TRUMP, BARR, MUELLER AND DEMOCRACY

Democracies are very brittle. At the end of the day they are more than just about laws and institutions. To a large extent their perpetuation depends on their leaders. Of late democratically elected heads are attempting to subvert their countries into authoritarian entities. Hungry, Poland, Turkey, Brazil, Egypt and America are but a few examples where this subversion is taking place. In some situations such as Turkey the metamorphosis is complete while in others like America fragile democratic governance is on the brink of failure. 

As in today’s world complex issues are reduced to sound bites, the battle for the heart and soul of the United States can be personalized into a battle between the President, Donald J. Trump and a representative of the democratic process, a long serving civil servant, Robert S. Mueller, 111.  

ALL HAIL KING TRUMP THE FIRST AND HIS LACKEY WILLIAM BARR

When Nixon’s personal lawyer, James St. Clair, appeared before Judge Sirica he took the unprecedented step of ascribing the genesis and wording of his argument directly to his client.  St. Clair, not wanting to be associated with negating the Constitution informed the court, “The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and he is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment”. 

Attorney General Barr, the people’s lawyer, who in judicial undertakings represents “The United States of America” and not Trump's personal lawyer, had no such reservations or embarrassment when he volunteered to the Senate Judicial Committee, “…the President had a constitutional authority to supervise proceedings… if he feels, (Jay H. Ell’s emphasis), a proceeding was not well founded or groundless or he  feels unfairly accused… he could legally shut it down” - just like that!  Barr was reacting to being exposed as lying to Congress in that he had denied that Mueller had written to object to his characterization of the two year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Mueller had claimed in a letter that the Attorney General had failed to “capture, the context, nature and substance” of his report. As a result, Mueller maintained that the Attorney General had caused, “public confusion” in relation to his findings. 

Barr had previously denied to Congress the existence of both of Mueller’s letters which unprecedentedly objected to the whitewashing of the President’s authoritarian and illegal behavior. Barr went one step further in the judicial proceedings stating that the allegations against the President were “false”, thereby implying that the whole investigation was illegal. This and other astonishing claims by the Attorney General led Democratic Senators to ask why he was acting as the President’s personal lawyer. 

It was further argued that if Barr represented the President who represented the citizens of the United States? The very next day Barr refused to give testimony before the Democratic controlled Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives. The latter is constitutionally designated as an equal branch of Government with oversight of the Executive including Trump and Barr. 

That Mueller was going to be front and central in the unfolding of his saga was accentuated by a ruling by Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that there would be no further discussion of the Mueller report unless Mueller himself wished to appear before his Committee and contradict the Barr’s testimony.

Again, to crystallize the current predicament it can be seen as a struggle between a President, who has claimed to be above the law and a public servant who has pledged to uphold it. As Donald Trump needs no introduction it is onto Bob Mueller and his investigation. 

WHAT DID MUELLER FIND?

Trump’s claim of a “witch hunt”  was backed up by Barr who stated, with no evidence, that he had been “falsely accused”. The Republican controlled Senate on Barr’s say so regarded the matter as closed and would support the Attorney General’s investigation into the alleged political targeting of the President by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI).

The Russian Intervention

Throughout Mueller’s probe Trump showered abuse on him and his investigation. The Special Counsel remained mum and answered with comprehensive indictments. In so doing he provided incontrovertible evidence of the widespread Russian interference in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. 

Firstly, he charged 13 Russian and 3 Russian Companies with conspiracy and running a “troll farm” to effect their intercession into American Democracy. Then there were the 12 Russian Military Officers that he charged in graphic detail, with the crime of hacking Democrat e mails including those of Hillary Clinton. Five of Trump's camp, who were in contact with Russian operatives, either plead guilty or were found guilty of various offenses. These included his Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, whose co defendant was Konstantin Kilimnik, an oligarch connected to Vladimir Putin. While Trump and his associates had 140 contacts with the Russians, Mueller could not build a case that they had physically sat down with them and criminally conspired to intervene in the election. He did however conclusively show that Trump and company met with, welcomed and encouraged this intervention.

So much for the “false accusation”.

Barr, Trump and the Fox Echo Chamber claimed that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump and his campaign from “collusion with Russia”, This in the teeth of Mueller having detailed in his findings that he was not investigating “collusion” as it was not a legal entity but rather a criminal conspiracy.

Trump’s Obstruction of Justice

Barr found Trump not guilty of Obstruction of Justice

Mueller was far more definite about Trump’s attempts at Obstruction of Justice and laid out why he could not indict him as it was Justice Department Policy not to indict a sitting President. His report was considered to be a referral to Congress for impeachment. The Special Counsel presented in painstaking detail 10 incidences where there was corroborated evidence of the POTUS trying to obstruct justice. The Specal Counsel specifically stated that he could not clear the President of the charge.

