EASTER REFLECTION AND WHAT THE MUELLER REPORT OBJECTIVELY REVEALS (Initial Summary No. 1)

I realize this report is 400+ pages but I am reading it all more than once for the following important reasons:

·      you tend to catch items that you may have missed the first time when you read it a second and third time;

·      it presents an objective rendition of facts that are supported by documentary and testimonial evidence; and

·      the facts in the report are presented by a lawyer whose objectivity and emotionless vigor shines a revealing light upon the truth-- far more than any news organization or emotion-filled voter could do-- no matter the party.

In a sense, on this Easter weekend, one is ironically presented with the way, the truth, and the light so as to easily evaluate the choice to support or repudiate the current administration using one’s own brain-- perhaps a dangerous mission to some should they choose to accept it.

I would suggest you read this report if for no other reason than it will be a great exercise in discipline and self-worth; ask yourself if you understand what is being presented to you and whether you feel you have the discipline necessary to apply objectivity to the facts presented in a manner consistent with the application of logic generally employed by lawyers. If you cannot, yet still have the integrity and character to want to understand this report, then seek out the opinion or assistance of a lawyer in so doing. After all, every issue important to Americans reveals a far greater truth when the politics of the issue is stripped away, and the issue is left with a simple “right versus wrong” analysis. Now I'm not saying that lawyers don't participate in politics as well and that they don't put a spin on things from time to time. However, they have the tools and thus the ability to access the truth in a very objective fashion before they make the decision to spin anything and embrace the dark side. In any event if necessary, see if you can get an honest lawyer to help you if you need to-- yes, believe it or not they are out there.

Simply put, there are a lot of very bad things in this report. Once you absorb the fact patterns very carefully set forth by Mr. Mueller and his team, and get by some of the principal legal distinctions, you are obligated to recognize certain moral and ethical principles. This of course is a two-step process. Once you possess recognition of these principles, you then must choose to embrace them or ignore them-- candidly a very simple choice in my view.

One of the most glaring legal distinctions presented in the report is of course the distinction between collusion and the legal concept of conspiracy. This report, once again, after being recognized objectively for what it is, is loaded and I mean loaded, with acts of collusion by Trump and his campaign. What Mr. Mueller states is that there would be difficulty in establishing a conspiracy in a court of law between Trump and his campaign and the Russians (a meeting of the minds in other words). This does not mean that a lot of bad things did not happen, and it also does not mean that there is a lack of evidence corresponding to various bad deeds that actually did occur.

Let's take a simple example: if you knew someone was beating his wife but also knew that the wife never decided to report any of the beatings to the police, you would have to acknowledge that the individual would likely never be prosecuted under the law, and thus never found guilty of any crime. However, you would also likely acknowledge that the individual who beat his wife committed wrongful and even illegal acts without any regard for the well-being of his wife. In this example, you may choose to think of the wife as our country as you go through and analyze Mr. Mueller's rendition of the facts.

Here is just a sample of some of the facts and conclusions found by Mr. Mueller:

·      “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. (The words in italics speak for themselves)

·      “Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his longtime business associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence, requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the special counsel's office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believe the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected president). They also discussed the status of the Trump campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and that sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.”

·      “President Trump reacted negatively to the special counsel's appointment. He told advisers that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Atty. Gen. Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the special counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the special counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses.”

·      “Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to the office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russia-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia election interference.”

·      “Second, while the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time.”

·      “Fourth, 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

·      Pages 3 through seven of Volume 2 of the report sets forth 11 incidents of potential obstruction of justice for the reader and for Congress for purposes of considering impeachment proceedings. Glaringly, there are specific instances where the president specifically asked people to lie on his behalf and/or committed acts that were clearly unethical if not criminal in nature. The special counsel then went on to state: “Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the 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.” “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” I would urge you to read these specific instances of prosecutorial obstruction that could easily move forward, but for the DOJ policy (not law), but policy against prosecuting a sitting President.

In closing, the reader must decide if the content of Mr. Mueller's report rises to the level of bad acts-- not necessarily criminal acts. The reader must ask himself if this is the type of man or woman, he or she wants to occupy the Presidency. This is not about party or even politics in general. Although I have found that decisions made along party lines are often ingrained in individuals over time and from family to family, the ultimate analysis must simply be: What are the principles that you believe in and should those principles be reflected in a human being, much less a President of the United States? This is what should guide not only your analysis, but ultimately who you should support regardless of the issue or office the person seeks to hold.

If you are an individual who chooses to believe in ”the ends justify the means” theory, or an individual who is too lazy to read the report for himself or herself, or simply one of the individuals who jumped to an unsupported conclusion in favor of the administration subsequent to Atty. Gen. Barr's disingenuous initial statements; then I believe you are someone who should seek some serious emotional and intellectual help. Unfortunately, what scares me most is that perhaps 35 to 40% of the population may actually be in one or more of these overlapping categories.

By the way, I purposely did not provide citations to the quotes I have inserted above, although if you read the report you will not only find them in the report, but also find them to be accurate while merely being a scant representation of what Mr. Mueller found concerning this President.

This brief analysis, as well as the report itself in its totality, completely nullifies any nonsensical claim of: party preference and prejudice; a lack of a logical adaptation of the discovered facts; or any notion that the facts cited in the report were anything other than the product of hard testimonial and documentary evidence. This analysis also presupposes that the reader will acknowledge the need to properly adhere to the election laws and obstruction of justice laws that are currently on the books in the United States.

The measure of any man or woman is based on integrity, character and honor. It goes without saying that we should expect these characteristics from our government officials, but it is even more to the point to expect these characteristics to be reflective of any individual with whom we come in contact. Read the report. Exercise your gift of free will. I hope you will make the right choice.