The key findings of the Mueller report have been sent to Congress. What do they mean?
1) Good for Trump
Mueller findings: The takes on what they mean
NZ Herald
6 mins to read
Subscribe to listen
Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen.
Already a subscriber? Sign in here
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
give Trump his due: under withering scrutiny, “no collusion” held up
— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) March 24, 2019
Whatever you think about the President, Mueller finding no evidence of treason by Trump or family members, no coordination with Russia to steal the elections is obviously a good thing for the country.
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) March 23, 2019
2) Good and bad
Expect Trump and his allies to quickly go from “Bob Mueller and his 17 angry Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt, witch hunt, WITCH HUNT” to “This in-depth report from the highly respected Bob Mueller has vindicated us once and for all."
— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 24, 2019
So Trump is legally completely in the clear following Mueller’s investigation BUT (& it’s a big but) the fact that the Trump appointment Attorney Gen & not Mueller concluded there was not the evidence to prosecute him for obstruction means the Dem’s in Congress will go after him pic.twitter.com/oQBETbigYf
— Paul Danahar (@pdanahar) March 24, 2019
Just what America needs: A legal finding on Trump-Russia that everyone can interpret according to their own partisan desires... https://t.co/9H50Y8aK07
— Mark MacKinnon (@markmackinnon) March 24, 2019
3) Things to note
On obstruction of justice, Special Counsel Mueller did not make the decision himself on whether to prosecute the president. Mueller left it to AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein, who found no “corrupt intent”.
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 24, 2019
Mueller could have concluded Trump obstructed. He did not do so. He let Barr do it. And Barr and Rosenstein said there was not a case.
— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) March 24, 2019
Context as you read: am told Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not consulted on this letter. This was the product of the Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, per DOJ official.
— Laura Jarrett (@LauraAJarrett) March 24, 2019
In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before @HouseJudiciary in the near future.
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) March 24, 2019
This "leaves it to the Attorney General" language is so strange in that it seems to imply Barr had to reach a conclusion, when in fact he didn't. He could've just passed on Mueller's findings, but decided to put his thumb on the scale after a 48 hour review of the facts. pic.twitter.com/sqXERtP5tq
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) March 24, 2019
Here's what I will say... Russia investigation stuff rarely moved public opinion. It'll be interesting to see if this does. We'll see.
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) March 24, 2019
The good news is that if Barr's account of the report differs materially from the actual special counsel finding, we can expect that to leak out posthaste.
— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) March 24, 2019
Uh, any Dem campaign that thought the 2020 election was hanging on the Mueller report was going to lose. (No campaign thought this.)
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) March 24, 2019
Their best case was a "yep, collusion" report that the GOP was going to spin away. ("Collusion is not a crime," etc.) https://t.co/gmx6wnhM1i
4) Questions to be answered
Barr summary of Mueller's findings on conspiracy/collusion is incredibly narrow.
— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) March 24, 2019
Would not include any talks or discussion with WikiLeaks, for example.
Question is whether Mueller's full report details anything below "tacit or express" coordination b/w campaign & Russian gvt pic.twitter.com/4hyXlfsUaD
The question that jumps out is, why Mueller didn’t make a decision on obstruction? That’s a prosecutor’s job. Did he decide to leave it up to Congress? Was he prevented from making a decision? It’s hard to imagine Mueller shirking, even, especially, if it was a tough call.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) March 24, 2019
First question I'd ask on Mueller Report: Who were the special counsel's 500 search warrants targeting and who were the 50 people tapped with pen registers to track their telephone calls?
— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) March 24, 2019
One question:
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 24, 2019
What the Mueller probe established, according to the AG, is that the Russians hacked the DNC and engaged in an aggressive, covert campaign to influence our election.
So why did @realDonaldTrump stand next to Putin in Helsinki and meekly accept his denials?
5) It's up to Congress, release the full report
If I were Trump,I wouldnt be celebrating. A report from a team of fed prosecutors there was evidence a sitting President obstructed justice? Is our bar so low that this is what we want from a Pres? The exoneration here is from Barr (Trump's guy), not Mueller. Need to see Report.
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) March 24, 2019
Shorter Muller Report: CONGRESS DO YOUR JOB.
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) March 24, 2019
No private briefings for legislative leaders.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) March 24, 2019
No preference for Intel Committee members.
No redactions.
Give every Member of Congress the full report. Now.
Our democracy depends on it.
White House: Report exonerates the President.
— Mo Elleithee (@MoElleithee) March 24, 2019
Special Counsel: Report does not exonerate the President.
The rest of us: Can we read the damn thing?
