tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/mueller-report-68469/articlesMueller report – The Conversation2019-07-26T04:18:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1207812019-07-26T04:18:59Z2019-07-26T04:18:59ZMueller testimony does not produce smoking gun, but the issues it raised are far from resolved<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285779/original/file-20190726-136764-78m8ok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Democrats are frustrated that Robert Mueller did not make a clear-cut case for impeaching President Donald Trump.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>According to much of the <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/102436/why-robert-mueller-s-testimony-was-so-disappointing">early commentary</a>, Robert Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday before two US congressional committees was a disappointment.</p>
<p>Democrats are frustrated the special counsel did not make a clear-cut case for impeaching President Donald Trump. Mueller answered questions in the most minimalist way possible, often suggesting congresspersons simply read <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html">his report</a> on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KrGzDEOX7KE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Democrats wanted Mueller to testify in the hope the American public would start paying more attention to his findings on how Trump obstructed justice.</p>
<p>It turned out that Mueller’s testimony was more sophistic than animating. But it did again highlight damning things about the president’s behaviour.</p>
<p>During the hearing, Republicans unimaginatively echoed Trump’s claims of a “witch-hunt” and asserted that the Mueller report turned up no evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election or of obstruction of justice.</p>
<p>Like Attorney-General Bob Barr’s <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-24/mueller-testimony-how-bill-barr-outplayed-bob-mueller">disingenuous summary</a> of the Mueller report, these claims by Republicans this week were not true, but they have created a narrative that Trump is innocent. This claim is given ballast by Republicans’ allegations that FBI agents conducting the Mueller investigations were <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-24/guide-to-gop-attacks-against-the-credibility-mueller-probe">politically biased</a> because some of them had said negative things about Trump in private correspondence or donated money to the Clinton campaign.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/us-house-of-representatives-condemns-racist-tweets-in-another-heady-week-under-president-donald-trump-120425">US House of Representatives condemns racist tweets in another heady week under President Donald Trump</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If saying highly negative things about Trump behind closed doors disqualified bureaucrats and politicians from doing their job, Washington DC would grind to a halt. However, in public Republicans are sticking with Trump, doing his bidding in the Congress and tying their fortunes to him at least for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Democrats may initiate impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives, but the trial ultimately occurs in the Senate, where the Republicans have a 53-47 majority. As a result of these numbers and the need for a two-thirds majority vote to dismiss a president, removing Trump from office via impeachment proceedings is very unlikely. </p>
<p>Republicans are showing no signs of abandoning Trump. It is worth remembering that no president has ever been removed from office by the Senate, although two – <a href="https://time.com/5552679/impeached-presidents/">Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson</a> – have been impeached by the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Given these political rather than legal realities, will Democrats continue to push for Trump’s unlikely impeachment? The answer is yes. Although Democratic house leaders led by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house, are urging caution, the fresh wave of Democratic congresspersons elected in 2018 who rode a strong wave of anti-Trump sentiment in their congressional districts will continue to push hard for impeachment.</p>
<p>However, this divide can be overstated. As <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/pelosi-stronger-our-impeachment-case-worse-senate-will-look">Pelosi’s comments</a> following Mueller’s testimony demonstrate, the fact that Republicans control the Senate and are unlikely to convict the president may not factor into future considerations among the house leadership. Pelosi wants a strong case, not an act of political theatre. As she put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Pelosi knows that the case against Trump continues to build. Democrats are <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/trump-tax-returns-democrats-sue-court_n_5ce82d8fe4b0a839e8605b0c">pursuing the president</a> in federal courts for a number of alleged financial improprieties, and the House Judiciary Committee is preparing to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-judiciary-panel-prepares-lawsuit-to-enforce-subpoena-of-don-mcgahn-11564001645">enforce a subpoena</a> against Don McGahn – the former White House Counsel allegedly directed by Trump to fire Mueller during his investigation.</p>
<p>In his testimony on Wednesday, Mueller confirmed that Trump pressured McGahn in yet another attempt to obstruct justice. Those who have read the Mueller report would know that there were many such attempts. These include <a href="https://www.apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3">Michael Flynn’s lies</a> to the FBI about his conversations with Russians during the transition, the pressuring and eventual firing of <a href="https://www.apnews.com/4ff1ecb621884a728b25e62661257ef0">FBI director James Comey</a>, and the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918">attempted cover-up</a> of Don junior’s meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016 to get whatever dirt he could on Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>The challenge for Democrats, if they go ahead with impeachment in the House of Representatives, is to articulate a clear case about why such drastic action is justified.</p>
<p>In legal terms, the case that Trump obstructed justice is strong, whereas the case for collusion with Russia is weaker.</p>
<p>It is easy to impute guilt by association with Trump and the Russians. First, there are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/trumprussia:-follow-the-money/9840958">Trump’s business dealings with Trump Soho and the push to have a Trump Moscow hotel</a>. Then there is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/">Paul Manafort’s close associations with Viktor Yanukovych</a>. Finally, there is Steve Bannon’s appreciation of Putin’s support for ultra right-wing populists across Europe.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-dozen-candidates-one-big-target-in-a-crowded-democratic-field-who-can-beat-trump-119295">Two dozen candidates, one big target: in a crowded Democratic field, who can beat Trump?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, the Mueller report and his testimony produced no smoking gun. Mueller rightly warned that the Russians have an ongoing campaign to undermine the faith of Americans in democracy. Given the existing levels of frustration and apathy about politics in America, Mueller’s alarm on this issue should be taken seriously. This was one of the few issues that the reluctant witness Mueller became more animated and forceful about.</p>
<p>Many of us are following the vast cast of characters central to the Trump era, the complex details of the Mueller report and Trump’s financial dealings, as well as the congressional hearings into Trump’s behaviour in office.</p>
<p>However, there is a simpler reality to keep in sight. That is that during the Trump presidency, the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-mueller-hearings-were-so-alarming">truth has been more politicised than ever</a>. Increasingly, the truth is presented as a lie and a lie as the truth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While some have seen Mueller’s testimony as a disappointment, Democrats may still initiate impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump in the House of Representatives.Brendon O'Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyDaniel Cooper, Lecturer, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1141472019-06-11T19:04:32Z2019-06-11T19:04:32ZThe 25th Amendment wouldn’t work to dump Trump<p>Here’s some advice for frustrated impeachment advocates who think there might be other ways to force Donald Trump out of office: <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xxv">The 25th Amendment</a> won’t help you.</p>
<p>But that hasn’t stopped people from trying.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article149620564.html">Andrew McCabe</a>, former deputy director and acting director of the FBI, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429960-mccabe-said-justice-dept-discussed-25th-amendment-confirms-rosenstein">gave the Constitution’s 25th Amendment a shoutout</a> in February. </p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-watch-acting-fbi-director-trump-investigation-james-comey-russia-investigation-2019-02-17/">interview with “60 Minutes</a>,” McCabe claimed that people in the Department of Justice, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and McCabe himself, had discussed trying to get a majority of the Cabinet to agree to remove Donald Trump from office. (<a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650545077/rosenstein-denies-that-he-discussed-recording-trump-invoking-25th-amendment">Rosenstein denied the story</a>, but it didn’t go away.) </p>
