"The youth walks up to the white horse, to put its
halter on and the horse looks at him in silence. They
are so silent, they are in another world."
-D. H. Lawrence










































































































































































 SELF-EVIDENT
Government records by their very nature are dry, uninteresting compilations of facts. Often produced with the intent of providing a historical record, they're chief aim is to reconcile fiction with reality. Reports often are produced to sum up an event; a clarification of the whats, whys and whos surrounding the event. A report produced on the tails of an investigation has this purpose in mind with the additional heaviness of legality. Investigations aren't usually generated out of a perception US law or security hasn't been compromised. Due to this, they often garner a lot of public attention.


The Mueller Report
by Robert S. Mueller, III and The Washington Post
Simon & Schuster, 2019
ISBN: 978-1-9821-297-36
$15.00, 729 pp

Not since Kenneth Starr has a report generated so much public interest as Robert Mueller's. Written on the heels of investigating meddling in the 2016 US elections by Russia, its highly anticipated release by elected officials and the general public alike was palpable. With all the players of a Shakespearean production - kings, princes, courtesans, spies, agents, royal subjects and even a few jesters - it had the elements too - conspiracy, corruption, collusion and duplicty. All that remained to be seen was whether it were farce or tragedy.

It's Mueller Time
Initially released in two volumes, the first describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference and its interactions with the Trump campaign. Described in Section I is the scope of the investigation, which provides good detail. Sections II and III get down to it, describing the principal ways Russia interfered, while Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. The Special Counsel's charging decisions are laid out in Section V.

Volume II addresses the actions of President Trump towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation.

At the time of release, the public was anticipating something entirely different than what they got. Not for the crimes that were (or weren't) laid out in the report, but for the heavy use of redaction. Still, even with so many of the words blocked, the material facts of the investigation could be made out. One at least got a sense of how Mueller's team had arrived where they were, and where they were heading.

All the President's Men
Most of the names in the report are familiar to us by now. Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Rick Gates - it's a veritable who's who of the early Trump camp - and we can anticipate many will be in the news again, making headlines for receiving pardons. Those who remain unnamed can be fairly easily figured out.

    As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Attorney General William Barr and the Trump White House were quick to seize on that last sentence, declaring the President's vindication. And Americans, by-and-large, were willing to consider that indeed "there was no there there." Oh, but read on:
    The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
The public was expecting a cut and dried report. Instead, it was dripping with wet redactive ink, and perplexing double-speak. Was it outside Mueller's authority to recommend prosecution, as has been suggested? Nope. In the introduction the Special Counsel cites regulation for preparing the report that in part states: "[A]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached." For as damning a report as Mueller's (he repeatedly stops short of concluding crimes were committed by the President, citing not knowing the Commander In Chief's intent as the reasoning for it) it's perplexing that he didn't recommend prosecution. Especially when he follows with "[T]he President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent."


      "[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, 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."

Confused? Me too. Fortunately, Simon & Schuster has published Mueller's report as a handy trade paperback. With clear, concise commentary provided by The Washington Post, The Mueller Report is easier to understand. The Post's reporting provides crucial background lacking in the original report, with details on redactions. (Mostly, redactions are to protect other ongoing investigations.) And, they've a bit to say on Mueller's conclusion, which states:
    Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, 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.
Undoubtedly, Russian interference in the 2016 election will be debated around dinner tables and over drinks for years to come. And someday, maybe history will come to a consensus on the report. Until then, whether The Mueller Report is tragedy or farce remains to be seen.

Note: Bold type is all mine, added for emphasis. Access the full report here.


Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, First Session
Government Printing Office, 1963
263 pp

Recently, while sifting through items in the family home, preparing for its sale, I came across a government document from 1963. It was the Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, First Session. While it may be a strange publication to encounter in the average home, there was no surprise around its discovery. Nay; in its place was excitement and curiosity. My mother, the former matriarch of our extensive family, was politically involved. Some may argue she was politically obsessed. This particular item, while being mundane as most government records are, held a special curiosity for me. The official document of record for the U.S. Congress of December 5, 1963, it gives an accounting of government business in the wake of JFK's assassination. Due to her interest in politics and having herself a profound connection to Texas, there was no mystery as to why Mom had hung onto it.

Of course, the first thing I did was look up everything Congress did related to the President's death. With no index to go by, this I was sure would prove an impossible task, but actually it was fairly simple. Nearly the whole session of December 5, 1963 was dedicated to honoring the fallen president.

Senate Business
On the Senate side, several entries deal with the recent departure of the President. One deals with communiques from foreign governments, titled COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS RELATING TO THE DEATH OF THE LATE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, and with a motion the Senate agreed to forward these communications to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Leave it to Congress; they've got a committee for everything, even death. If there's another thing we know about Congress, is they never met anything they didn't think required a study. In the wake of the President's death, the succession of power was no way going to escape Congressional scrutiny, and a study was authorized as Senate Resolution 231: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A STUDY OF THE LAW OF SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, Congressional business of December 5, 1963 wasn't only about JFK's assassination. 1963 was the year the American Cancer Society utilized computing power to track health statistics of smokers. An article published in the RECORD by Earl Ubell, science and health reporter for the New York Herald Tribune, observes, "The numbers flowed from the American Cancer Society's electronic computer in New York faster than cigarettes from a factory," which I'm guessing is pretty fast. Under the heading THE AMA - HANDMAIDEN TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY? the Senate debates the issue of cigarette smoking the day after the American Cancer Society presented a study to the American Medical Association demonstrating a causal link between smoking and disease. The AMA responded with the equivalent of a shrug.

House Tributes
Not to be outdone, the House weighed in on Kennedy's death too. Devoting near the entirety of the day's business to the late president, it appears every US Representative with a favorite hometown paper got it included in the record. Lengthy epitaphs, heartfelt memorials and succinct - and some not so succinct - poems became part of a permanent historical record that day. It must have been an honor for the numerous poets and writers who were included. One poem, written on November 23, 1963 by Ida Lee Hansel was originally published in the Hazard Herald (KY). Titled, Death of a President, its last stanza lauds the peaceful succession of power:

    Our loss is great, but we still must go On and on and let our faith grow For in America, the land of the brave Our red white and blue is still free to wave. And our Government by the people has not perished And thanks be to God, we've still this to be cherished.
As a whole, the Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, First Session marks a definitive moment in American history. More pointedly, its a celebration of the Republic's resiliency in the face of a crisis. John Fitzgerald Kennedy demonstrated faith in that resiliency, when on January 20, 1961 from the steps of the nation's Capitol, he made the first of what were to become a canon of memorialized speeches from the few short years he served at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Submitted for record by Representative Green (PA), the speech was an appeal for strength through order, and order through strength:
    Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans . . . Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival of liberty.
By including the above in the proceedings of Congress that day, the mourned was transformed into the comforter. Using the slain president's own words as a source of comfort to a nation reeling from the unimaginable, death was overcome a little bit. Who knew a Congressional record could hold such fascination nearly sixty years later? That a US president could be so inspiring in death? Mom knew. And she didn't even vote for the guy.

posted 06/16/21


TOP