The Myths about the Mueller report that just won't die

 Although this essay dispelling myths about the Mueller report was published in TIME magazine on July 8, 2019, the myths they dispel are timeless in terms of setting the record straight. Regarding the authors: Barbara McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. Joyce White Vance is a distinguished professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

In this view essay, eight myths will be covered in several postings, starting with the two authors lead-in. 

"When we testified before the House Judiciary Committee in June [2019] regarding lessons from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, it became apparent from the questioning that misconceptions about Mueller's findings still exist. The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller's conclusions more than three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page report. In a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr's summary 'did not capture the context, nature and substance' of his team's work and created 'public confusion.' Mueller will testify before Congress on July 17. In the meantime, here is our effort to dispel some of the most persistent myths."

Myth 1. Mueller found "no collusion."

"RESPONSE: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.' He found that 'a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.' He also found that 'a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations' against the Hillary Clinton campaign and released stolen documents He wrote that 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.' 

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals at Trump Tower in June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of 'Russia and its government's support for  Mr. Trump,' according to an email arranging the meeting. The meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish willfulness,' that is, that the participants knew their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a 'thing of value' exceeding $25,000, the amount that makes a campaign-finance violation a felony.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia such as the sharing of polling data about states where Trump later won upset victories and attempts to influence Russia's response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government for election interference. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as 'collusion.' 

Myth 2. Mueller found no obstruction.

RESPONSE: Mueller found a least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied -- attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. 'As Mueller stated, 'while this report dos not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.' Following the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, Mueller did not attempt to reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Instead he undertook to 'preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,' because a President can be charged after he leaves office. In fact, Mueller thought it would be improper to even accuse Trump of committing a crime so as not to 'preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct, meaning impeachment.