[Editor’s Note: William Wallace is a new writer on PolitiZoom. He’s an attorney, former law professor and legal scholar, who has been cited in forty-two federal and state court decisions, including the United States Supreme Court. He has tried civil and criminal cases and managed business litigation.

Today’s article is Part I and Part II will be published tomorrow. It behooves us as Americans to know what the Mueller report said. Please read this outline and bookmark it for future reference. The fate of the republic may hinge on what’s in the Mueller report and this is a good outline and study guide.]

        

        Mueller Report Leaves Much to Be Done

                                  PART I

                          A BRIEF SUMMARY 

                              By William Wallace   

                     

A. REDACTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND RELEVANT TO THE REPORT

Volume I of the Mueller Report contains many blacked out provisions (redactions).

Excluding redactions for private parties, IT and Investigative Techniques, 962 lines of the Report are blacked out and currently unknown. which would create an additional 20 pages or more to the Report  These redactions relate to on-going investigations by other Federal prosecutors and also to grand jury information that is part of theReport.

B. THE MUELLER REPORT IS INCOMPLETE AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS BY OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROSECUTORS (UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC) CONTINUE

777 lines of the redacted material in Volume I of the Report relate to on-going investigations that deal with matters relevant to the Report.

C. MUELLER REPORT CONCLUSIONS

1. Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election

The Mueller Report “determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election–the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations-violated U.S. criminal law.”  (Emphasis added)

2. Evidence obtained by the Special Prosecutor was insufficient  to support criminal charges against Trump Campaign officials.

“…  while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”  (Emphasis added)

The Special Counsel’s Charging Decisions.

D. WHY EVIDENCE OF TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS INVOLVEMENT WITH RUSSIANS WAS INSUFFICIENT

1.”The investigation did not always yield information or testimony or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation.”

2. …”several individuals affiliated with  the Trump Campaign lied to the Office and to Congress about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals…Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” (Emphasis added)

3. Some individuals asserted the 5th Amendment.

4. Some provided information which was false or incomplete.

5. Some deleted relevant communications.

6. Some encrypted communications were not deciphered.

The Special Counsel’s Charging Decisions

7. A potential witness, a native of Belarus and American citizen, Sergei Millian, remained out of country.

IV. A. 2..g.

 8. Throughout the Report, reference is made to frequent “I don’t recall” responses from Trump Campaign officials and members of the Trump Administration to questions by the Special Counsel and Congress (E.g., Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, George Papadopoulos and Donald Trump , in written responses since President Trump refused to meet with Mueller).

9. Upon receipt of President Trump’s written responses, the Special Counsel informed Trump’s lawyers that the responses were insufficient. “…the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he “does not recall”or “remember” or have an “independent recollection” of information called for by the questions.”(Emphasis added)

Mueller Report, Appendix C, Introductory Note

10. The “I don’t recall” response is familiar to prosecutors. Such a response is not a yes or no to the question, making a perjury charge difficult or impossible, without contradictory evidence, even if the question involves such a significant matter that it is implausible that someone would have forgotten it.

(Editorial comment by William Wallace)

E. UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION COULD CHANGE REPORT‘S CONCLUSION CONCERNING TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS INVOLVEMENT WITH RUSSIA

“…the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” (Emphasis added)

The Special Counsel’s Charging Decisions

F. SENIOR TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS WITH RUSSIAN TIES

1.Investigative reporters discovered and revealed that multiple Trump Campaign officials had extensive Russian involvement.

2. A number of such Trump Campaign officials had worked for Russian oligarchs for lengthy periods of time, receiving substantial compensation from the Russians.

3. Once such Trump Campaign officials’ relationships with Russia were made public by reporters and to avoid further scrutiny of Russian connections to the Trump Campaign, multiple Campaign officials resigned. (Paul Manafort–Trump Campaign Chairman, Rick Gates–Deputy Campaign Manager, George Papadopoulos–foreign policy advisor, Carter Page–foreign policy advisor) (Michael Flynn, the Trump Campaign and Trump Administration National Security Advisor also resigned from the Trump Administration after media exposure of his extensive Russian involvement.)