<p>If that majority vote is all the amendment requires, it would provide a much easier process than impeachment to dump a president. </p>
<h2>‘Doomed to failure’</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/investigate-mccabes-25th-amendment-tale-11551045250">Writing in The Wall Street Journal</a>, prominent conservative lawyers David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey wrote that, if those DOJ discussions in fact took place and were serious, the participants were part of “a conspiracy by government officials against American democracy.” </p>
<p>That sounds awful, but any such technical conspiracy – if that’s what it was – was doomed to failure. </p>
<p>If the DOJ lawyers thought getting rid of a president – this one or a future holder of the office – was easy, they hadn’t studied the amendment’s language. </p>
<p><a href="https://law.case.edu/Our-School/Faculty-Staff/Meet-Our-Faculty/Faculty-Detail/id/118">I’m a professor of law</a> – a tax professor at that. I’m used to parsing difficult legal language, and I’ve written about constitutional issues as well as ones that arise in bean-counting. The 25th Amendment is a complex law that is, by design, very hard to use. </p>
<h2>Roots in Kennedy assassination</h2>
<p>A little history: The 25th amendment was <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv#">ratified in 1967. A primary purpose</a> was to provide a way to fill the vice presidency when that office becomes vacant. </p>
<p>Two events prompted the legislation. After the Kennedy assassination in 1963, <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-jfks-assassination-led-to-a-constitutional-amendment">Lyndon Johnson had no vice president</a> until Inauguration Day 1965. <a href="https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/18-american-presidents-didnt-have-a-vice-president-for-all-or-some-of-their-terms/">Harry Truman had no vice president for over three years</a> after he became president. </p>
<p>Since then, the amendment’s system to fill the vice presidency has worked as intended, twice, and without controversy. The first was in 1973, with <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Gerald_Ford.htm">Gerald Ford, after Spiro Agnew was forced to resign</a> after pleading no contest to a tax evasion charge. The second was in 1974, when <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/rockefeller-sworn-in-as-vice-president-dec-19-1974-297732">Nelson Rockefeller became vice president after Nixon resigned</a> and Ford became president.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv">amendment also sets out processes</a> for the vice president to become “acting president” in two situations. </p>
<p>The first, the easy case, is when the president himself sends a written declaration to the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate that “he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”</p>
<p>The president says, in effect, “I can’t handle the job right now, but I’ll be back.” </p>
<p>The vice president steps in temporarily, and the president reassumes presidential duties when he notifies congressional leaders that he’s up to it. </p>
<p>This part of the amendment has <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45394.pdf">been applied, without fanfare, a couple of times</a> when a president was going to be briefly incapacitated because of anesthesia. Some historians believe that having a formal method for a temporary transfer of power would have been helpful <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23379313">when Dwight Eisenhower had serious health problems</a>.</p>
<h2>Fuzzy rules</h2>
<p>But the rules applicable to the other situation in which a vice president can become acting president are much less clear. </p>
<p>Somehow the idea got around – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html">reflected in the alleged DOJ discussions</a> – that, if some officials think a president is incapacitated, but he disagrees or is so out of it that he can’t voluntarily step aside, a majority of the Cabinet can promote the vice president. </p>
<p>I believe that understanding is wrong.</p>
<p>To begin with, under the 25th Amendment it’s “the <em>Vice President</em> and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide” who must make the declaration of incapacity to congressional officers. </p>
<p>If Vice President Pence sides with the president – as I believe he would unless Trump were clearly incapacitated – it doesn’t matter what Cabinet officials think.</p>
<p>And “principal officers of the executive departments” doesn’t necessarily mean the Cabinet, although it could. <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-the-presidents-cabinet">“Cabinet” isn’t a constitutional term</a>. </p>
<p>It’s up to the president who sits in his Cabinet, or, for that matter, whether the Cabinet sits at all. Not everyone in the Trump Cabinet is a principal officer of an executive department: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/the-cabinet/">the U.N. ambassador and White House chief of staff, for example</a>. And many people who head federal agencies, and who therefore might be treated as “principal officers of executive departments,” aren’t in the Cabinet – like the secretary of the Navy.</p>
<p>It’s hard to determine whether there’s a majority of principal officers on board if it’s not clear who gets counted for this purpose. Besides, the president could change the numbers by firing principal officers, whoever they might be, if he learns that a revolt is brewing.</p>
<h2>Congress unlikely to act</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xxv">The amendment does permit Congress</a> to provide for an alternative body that can, with the agreement of the vice president, make an initial determination of presidential incapacity. </p>
<p>It would be nice if Congress had done this at some point in the past 50-some years, to provide more certainty about what should happen when a president is incapacitated. But I believe Congress is unlikely to act under the 25th Amendment until political tensions have eased – whenever that might be – and a different president is in office.</p>
<p>In any event, even if there were no computational difficulties, and even if the vice president were to agree that the president is incapacitated, the amendment doesn’t provide for actually removing the president from office. </p>
<p>Instead, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/us/succession-presidential-and-vice-presidential-fast-facts/index.html">the president remains president; the vice president only becomes “acting president.”</a> In such circumstances, the president would have little or no formal power, of course. But it’s unlikely his Twitter account would be shut down.</p>
<h2>The president doesn’t go away</h2>
<p>Furthermore, a deposed president can return to power. </p>
<p>Under the amendment, once the president declares “that no inability exists,” he resumes presidential duties, unless the acting president and a majority of principal officers – that phrase again! – disagree and Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, also disagrees. </p>
<p>Given those stringent requirements, a president is likely to get power back quickly if he wants it, unless his incapacity is beyond dispute (as was <a href="https://ahsl.arizona.edu/about/exhibits/presidents/wilson">the case with Woodrow Wilson, in pre-25th Amendment days</a>).</p>
<p>Those who want President Trump out of office should forget about the 25th Amendment; it won’t work as they hope or believe. </p>
<p>After publication of <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf">the Mueller report</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/robert-mueller-testify-democrats.html">much of the discussion about removing Trump has shifted to the possibility</a> of <a href="https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/">impeachment</a>. </p>
<p>But, with Republican control of the Senate, that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-what-would-it-take-for-us-congress-to-impeach-trump-idUSKCN1T4195">process is unlikely to lead to a conviction</a>. </p>
<p>If removal of the president is the goal, those who want it will probably need to try the old-fashioned method: the ballot box.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erik M. Jensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Those who want President Trump out of office should forget about the 25th Amendment; it won’t work as they hope or believe. The amendment is a complex law that – by design – is very hard to use.Erik M. Jensen, Coleman P. Burke Professor Emeritus of Law, Case Western Reserve UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1165752019-05-08T21:24:41Z2019-05-08T21:24:41ZWill Trump’s use of executive privilege help him avoid congressional oversight? It didn’t help Richard Nixon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273386/original/file-20190508-183106-rkwlld.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon resigned and left the White House</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Dist-of-Columbi-/363e09d444e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/38/0">AP/Chick Harrity</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like Donald Trump, Richard Nixon tried to stonewall congressional investigations into crimes allegedly committed in the White House. </p>
<p>“Why, we’ll just let it go to the (Supreme) Court. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=SyBzl29qbZ0C&lpg=PA227&ots=KcAVn--Dq3&dq=%E2%80%9CWhy%2C%20we%E2%80%99ll%20just%20let%20it%20go%20to%20the%20(Supreme)%20Court.%20Fight%20it%20like%20hell%E2%80%9D&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CWhy,%20we%E2%80%99ll%20just%20let%20it%20go%20to%20the%20(Supreme)%20Court.%20Fight%20it%20like%20hell%E2%80%9D&f=false">Fight it like hell</a>,” Nixon said. </p>
