Connect with us

News

How the Media Missed the Most Important Part of the Mueller Report

Published

on

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued his investigation, he asked two key questions: Did President Donald Trump or his campaign conspire or coordinate with the Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 election? And did Trump, as president, obstruct the investigation?

And with all the coverage of the Mueller report, most of the media seems to be missing the central point at which the two questions overlap: Paul Manafort.

As I explained after Mueller’s report first came out, a key mystery remains about Manafort. Why was he, as Trump’s campaign chair, sending polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, among others, through Konstantin Kilimnik? Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, incidentally, thought Kilimnik was a “spy,” Mueller told us — and the FBI agrees.

One suggestion in the report is just that Manafort thought it would show off his work to someone he had a business relationship with. But this is hardly persuasive, and Mueller doesn’t seem to fully buy it.

And most importantly, the reason we don’t know Manafort’s reason for sending the polling data — a potentially conspiratorial act — is because he lied to Mueller, even after he agreed to cooperate with the investigation. And this ties to the obstruction case. Mueller lays out a strong case that Trump’s dangling of a pardon to Manafort, and his encouragement that Manafort not “flip,” constituted criminal obstruction of justice. Well, Manafort never truly flipped; he just kept misleading investigators. If Manafort really was conspiring with the Russians — with or without Trump’s knowledge — the president may have successfully covered it up.

Of course, this is speculation. But that’s one reason why obstructing justice on its own is and should be a crime. It corrupts the justice system and leaves doubt that the best possible answers were obtained. Manafort lied to investigators and Trump encouraged him to do so, or at least to keep his mouth shut; this suggests they both had something to hide.

This gaping hole in the case should be a major takeaway from the report. But it has attracted relatively little attention, given the fact that it emphasizes why obstruction charges are so important and undermines claims that the report is a decisive demonstration of “no collusion.”

Mainstream coverage, in fact, has misled people. For example, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wrote that the Mueller report showed, “No collusion, officially.”

But Mueller makes clear in the report that just because he didn’t find something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And in the case of the polling data, Mueller goes a step further and says he doesn’t know why Manafort shared this information — leading wide open the possibility that the motive was criminal in nature.

In another piece, Blake noted that “it’s not clear whether there was any quid pro quo agreement” regarding the Manafort polling data. But he doesn’t mention that one likely reason this isn’t clear is that Trump successfully obstructed justice.

The New York Times, in its list of the “7 key things” it thinks its readers “need to know” about the Mueller report, it didn’t even mention Manafort once.

And the first “thing” it thinks you should know is this: “Trump did try to sabotage the investigation. His staff defied him.”

While this is true, it gives the false impression that all of Trump’s efforts to stop the investigation failed because of his staff. As I have argued, though, it’s quite possible that not only was Trump successful in illegally keeping Manafort quiet but that this act covered up another game-changing crime.

There have been some exceptions to this trend of missing the point. Ben Wittes, writing for Lawfare, noted the significance of Trump’s tampering with Manafort.

“Trump got what he wanted in this case,” wrote Wittes. “Manafort did not end up cooperating to Mueller’s satisfaction. Indeed, Mueller concluded that he breached his plea deal by failing to cooperate and by lying to investigators. So the reality here may well be that the president’s obstructive conduct did, in fact, obstruct the investigation. The president hinted that Manafort should not ‘flip’ and that he would take care of him. And Manafort acted in a fashion consistent with his relying on those assurances.”

However, in the reverse of Blake’s omission, Wittes fails to connect this to the fact that Manafort’s potentially criminal motive for sending the polling data remains unknown.

Charlie Sykes, writing for the Bulwark and citing Wittes, has been the only writer I’ve seen yet make the full connection:

At this point, we don’t know how significant Manafort’s silence was to the outcome of the investigation. We do know that before, during, and after his tenure as Trump campaign chair, he maintained deep and tangled relationships with figures associated with the Kremlin. At one point he passed private campaign polling data to an associate with links to Russian intelligence. Could he have exposed greater cooperation between TrumpWorld and the Russians? We don’t know, although Mueller left behind several tantalizing suggestions about the information that they had been blocked from seeing.

He concluded, aptly: “But, for the time being, it appears that Donald Trump’s attempts to obstruct key parts of the investigation may actually have succeeded.”

Wittes acknowledged Sykes’ point, writing: “I don’t know why this aspect of the report is not getting more attention.”

Indeed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Supreme Court Blocks House Subpoena for Trump’s Financial Records – for Now

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a temporary stay blocking a House subpoena that would require the release of President Donald Trump’s financial documents. Chief Justice John Roberts issued the order.

The stay is until “further order,” and allows time for both sides to submit arguments, according to Bloomberg News.

Calling it an “indefinite delay,” the Associated Press notes the “hold could last a matter of days or weeks,” if the Court decides to let two lower court rulings in favor of the House stand.

“But the delay could extend for months if the justices decide they need to hear arguments and issue a written opinion,” the AP adds.

Responses from both sides are due Thursday, according to this document posted by Axios:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

House Investigating if Trump Lied to Mueller

Published

on

The U.S. House of Representatives is investigating if President Donald Trump lied to Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his 22-month long Russia probe.

The Washington Post reports the attorney for the House revealed the existence of the investigation to a panel of judges. The House is arguing that it must be allowed to see secret grand-jury materials from Mueller’s investigation. The Dept. of Justice has been blocking that request after a lower court ordered the materials handed over to Congress.

The New York Times adds that the investigation is focused on the written answers Trump submitted to questions from the Special Counsel.

It is a crime to lie to the FBI or the DOJ.

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

News

Three People Dead in Shooting at Oklahoma Walmart

Published

on

Three people were shot to death at a Duncan, Oklahoma Walmart, according to KOCO 5 News.

The Duncan Banner reports police have confirmed the shooting suspect is dead. It is currently unclear if they are included in the death toll.

A mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas left 20 people dead and dozens injured. It led the company in September to ask customers to cease open-carry of guns and announce it would stop the sale of many types of ammunition.

Just days later Walgreens and CVS pharmacies, and Kroger and Wegmans supermarkets announced they too were asking customers to no longer enter their stores openly-carrying guns.

Developing…

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

 

Image by Ian Britton via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.