Mueller thus gave the lie to Barr’s spin and his effort to control the narrative of what his investigation found with two unprecedented letters firmly contradicting Barr and accusing him of withholding his Executive Summaries which captured his conclusions and were ready for public release.

WHO IS MUELLER WHO HAS BEEN THRUST INTO THE STRUGGLE FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY? 

Robert Swan Mueller aged 74 years, a registered Republican, has served 5 Presidents in various capacities in law enforcement and in a prosecutorial capacity since 1986. His most notable achievement was, as Head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI), following 9/11, turning the institution into a counter intelligence operation as well as a law enforcement agency. This he did over a period of 12 years. 

Following the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, for that “Russia thing”, he was appointed to be Special Counsel to investigate the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. His impeccable credentials assured that his appointment would be greeted with acclamation on both sides of the aisle. Generally speaking that sentiment remained throughout except of cause for the President of the United States of America who, among other efforts, tried to persuade the WhiteHouse Counsel, Don McGahn, to dismiss Mueller.  The Special Counsel and his team were the subjects of Trump’s tweet abuse from the get go. Trump has persisted with his verbal barrage, greeting the report by either trashing it or claiming that it had totally exonerated him - “No collusion. No obstruction”.

Throughout Robert Swan Mueller did not utter one word in his own defense. Rather he answered with his highly informative indictments which gave the response to Trump’s barrage of denials which he is repeating to this day.  However, those that he had worked with for almost half a century spoke about him in deferential almost worshiping terms -. he was the consummate professional and patriot. 

Mueller had volunteered to go to Vietnam as opposed to draft dodging like so many of like him, including Trump, with privileged backgrounds, winning awards for bravery in the process. His work ethic, fairness, thoroughness was legion. In some instances he was painted as a picture of boring perfection. When his colleagues were challenged as to the Special Counsel’s stoicism in the teeth of the ravaging of his reputation, they blandly countered that he took no notice of that. He was perhaps best summed up by a statement that by a former prosecutor, who claimed that when Mueller asked, “What have you done for America today”, he was deadly serious. 

This selfsame Mueller is the selfsame individual whose credentials that AG Barr questioned. Barr queried whether Mueller was in fact a career prosecutor”. He then characterized Mueller’s criticism of the AG’s reframing of his report of the Investigation into a narrative exonerating Trump as “snitty”. Snitty is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as being disagreeably ill tempered - being in a state of agitation. The AG’s comment was in Freudian terms, projection, as it reflected his own state of mind as he fingered the Mueller letter, desparingly claiming that it, “Was probably written by a staffer”
 

In the light of the fact that Trump has now publicly declared that Mueller should not appear before Congress the question remains whether Robert Mueller, the consummate institutionalist, would attempt, on behalf of society, to set the record straight and attempt to right the ship of American Democracy.

WILL MUELLER TAKE ON THE EXECUTIVE?

What are the clues in the make up of this ultimate civil servant that could lead anyone to believe that he would buck authority and spill the beans? His letters challenging the behavior of his superior, William Barr. leave little doubt as to his resolve. There was the first leak from his team in two years following Barr’s first cover up at the press Conference.  Then just as Barr was to appear before the Republican controlled Senate Judicial Committee, Mueller’s letter was leaked leaving Barr no time to prepare. None of these leaks from the watertight Mueller camp could have occurred without the Special Counsel’s acquiescence. 

Far more significantly, as detailed by James Comey, he was instrumental in stopping George W. Bush, subverting the Constitution. The latter wished to institute torture as being legitimate in Guantanamo.

WHAT IS NEXT?

Matters are going to move quickly this week with Trump and Barr defying the House of Representative’s constitutional duty of oversight of the Executive. Jay H. Ell would guess that the Democrats should go for Barr. He is a soft target and has no real constituency. It is a bit unfair as Trump is the real villain. However, just like Mueller conducted his investigation akin to a mob take down, from bottom to top, so should the Democrats proceed.

The burning questions is whether the die is already cast? Has Barr already indelibly created the narrative that Trump was “falsely accused”, was a victim of “spying” and that the real investigation should be the “investigation of the investigators”? 

Trump in the meantime will create diversions by commenting on the outcome of the Kentucky Derby and out of the blue slapping tarrifs on Chinese goods when untill Friday all was supposed to be going well with the talks.

Footnote:

Since publishing this blog 450 prosecutors of both political parties have signed a letter stating if Trump had not been President he would have been charged with obstruction of justice