G. CONSPICUOUS PARALLELS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF DIVISIVENESS AND RUSSIAN DIVISIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

1. Russian interference in the Presidential election, in significant part through the IRA, a Russian agency, included Facebook, other social media accounts and tweets, collectively reaching tens of millions of U.S. persons. This Russian misinformation campaign was frequently republished by Trump Campaign officials and others.

2. “Multiple IRA-posted tweets gained popularity…numerous high-profile U.S. persons, including former Ambassador Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity and Michael Flynn Jr., retweeted or responded to tweets posted to these IRA controlled accounts.”

II C. 4. a.

3. “…on multiple occasions members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts.”

II C. 7

4. “Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN_GOP were cited or retweeted by multiple Trump Campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael T. Flynn.”

II C. 7. a.

H. CONSPICUOUS TIMING OF RUSSIAN HACKING AND RELEASE OF HACKED EMAILS BY WIKILEAKS

1.  On July 27, 2016, Russian operatives targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton’s personal office. “Earlier that day,candidate Trump made public statements that included the following, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” (Emphasis added)

III C. 1.

2.  “On October 7, 2016 … the Washington Post published an Access Hollywood video that captured comments by candidate Trump some years earlier and that was expected to adversely affect the Campaign. Less than an hour after the video’s publication, WikiLeaks released the first set of emails stolen by the GRU from the account of Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta.” (Emphasis added)

III D. 1. d.

I. DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN (PAUL MANAFORT) AND DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER (RICK GATES) PROVIDED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA   AND OTHER INFORMATION TO A RUSSIAN NATIONAL WITH CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE

1. For 10 years (from 2005-2015), Paul Manafort and his colleague Rick Gates worked for Russian oligarchs. Manafort led the effort to provide oligarch Oleg Deripaska (who is closely aligned with Putin) with “political risk insurance” by installing friendly political officials in countries where Deripaska had business interests.

Manafort also successfully consulted a pro-Russian candidate for the Presidency of the Ukraine

IV A. 8. a. i. and ii.

2. Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian national and longtime employee of Manafort while working for the Russians, is assessed to be a Russian spy. Although Manafort told the Mueller team that he did not believe that Kilimnik was working as a Russian spy, his longtime employee, Rick Gates, suspected that Kilimnik was a spy. More important is the FBI assessment. “The FBI… assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.” (Emphasis added)

IV A. 8. a.iii.

3.  During the Trump Presidential Campaign, Manafort and Gates conferred directly with Kilimnik and sent him periodic updates on the Campaign. These updates gave Kilimnik internal polling data, the Trump Campaign messaging and discussions of the “battleground” states which were Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.

IV A. 8. b. iii.

In accordance with Manafort’s instructions to Gates in April, 2016 or early May, 2016, Gates  sent Campaign internal polling data and other updates to Kilimnik, so that he, in turn, could share it with  the Ukrainian oligarchs.  Gates understood that  the information  would also be shared with Deripaska.

“Gates… periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted communications on a daily basis.” (Emphasis added)

Liked it? Take a second to support William Wallace and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "A Cliff’s Notes Analysis Of The Mueller Report — Part I — Read It Because You Need To"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Concinnity
Guest

Excellent summary, cogent and as concise as possible. Looking forward to Part II

Ursula Faw
Admin

So glad you like it! Wallace is a first rate attorney and he’s put a lot of time into studying the Mueller report. This is a good reference guide.

John Miller
Guest
Having read the full Mueller Report (I went to a local printer and paid big bucks to print it straight off the press an hour after it was online, so I could mark my copy up and follow news reports, comments and analyses), and I recommend everyone read Wallace’s analysis…as someone else said, it is cogent and thorough, and overall is an excellent reference guide and extracts the salient points of an erstwhile voluminous work very succinctly. I won’t lie to you…bits of Wallace’s analysis read like a lawyer wrote it, but hey, one did. I still think it is… Read more »