<p>But the stone wall crumbled under pressure from the public, Congress and the courts, and its rubble formed the foundation for an article of impeachment.</p>
<p>As the Senate Watergate investigation began in 1973, Nixon took a position like <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/02/trump-not-let-mcgahn-testify-before-congress/3656604002/">Trump did on May 2</a>, when he barred former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before Congress about potential obstruction of justice by the president. </p>
<p>To block current and former White House aides from testifying before Congress, Nixon claimed that “<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-executive-privilege">executive privilege</a>” shielded presidential conversations from congressional oversight. </p>
<p>And just as Trump claimed on Wednesday that executive privilege <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/08/trump-invokes-executive-privilege-to-block-release-of-unredacted-mueller-report-1311738">allows him to withhold</a> the complete, unredacted Mueller report from Congress, Nixon claimed it allowed him to withhold executive branch documents.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273390/original/file-20190508-183083-1m1yf02.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump asserted executive privilege to keep information about the Mueller report from Congress.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Fact-Check-Week/e6969fdccdea4b2e841e19c23390b5f4/206/0">AP/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why Nixon resisted</h2>
<p>Nixon’s claims of executive privilege were a matter of political survival. </p>
<p>One of the crimes for which Congress was investigating Nixon was <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-charged-with-first-of-three-articles-of-impeachment">obstruction of justice</a>, and he was guilty. </p>
<p>There is no credible evidence that Nixon knew about the <a href="https://www.quora.com/Did-Richard-Nixon-know-about-the-Watergate-break-in-before-it-happened">underlying crime</a>, the <a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/watergate-break">Watergate break-in</a>, until after the burglars got caught. </p>
<p>But Nixon did know that some of those involved in the break-in were linked to other crimes he personally initiated, such as the illegal leaking of information obtained from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rule6e.htm">grand juries</a> to discredit his political enemies. </p>
<p>The president had obstructed the FBI investigation of Watergate to conceal his own crimes. On June 23, 1972, for example, in a conversation captured on his own secret White House taping system, Nixon approved a plan to use the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation. This tape ultimately became known as “the <a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/smoking-gun">smoking gun</a>,” since it proved that Nixon was guilty of obstruction.</p>
<p>Nixon was using “executive privilege” to conceal his obstruction from Congress and the Watergate special prosecutor.</p>
<h2>Political survival</h2>
<p>Nixon could not hold the hard line for long. It made him look guilty, even to supporters, who started asking why he didn’t just let his aides testify if he was innocent. </p>
<p>And when former aides decided to testify against him, as former White House counsel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/johndean.html">John W. Dean III did on national television</a>, it was obvious Nixon had no power to stop them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=226&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273384/original/file-20190508-183080-1hjvt0k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New York Times, May 23, 1973.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/05/23/issue.html?action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=LedeAsset&region=ArchiveBody&pgtype=article">Screenshot, NY Times archive</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If Nixon wanted any current or former White House aides to testify in his favor – there were many who were willing to, from H.R. Haldeman to Patrick Buchanan – and offset the bad publicity he was getting from the hearings, he had to reverse himself. <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/487/700/82051/">In May 1973, Nixon announced that</a> “executive privilege will not be invoked as to any testimony concerning possible criminal conduct.”</p>
<p>But he still withheld White House documents. </p>
<p>Again, it was a matter of political survival. He could plausibly deny testimony against him, but it was impossible to deny <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-refuses-to-turn-over-tapes-ervin-committee-cox-issue-subpoenas/2012/06/04/gJQAWfG9IV_story.html?utm_term=.ad7c5ce80182">his own voice on tape</a>. </p>
<h2>Struggle over privilege</h2>
<p>Once the existence of his <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?313828-1/senate-watergate-committee-testimony">secret tapes was revealed to Congress in July 1973, they</a> became the center of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/072473-1.htm">struggle over executive privilege</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://millercenter.org/three-little-words">Congress and the special prosecutor wanted the tapes</a>, because they could prove once and for all who was telling the truth. Nixon withheld them for that same reason. </p>
<p>The issue came to a head once the <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/10/31/91024202.pdf">House Judiciary Committee began an impeachment inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>The committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Edward Hutchinson of Michigan, said at the inquiry’s outset that he “would tell (the White House) that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/03/archives/on-the-record-about-the-past.html">executive privilege in the face of an impeachment inquiry must fall</a>.” </p>
<p>The notion that the president enjoys the privilege of withholding information from Congress is based in the <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5725&context=penn_law_review">constitutional separation of powers, but impeachment is an exception</a> to that separation. Impeachment is a legislative check on executive power, just as the veto, for example, is an executive check on legislative power. </p>
<p>Nixon’s own Justice Department could not find a single example in history of anyone <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/28/archives/a-justice-study-assays-inquiry-confrontation-of-highest-magnitude.html">ever</a> invoking executive privilege in an impeachment inquiry – not even Andrew Johnson, the only president to have been impeached by that point. (Congress can impeach any <a href="https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/">civil officer</a> of the U.S. government.) </p>
<p>When the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Nixon’s tapes, Nixon refused to turn them over, saying he had already provided Congress with “the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/11/archives/president-defies-house-subpoena-for-more-tapes-letter-to-rodino.html">full story</a> of Watergate.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273392/original/file-20190508-183103-1khyfuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The original Nixon White House tape recorder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Nixon-Tapes/1d7e0d2288fd4b0eb398487651e84f66/1/0">National Archives via the AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The court acts, the president resigns</h2>
<p>But Nixon was forced to give his tapes to the special prosecutor when the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/072574-1.htm">Supreme Court</a> decided 8-0 on July 24, 1974, that executive privilege did not give a president the right to refuse to hand over evidence in a criminal trial.</p>
<p>Within a week, the Judiciary Committee, which was debating impeachment counts, voted 21-17 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/31/archives/house-panel-21-to-17-charges-nixon-with-defying-subpoenas-ends-its.html">to charge Nixon with defying congressional subpoenas</a>. </p>
<p>“If we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless,” <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal74-1223105">said Rep. Lawrence J. Hogan, a Republican of Maryland</a>, father of the <a href="https://governor.maryland.gov/governor-larry-hogan/">current Maryland governor, Larry Hogan</a>.</p>
<p>In August, publication of a transcript of the the smoking gun tape confirmed that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/080974-3.htm">Nixon resigned</a> rather than give Congress the chance to remove him. </p>
<p>His claims of executive privilege had helped him hold onto power an extra year. Invoking executive privilege was not a winning play – but it was the last one available to a guilty president.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct the vote count when the Judiciary Committee charged Nixon with defying Congressional subpoenas.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116575/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>It's not relevant to this article, but Ken Hughes works for an organization, the Miller Center, that receives government funding through the National Historical Publications & Records Commission.</span></em></p>President Trump has invoked executive privilege to stymie congressional investigators. Another president, Richard Nixon, did the same thing. It helped Nixon hold onto power – but only for a while.Ken Hughes, Research Specialist, the Miller Center, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1164882019-05-08T10:12:20Z2019-05-08T10:12:20ZFrom ‘Total exoneration!’ to ‘Impeach now!’ – the Mueller report and dueling fact perceptions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272847/original/file-20190506-103075-1yd32b8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can a country move ahead when its citizens hold dueling facts? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/142194433?src=Ko6cKmAhl3Wp_3AH9W0tow-1-7&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/?utm_term=.9ec28dc47d10">The Mueller report</a> was supposed to settle, once and for all, the controversy over whether the Trump team colluded with Russians or obstructed justice. </p>
