the Russia investigation asking what can be done to “lift the cloud.” Trump hoped that Comey "would find a way to get out that we weren't investigating him." On April 11, 2017 Trump called Comey again on the same topic.
During these events White House Counsel McGahn had cautioned Trump to not contact Comey on this topic as those contacts might be perceived as interfering with the investigation. Trump was oblivious to those suggestions.
This section does not present direct evidence that Trump was trying to exert undue influence, but his desire to do so is abundantly clear.
The report spends about two pages on the analysis of the evidence.
In sub part a, obstructive act, Trump repeatedly reached out to intelligence leader agencies about the FBI investigation. He asked Coats to get Comey to stop the investigation. None of the directors would state that they felt pressured by Trump. If so, then why were Rogers and Ledgett so concerned that they wrote and signed a memorandum about the call to Rogers? Trump was striving to develop and exert control over the investigation. That falls within the definition of Obstruction of Justice.
In sub part c, page 60 (272), the report states the evidence does not establish that Trump attempted to influence or direct the intelligence leaders to stop the investigation. I disagree with that statement and from the evidence presented above this statement, concluded that Trump did indeed have the clear intent of affecting and even outright stopping the investigation.
Trump was very clear that he wanted the AG and other to protect him as he perceived that Robert Kennedy and Eric holder protected their presidents. Trump is clear, and has always been clear, that appointees of his administration are there for him personally. I feel certain that Trump believes that if these federal appointees perceive there is a difference between their obligation to the Constitution and Trump’s perception of their obligation to him personally, then they, and indeed, all government employees should protect Trump.
That is in direct contract to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States.