<p>Clearly <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/mueller-report">it has not</a>. </p>
<p>Reactions to the report have ranged from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-live-updates.html">“total exoneration!”</a> to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442227-orourke-mueller-report-affirmed-need-for-impeachment-against-trump">“impeach now!”</a> </p>
<p>Shouldn’t nearly 700 hundred pages of details, after almost two years of waiting, have helped the nation to achieve a consensus over what happened?</p>
<p>Well, no. </p>
<p>As the German philosopher <a href="https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/German/FaustIProl.php">Goethe said</a> in the early 1800s, “Each sees what is present in their heart.”</p>
<p>Since 2013 – long before Donald Trump was even a candidate – <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">we have been studying</a> the “dueling facts” phenomenon: the tendency for Red and Blue America to perceive reality in starkly different ways. </p>
<p>Based on that work, we expected the report to settle next to nothing. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-major-democratic-and-republican-blocs-are-responding-to-the-mueller-report/">conflicting factual assertions that have emerged</a> since the report’s release highlight just how easy it is for citizens to believe what they want, regardless of what Robert Mueller, William Barr or anyone else has to say about it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272870/original/file-20190506-103045-i4okf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Mueller report has sparked dueling perceptions of fact. Here, Attorney General William Barr, right, is sworn in to testify before Senate on May 1, 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Trump-Russia-Probe-Barr/fbe665a0f1c64408bcd6aa1f7a0be8ef/41/0">AP/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dueling facts in American democracy</h2>
<p>Our research has led us to several conclusions about the future of political discourse in the U.S. </p>
<p>The first is that dueling fact perceptions are rampant, and they are more entrenched than most people realize. </p>
<p>Some examples of this include conflicting perceptions about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americans">the existence of climate change</a>, the <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/04/26/the-downside-of-fridays-strong-u-s-gdp-growth-figures/">strength of the economy</a>, the <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/2-discrimination-and-conflicts-in-u-s-society/">consequences of racism</a>, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/20/half-of-americans-say-sexual-orientation-cannot-be-changed/">origins of sexual orientation</a>, the utility of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/the-real-value-of-a-15-minimum-wage-depends-on-where-you-live/">minimum wage increases</a> or <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx">gun control</a>, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/">crime rate</a> and the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/most-americans-think-the-benefits-of-the-mmr-vaccine-outweigh-risks/">safety of vaccines</a>.</p>
<p>This has serious implications for American democracy. As political scientists, we wonder: How can a community decide the direction they should go, if they cannot even agree on where they are? Can people holding dueling facts be brought into some semblance of consensus? </p>
<p>To figure that out, it is important to determine where such divergent beliefs come from in the first place. </p>
<p>This is the perspective we began with: If dueling fact perceptions are driven by misinformation from politicians and pundits, then one would expect things to get better by making sure that people have access to correct information – via fact-checking, for example. </p>
<p>We envisioned the dueling facts phenomenon as being primarily tribal, driven by cheerleading on each side for their partisan “teams.” We assumed, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021226224601">like most other scholars</a>, that individuals are simply led astray by their team’s coaches (party leaders), star players (media pundits) or fellow fans (social media feeds).</p>
<p>But it turns out that the roots of such divergent views go much deeper. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272875/original/file-20190506-103060-14p0xrw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dueling facts: Climate change was referred to on an Obama administration EPA page, left; it was excluded on the Trump administration’s version of the page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt-Climate-Change/59a286b5915d4f148c99850881ac55d1/11/0">EPA vis AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that voters see the world in ways that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">reinforce their values and identities</a>, irrespective of whether they have ever watched Fox News or MSNBC, and regardless of whether they have a Facebook account. </p>
<p>For example, according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It is not even her own race.</p>
<p>It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.</p>
<h2>Facts rooted in values</h2>
<p>Values not only shape what people see, but they also structure what people look for in the first place. We call this “intuitive epistemology.”</p>
<p>Those who care about oppression look for oppression, so they find it. Those who care about security look for threats to it, and they find them. In other words, people do not end up with the same answers because they do not begin with the same questions.</p>
<p>For example, the perception that vaccines cause autism – against all available empirical evidence – is now shared <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-the-usual-political-polarization-81001">equally by Democrats and Republicans</a>. Partisanship cannot account for this dueling fact perception.</p>
<p>But when we looked at the role of core values and their associated questions, we found the strongest predictor. If someone we surveyed ranked this question highly, “Does it appear that people are committing indecent acts or degrading something sacred?” they were by far the most likely to believe that vaccines are dangerous.</p>
<p>Partisan identity, on the other hand, has no relationship at all with those beliefs. Because the starting points for different groups of citizens are deeply polarized, so are their ending points. And the starting points are often values rather than parties. </p>
<p>The stronger those commitments to their values are, the stronger the effects. Those with extreme value commitments are <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201904/why-so-certain">much more certain</a> than others that their perceptions are correct. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies – at least from our point of view – is that there are no known fixes to this problem. </p>
<p>Fact-checking <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts">tends to fall flat</a>. The voters who need to hear corrections rarely read fact-checks. And for those who might stumble across them, reports from distant and distrusted experts are no match for closely held values and defining identities. </p>
<p>Education is the another possible means of encouraging consensus perceptions, but it actually makes things worse. </p>
<p>Rather than training people how to think more reasonably, college and graduate school merely sharpen the lenses graduates use to perceive reality. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/one-nation-two-realities-9780190677176?cc=us&lang=en&">In our data</a>, those with higher levels of education are more, not less, divided. And the higher the level of training, the more tightly values and perceptions intertwine. Education provides the tools to more efficiently match their preferred values to their perceived facts.</p>
<p>Based on this evidence, we conclude that dueling fact perceptions (or what some have labeled “alternative facts”) are probably here to stay, and worsen.</p>
<h2>Mueller’s muddle</h2>
<p>We suspect that the Mueller report would have been rejected by roughly half the country, even if its conclusions had been definitive. </p>
<p>But with key phrases like “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” the report’s indecisiveness reinforces how difficult it can be to really know the “truth” about a lot of things. </p>
<p>If a respected prosecutor like Robert Mueller can’t offer a firm conclusion after two years of document dumps and interviews, what are the rest of us to do? </p>
<p>As with so many other things, people will go with their guts, using their heads to feel better about the choices they have already made.</p>
<p>Our conclusions are much more definitive than Mueller’s: We see clear evidence of collusion and obstruction. Collusion between values and facts. Obstruction of the capacity to observe and accept legitimate evidence. </p>
<p>So for the past couple of weeks, the chorus of “I told you so!” has rung out from the country’s Blue coastlines and from every Red mile of heartland in-between. </p>
<p>And with that, the U.S. continues to inch ever closer to a public square in which consensus perceptions are unavailable and facts are irrelevant.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116488/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can a community decide the direction it should go, if its members cannot even agree on where they are? Two political scientists say the growing phenomenon of dueling facts threatens democracy.David C. Barker, Professor of Government and Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University School of Public AffairsMorgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1158722019-05-02T10:44:05Z2019-05-02T10:44:05ZTrump’s dirty tricks: Unethical, even illegal campaign tactics are an American tradition<p>Donald Trump pulled some pretty unseemly stunts to win the 2016 United States presidential election. </p>
<p>He threatened to put his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in jail and publicly asked Russia to <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/trump-russia-emails-joke-cpac-speech">hack her emails</a>. After Russian operatives did something similar – stealing <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/mueller-report-shows-russians-trump-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101">emails from Democratic National Committee servers</a> – the Trump campaign publicized the hacked emails, which were published on WikiLeaks. Trump aides also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html">met with Russian spies</a> who promised information damaging to Clinton.</p>
<p>Some of these activities, which special counsel Robert Mueller <a href="https://graphics.axios.com/docs/mueller-report.pdf">uncovered</a> in his 22-month investigation into Trump, may have been illegal. </p>
<p>Other Trump attacks on Clinton were tawdry, unethical and, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/video/barr-to-graham-no-underlying-crime-by-trump-in-mueller-report-1515519043849">Attorney General William Barr</a> in his May 1 testimony to Congress, technically lawful. </p>
<p>The attacks were, for the Justice Department at least, dirty tricks.</p>
<p>Students of American history – including those who’ve read the college U.S. politics textbook <a href="http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ngsp/americangovernment/">I co-authored</a> – will know that Trump has a lot of company in the dirty tricks department: Elections have always been nasty. </p>
<p>Since the earliest years of the republic, candidates have used <a href="https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151920">deceptive, underhanded and dubiously legal tactics</a> to discredit their opponents.</p>
<h2>1800: Jefferson vs. Adams</h2>
<p>The 1800 race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was a <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/373588.Adams_vs_Jefferson">lowly beginning for the new American democracy</a>. </p>
<p>Jefferson was Adams’ vice president from 1797 to 1801. To defeat his boss without personally maligning the president of the United States, Jefferson let a journalist, <a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/james-callender">James Callender</a>, do his dirty work.</p>
<p>Callender wrote rapidly partisan articles for the Richmond Reporter newspaper and in a self-published 1800 anti-Federalist pamphlet called “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Prospect_Before_Us.html?id=HLhEnQEACAAJ">The Prospect Before Us</a>.” One of his more creative attacks was to <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/John-Adams/David-McCullough/9780743223133">question Adams’ masculinity</a>. He accused Adams of being a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”</p>
<p>Callender’s anti-Federalist publications during the campaign led to his prosecution under the Sedition Act, according to the <a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/james-callender#footnote5_3u77848">Thomas Jefferson Foundation</a>. In May 1800, he was sentenced to nine months in jail and a US$200 fine.</p>
<p>This bitter contest between president and vice president occurred because President Adams and Vice President Jefferson came from different political party. Back then, voters picked two candidates for president. The top vote-getter became president, the second-place finisher became vice president.</p>
<p>Congress changed this system changed after the dirty 1800 election, passing the <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii">12th Amendment</a>, which established <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Origins_of_the_Twelfth_Amendment.html?id=3n6GAAAAMAAJ">the current running mate system</a>. </p>
<h2>1828: Adultery, murder and pimping</h2>
<p>That didn’t make electoral politics any kinder. The 1828 race between President John Quincy Adams and the southern statesman Andrew Jackson was the United States’ <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">nastiest and most personal election yet</a>.</p>
<p>Democratic President John Quincy Adams lost badly – but not before he did some serious damage to Jackson’s reputation. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=811&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272056/original/file-20190501-113864-1czatif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was labeled an ‘American Jezebel’ in the 1828 election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rachel_Jackson.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Adam’s campaign surrogates <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections">accused Jackson of murder</a> and spread rumors that Jackson’s wife, Rachel – who had previously been married to another man – had never really divorced. </p>
<p>“As a result,” political commentator Rick Unger wrote <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/20/the-dirtiest-presidential-campaign-ever-not-even-close/">in Forbes magazine in 2012</a>, “the Democratic candidate was accused of being an adulterer and running away with another man’s wife, while Mrs. Jackson was labeled a bigamist.” </p>
<p>Jackson’s team retaliated by accusing Adams, a former ambassador to Russia, of having provided Russian Czar Alexander I up with young American virgins for his sexual pleasure.</p>
<p>These tactics probably amounted to <a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html">criminal defamation</a>. In the United States, it is unlawful to tarnish a person’s reputation by spreading false information. But there is <a href="https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/69/">no evidence that either camp sued</a>. </p>
<h2>Kennedy’s dirty tricks</h2>
<p>In the modern era, John F. Kennedy found subtler ways to discredit his opponents.</p>
<p>When running for Congress in 1946, Kennedy’s competitors in the Democratic primary included a Boston city councilman named <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKOH/Russo%2C%20Joseph/JFKOH-JUR-01/JFKOH-JUR-01">Joseph Russo</a>. Kennedy’s father, the formidable and ambitious Joseph Kennedy, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2893826-the-kennedy-menv">paid a janitor</a> named Joseph Russo to run for Congress as well. </p>
<p>In the confusion over which Russo was the legitimate politician, votes were split. Kennedy won his seat. </p>
<p>Later, when Kennedy was a presidential candidate in 1960, his aides raised the temperature in the TV studio where he would soon face off against Vice President Richard Nixon in the nation’s first-ever televised debate. The Kennedy campaign <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010027716">knew</a> that Nixon suffered from hyperhidrosis, a medical condition that causes a person to easily sweat. </p>
<p>As Nixon perspired and struggled under the bright lights and high heat, Kennedy looked <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/kennedy-nixon-debates">cool, calm and sweat-free</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272044/original/file-20190501-113839-1bg31l5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John F. Kennedy’s team turned up the heat in the TV studio before a televised 1960 debate with Richard Nixon, knowing he would sweat heavily.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-Great-Gaffes/c27f9e6f68df44aca79bc9fc3219e701/5/0">AP Images, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nixon had been politically pranked before. </p>
<p>Dick Tuck, a notorious Democratic Party trickster, was “known to pose as a fire marshal at Nixon appearances and give reporters low estimates for the size of the crowds,” according to his <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-dicktuck/political-prankster-and-nixon-nemesis-dick-tuck-dead-at-age-94-idUSKCN1IV257">obituary by Reuters</a>.</p>
<h2>Party infighting</h2>
<p>As president, Nixon’s team would excel at much dirtier tricks.</p>
<p>To defeat Democrat Hubert Humphrey in the 1972 election, Nixon operatives <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/22/archives/dirty-tricks.html">caused trouble for his campaign</a> in ingenious ways. </p>
<p>At a fancy fundraising dinner for Democratic vice presidential candidate Edmund Muskie, Republican tricksters ordered the delivery of $300 in liquor, 200 pizzas and even a couple magicians – much to the dismay of organizers and the shock of the 1,300 very proper attendees.</p>
<p>The dirty tricks tradition continued into the 21st century, sometimes within the same party.</p>
<p>During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, George W. Bush’s campaign strategist Karl Rove spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/dirty-tricks-south-carolina-and-john-mccain/">his “illegitimate black child.”</a> </p>
<p>In 2010, an Arizona Republican political operative named Steve May <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html">recruited homeless people to run for several offices</a> on the Green Party ticket, hoping to split the liberal vote. Angry Democrats said that nominating “sham” candidates violated state and federal election laws. </p>
<p>That case didn’t go to trial, but some dirty campaign tricks have spurred legal action. </p>
<p>After the Democratic-aligned <a href="https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/04/disbarred-lawyer-garve-ivey-jr-sentenced-to-12-months-behind-bars.html">Alabama lawyer Garve Ivey Jr.</a> in 1998 allegedly paid a call girl to file a false rape claim against the GOP’s candidate for lieutenant governor, Steve Windom, Ivey was charged with criminal defamation, bribery and witness tampering. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1,000. </p>
<p>While that misdemeanor conviction was later overturned, Ivey was disbarred in 2011 and later <a href="https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/02/disbarred-lawyer-garve-ivey-jr-convicted-on-felony-theft-charges-ordered-to-pay-38151520-in-restitution.html">jailed on unrelated charges of misusing client funds</a>.</p>
<p>The lesson here? </p>
<p>The ethical standard for election campaigns in the United States has always been low. Modern techniques like email hacking may be new, but using surrogates to trash your opponent is an electoral strategy as old as the republic itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115872/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steffen W. Schmidt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Amid all the Mueller report uncertainty, one thing is clear: Donald Trump did some wildly improper things to win the presidency. So did Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, JFK and George W. Bush.Steffen W. Schmidt, Lucken Endowed Professor of Political Science, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160342019-04-26T10:50:50Z2019-04-26T10:50:50ZHow to avoid accidentally becoming a Russian agent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271071/original/file-20190425-121220-16y3niy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C1871%2C1159&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">He's calling – but will you answer?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59485/photos">Russian Presidential Executive Office</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American citizens are unwittingly becoming Russian agents. That’s an unavoidable conclusion of Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf">Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election</a>, and an important problem that requires a change in thinking about how people interact on social media. Old adages like “Don’t talk to strangers” don’t really apply in a hyperconnected world. A more accurate replacement is perhaps even more worrying, though: “If you talk to strangers online, assume they are spies until proven otherwise.”</p>
<p>Facebook estimated that <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html">126 million Americans</a> saw one of <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/">more than 3,500 Russian-purchased ads</a> on its site. Twitter identified <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/10/31/russia-ads-facebook-twitter-google-congress/">nearly 40,000 Russia-linked accounts</a> that issued 1.5 million tweets, which were viewed a total of 288 million times. As a <a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">social media researcher and educator</a>, this shows the scale of people’s exposure to state propaganda and the potential to influence public opinion. But that’s not the really bad news. </p>
<p>According to the Mueller report, some U.S. citizens even helped Russian government agents organize real-life events, aiding the propaganda campaign, possibly without knowing that’s what they were doing. There’s a whole section of the report called “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=39">Targeting and Recruitment of U.S. Persons</a>,” detailing how Russian agents approached people through direct messages on social media, as part of their efforts to sow discord and division in order to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. </p>
<p>Mueller doesn’t say why these people let themselves be manipulated into participating. But this Russian victory, the co-opting of Americans against their own democratic processes, happened because the Russian government used old-school influence techniques on new social media platforms. Online predators with harmful agendas often use the same tricks, so learn to protect yourself.</p>
<h2>Cooperate cautiously</h2>
<p>Mainly, the Russians exploited what is called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0157">drive to cooperate</a>, an ingrained part of human nature that encourages people to work with others. It’s why you stop when you see someone stumble or drop something, or why you hold a door for a person carrying a lot of bags.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s natural to want to offer a helping hand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/couple-helped-us-push-car-broken-266563883">TORWAISTUDIO/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This human trait may have been better suited for times when people didn’t interact so much online with strangers – but rather a world where people used to interact primarily in real life with family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and classmates. Now, though, online interactions link people across the world through targeted advertising, specific search results, social media hashtags and corporate algorithms that suggest who else a person should connect with. These connections may seem as strong as in-person ones, but they carry much more risk for exploitation of human kindness and the need for belonging.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, social media accounts aren’t verified, which is a means of authenticating that an online account matches the identity of an actual person or organization in real life. Accounts are often anonymous, and it’s very easy and common for people to set up <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/technology/twitter-facebook-fakes-fraud-inauthentic-behavior-14860389">fake profiles</a> that look like a real person. It is difficult to know for certain whom you’re interacting with or what they actually want out of your connection. </p>
<p>Thankfully, research has shown that people have defense mechanisms to avoid deception or what platforms have dubbed “<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/facebook-removes-inauthentic-engagement-philippines-nic">inauthentic behavior</a>.” Americans being targeted by Russians aren’t just sitting ducks – they have innate skills, if they remember to use them.</p>
<h2>Reciprocate thoughtfully</h2>
<p>Research on influence and its abuse shows how persuasion works and focuses on principles such as <a href="https://hbr.org/2013/07/the-uses-and-abuses-of-influence">reciprocity</a> – the act of returning favors and things like gifts for mutual benefit. This can be a small gesture, like friends taking turns buying drinks for each other. Online, it could be even smaller: Seeing someone share your post or respond to a comment you made can cause you to want to reply or like the post on their page.</p>
<p>To avoid being duped, check things out before you reciprocate. If you and another person in an online group are interacting in public view – sharing posts and making and liking comments – it’s probably fine. But if they then send you a direct message asking for a favor or to run an errand, keep your wits about you. You still have no idea who they are, what they do for work, what their name might be or even what country they live in.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If an online ‘friend’ asks you to dress up like Santa, maybe be skeptical.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/funny-santa-claus-wearing-red-costume-524102818">Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Be especially cautious if they, for instance, ask you to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=40">wear a Santa Claus suit and a mask of Donald Trump’s face</a> around your city. At least one American did this, according to the Mueller report. Consider Skyping them first, or seeing if they can speak to you without the aid of Google Translate or if their <a href="https://datingtips.match.com/online-dating-5471027.html">voice matches the gender</a> they state on their profile.</p>
<h2>Join forces skeptically</h2>
<p>The Russian government also targeted close-knit communities with strong senses of shared identity, which scholars call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.006">oneness</a>.” They created <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=33">online groups and pages</a> that pretended to support and participate in the Black Lives Matter movement and the LGBTQ communities.</p>
<p>It’s clear that any identity-based online group could prove an easy target, so be careful when joining and affiliating with them, especially if you do not personally know the organizers in real life.</p>
<p>There are so many different situations where influence techniques could exploit aspects of human nature that it’s impossible to outline all the potential scenarios. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of a Russian propaganda ad on Facebook.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://intelligence.house.gov/hpsci-11-1/">U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In his book “<a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061241895/influence/">Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion</a>,” psychologist Robert Cialdini offers a general rule to help defend against being swept into an influence campaign: Be on guard if you have a feeling of liking a contact more quickly, or more deeply, than you would have expected. Simply put, trust warnings from your gut if you’re starting to notice things are moving really quickly with someone you barely know. That’s especially true if this is an online friend, and even more so if the person regularly posts images of identity-based memes (known as memeplexes), like bald eagles (patriotism memeplex), rainbows (LGBT memeplex) or Jesus (Christian memeplex).</p>
<p>In an age where governments sow global political instability by exploiting social media and interpersonal trust, it’s more important than ever to be skeptical of people you connect with – not only online, but in line at Starbucks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY and Snap.</span></em></p>The Mueller report reveals that some U.S. citizens helped Russian government agents organize real-life events, aiding Russia’s propaganda campaign. Don’t be like them.Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157512019-04-22T10:46:53Z2019-04-22T10:46:53ZDid Trump obstruct justice? 5 questions Congress must answer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270155/original/file-20190419-28113-ql6bg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pages from Robert Mueller's final report on the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump, which show heavy redaction by the Department of Justice.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c3fab27e4a864872b0262e5e3677e9e6/1/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President of the United States did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. … However, we are unable to reach that judgment.”</p>
<p>That was <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=7">special counsel Robert Mueller’s blunt conclusion</a> about whether President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice. It’s found early in Mueller’s report of his <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441">22-month investigation</a> into potentially criminal aspects of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency.</p>
<p>Mueller’s <a href="https://graphics.axios.com/docs/mueller-report.pdf">full report</a> – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report.html">submitted to the Department of Justice</a> on March 22 and published online with redactions on April 19 – highlights 10 areas in which the president may have committed obstruction of justice. I’ve read this 400-page document closely, and judging as a <a href="https://law.unlv.edu/faculty/david-orentlicher">law professor and former elected official</a>, I find multiple episodes that describe possible crimes. </p>
<p>These include: firing FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing an investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government; attempting to curtail the special counsel’s investigation and fire Mueller; and making statements that could have discouraged former campaign aides from testifying truthfully.</p>
<p>After reviewing all Mueller’s evidence, Attorney General William Barr determined that the president did not obstruct justice. But Mueller concluded that he could <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html#g-page-3">neither charge nor exonerate Trump</a>, and indicated that Congress should consider the evidence.</p>
<p>Here’s how lawmakers will determine whether Trump committed a crime.</p>
<h2>1. Did Trump act ‘corruptly’?</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505">federal law</a>, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of obstruction.</p>
<p>Other actions may constitute obstruction, depending on the context. The law requires that there be both an intent to obstruct and that the subject acted, as Mueller writes, “in a manner that is <em>likely</em> to obstruct justice.”</p>
<p>For example, when national security adviser Michael Flynn became a target in the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference, Trump on Feb. 14, 2017 held a <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=45">private meeting with Comey</a> in the Oval Office. </p>
<p>There, according to Comey, he said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” </p>
<p>Soon after, Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/james-comey-firing">fired Comey</a>. Flynn ultimately <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html">pleaded guilty</a> of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russia’s ambassador and is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-sentencing.html">awaiting sentencing</a>.</p>
<p>These episodes would <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532">constitute obstruction of justice</a> if Trump pressured and then fired Comey for “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice">corrupt</a>” – meaning willfully improper – reasons, and if these actions were likely to impede the FBI’s investigation.</p>
<h2>2. Did Trump have criminal intent?</h2>
<p>Determining intent is tricky for prosecutors. It requires them to make a subjective judgment about the suspect’s state of mind. </p>
<p>If Trump fired Comey in an effort to prevent the FBI from discovering incriminating information about him or his campaign, that would be “corrupt.”</p>
<p>Other reasons would not rise to the level of corrupt intent.</p>
<p>Mueller found that a key factor for Trump’s dismissal of Comey appears to have been concern that the FBI’s investigation was casting a cloud over his presidency and hurting his ability to govern. As president, Trump has the executive power to choose the FBI director he thinks is best suited to the job.</p>
<p>Congress will apply this “corrupt intent” standard to all the incidents of possible obstruction outlined in Mueller’s report.</p>
<h2>3. Was interference likely?</h2>
<p>Assessing whether a given action is “likely” to interfere in an investigation is a more objective determination.</p>
<p>The Mueller report is unambiguous about the negative implications of Trump’s discussion with Comey about “letting [Flynn] go.” </p>
<p>“The circumstances of the conversation show that the President was asking Comey to close the FBI’s investigation into Flynn,” it <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=50">reads</a>, citing Trump’s insistence on meeting alone with Comey as evidence that the president “did not want anyone else to hear” him requesting that a federal inquiry be terminated.</p>
<p>Mueller also concludes that Trump’s expressions of “hope” would reasonably be understood as a directive when issued by a president to his subordinate. </p>
<h2>4. Is the sum greater than its parts?</h2>
<p>Sometimes a single action or statement that alone does not constitute an illegal act may demonstrate obstruction of justice when viewed alongside other incidents, because it creates a pattern of “corrupt” behavior.</p>
<p>Trump’s behavior toward Comey, for example, looks most damning when viewed alongside his many efforts to block the special counsel’s work. </p>
<p>Those include Trump’s <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-refused-trump-order-to-fire-mueller-wary-of-saturday-night-massacre/">request to White House counsel Don McGahn</a> to have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=85">fire Mueller</a>. That happened in May 2017, once it became <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=94">clear</a> that the special counsel would be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. </p>
<p>Trump also pushed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=98">take charge of the Mueller investigation</a>, from which he had previously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html">recused himself</a> citing conflict of interest, and asking Sessions to narrow its scope.</p>
<p>These episodes are just a few of the the dozen or so incidents that, together, indicate Donald Trump may have conspired to obstruct justice in 2017 and 2018.</p>
<h2>5. Can obstruction occur if collusion didn’t?</h2>
<p>In defending the president, Attorney General Barr has pointed to one important factor: Mueller found <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html">insufficient evidence</a> to conclude that Trump ever colluded with Russia, which would have been illegal.</p>
<p>Legally, however, obstruction can occur even in the absence of an underlying crime. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump has repeatedly insisted, ‘No collusion. No obstruction.’ But the law says otherwise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/04a0546062d84ce098dbdf40468a5c87/16/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump could have interfered in the FBI and special counsel investigations not to protect himself from collusion charges but to avoid scrutiny of his financial relationships with Russia or to protect members of his family or inner circle. </p>
<p>Six Trump staffers were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html">indicted during Mueller’s investigation</a>.</p>
<h2>Trump’s verdict will come in 2020</h2>
<p>The president has celebrated the Mueller report’s release as the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/18/before-mueller-report-donald-trump-again-denounces-russia-hoax/3505336002/">end</a> of federal investigations into his administration.</p>
<p>But congressional inquiries into the president <a href="https://theconversation.com/mueller-report-how-congress-can-and-will-follow-up-on-an-incomplete-and-redacted-document-115686">are just beginning</a>. And further investigation might find evidence of other kinds of presidential misconduct.</p>
<p>In his report, Mueller wrote that Congress may decide to apply obstruction statutes to the president “in accordance with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”</p>
<p>Committing obstruction of justice or other misconduct may constitute the kind of “high crime or misdemeanor” necessary to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-next-with-the-mueller-report-3-essential-reads-115765">start impeachment proceedings</a>. Several Democratic lawmakers have now called for impeachment. So far, however, House leadership shows <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/democrats-impeachment-mueller-trump-1282488">little appetite</a> for impeachment, which would need bipartisan support in the Republican-led Senate to succeed in removing Trump from office. </p>
<p>Absent irrefutable new evidence of criminality that changes the minds of Republican lawmakers and voters, the American public will render its verdict on Trump’s presidency in November 2020.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Orentlicher is a former state representative and is active in Democratic politics. </span></em></p>Mueller’s report describes more than a dozen times Trump may have broken the law. Here’s how Congress will decide whether the president obstructed justice during federal probes into his presidency.David Orentlicher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1156862019-04-18T23:12:45Z2019-04-18T23:12:45ZMueller report: How Congress can and will follow up on an incomplete and redacted document<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270077/original/file-20190418-28084-1jkig0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Morning clouds cover Capitol Hill in Washington, April 12, 2019</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Washington-Daily-Life-Congress/2c211910907843349a17e76c9f7ba756/29/0">AP/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://time.com/5567077/mueller-report-release/">release on April 18 of a redacted version of the Mueller report</a> came after two years of allegations, speculation and insinuation – but not a lot of official information about what really happened between the Trump campaign and Russia. </p>
<p>Nor had there been much light shed on whether the president tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190418155122/https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf">report</a> prepared by <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco">special counsel Robert Mueller</a> and issued by the Justice Department provided greater detail about those questions. And it offered more information about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. </p>
<p>The Trump administration will want to argue that <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/trump-allies-dismiss-mueller-report-details-claim-total-vindication.html">the release of the Mueller report is the end of investigating</a> the Russia scandal. </p>
<p>On the contrary, the version of the report released is only the start of wide-ranging and intensive House investigations. </p>
<p>I served as <a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewContributors&bioid=75">special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra investigation</a> of the Reagan administration. We did <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016413021;view=1up;seq=3">months of hearings</a> on the type of material that is either incomplete or redacted, as today’s Congress will find, in the Mueller report.</p>
<p>Here are some of the ways the House will likely follow up with more investigation. </p>
<h2>1. Bring in witnesses to testify</h2>
<p>The House will call some of the witnesses mentioned in the report for their full story, not just their cameo appearance in this incomplete report. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/18/18411170/mueller-report-release-doj-trump-mcgahn-flynn">the report has the public’s first account</a> from Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. So, there are a number of contacts mentioned for the first time on the public record between Flynn and Russia that in my reading consistently demonstrate Trump’s partiality to Putin and Russia. </p>
<p>But, until we get a House public hearing with Flynn as a witness, we will not know the full story. </p>
<p>Why did Trump have such a strong bond with Putin? Did Trump have a personal reason, not some foreign policy reason, to favor Russia? Why did Trump push Flynn to be favorable to Russia? </p>
<p>The report does not say. </p>
<p>With Flynn, as with many others, the report is the start, not the finish, of getting the full story.</p>
<h2>2. Intelligence committee investigation</h2>
<p>Attorney General Barr has announced that a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/redacted-mueller-report-congress/index.html">“less redacted” version</a> is, or will be, prepared for a few congressional figures. Presumably he means that the classified parts of the report that describe secret intelligence, which have been redacted, will be shown to the congressional leadership. </p>
<p>But, the leadership cannot itself undertake an investigation. </p>
<p>This is the kind of material that normally goes to the entire <a href="https://intelligence.house.gov/">House Intelligence Committee</a>. That committee can follow up with demands for documents and closed hearings. And that committee has the trusted expertise to determine that the conclusions of their inquiry can be made public, either via open hearings or by report to the House and the public. </p>
<p>The committee could determine what is actually known by investigators about how Russia viewed Trump and what Russia may have done that secured Trump’s favor.</p>
<h2>3. Release grand jury information</h2>
<p>Furthermore, the report redacts not just classified information, but grand jury information as well. And Barr may well have omitted, rather than redacted, invaluable grand jury evidence, especially documents. </p>
<p>These could be released by the attorney general to Congress with a court order under what is called <a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/frcrimp/rule6/">Federal Criminal Rule 6(e)</a>. </p>
<p>Barr <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/william-barr-house-appropriations-hearing_n_5ca7a84be4b0a00f6d3f77e8">refused at congressional hearings</a> to seek such an order. But, under sufficient pressure from Congress – against the background of a public that wants the full report and the full story – he could reconsider. </p>
<p>In the Watergate scandal, the prosecutors got <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/23/archives/the-nixon-inquiry-exceptions-to-grand-jury-secrecy-prosecution.html">exactly such a court order</a> so they could make invaluable evidence available to the House Judiciary Committee.</p>
<h2>4. Limit what’s limited by ‘HOM’</h2>
<p>There is a great deal of key material redacted in the report with Barr’s label, “HOM” or “<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/the-most-redacted-sections-of-the-mueller-report.html">Harm to Ongoing Matter</a>.” That means the redacted material likely relates to an ongoing investigation by law enforcement.</p>
<p>This appears to have been done with a very broad brush. Under pressure from the House, backed by the public, this could be treated by Barr with a fine scalpel instead.</p>
<p>For example, one of the most promising avenues to investigate is the potential overlap between Russia’s attempts to help Trump, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html">WikiLeaks’ dissemination of material embarrassing to Hillary Clinton</a>, and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-donald-trump-invites-russia-to-hack-1469636224-htmlstory.html">Trump’s requests for help</a> in making material damaging to Clinton public. Who can forget Trump shouting, “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wikileaks-campaign-speeches-julian-assange-2017-11">I love WikiLeaks</a>”? </p>
<p>Yet, Barr’s broad-brush redactions wipe out a whole section on WikiLeaks. Presumably Barr is saying, by this redaction, that the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is an <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/assange-justice-department/index.html">ongoing matter</a>. </p>
<p>As the recent arrest of Assange makes clear, there is currently an investigation into his actions by the U.S., which has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange/u-s-charges-assange-after-london-arrest-ends-seven-years-in-ecuador-embassy-idUSKCN1RN10R">charged him with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion</a>. That means that WikiLeaks’ interaction with the Trump campaign is not the heart of that judicial matter. Rather, the heart is about Assange working with hackers who stole the damaging material. </p>
<p>So the House should be allowed to pursue the part – WikiLeaks and its interactions with the Trump campaign – which is central to the House’s concerns but peripheral to prosecutors of Assange.</p>
<h2>5. Documents, documents, documents</h2>
<p>Finally, this is just Mueller’s report. Behind it is much more that would be of vital interest to congressional investigators and the public. </p>
<p>This 400-plus page report is not the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-and-barr-could-stretch-claims-of-executive-privilege-and-grand-jury-secrecy-114166">underlying information alluded to in the report</a>, like copies of emails or other documents, that provides broader information about so many matters. </p>
<p>The House has every reason to seek and to receive the underlying information.</p>
<p>These various examples are just the beginning of what the House can seek to find as it takes off from the incomplete and redacted Mueller report. </p>
<p>When I was an attorney for the <a href="https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/thehearings.php">House Iran-contra Committee</a>, we received far more encouragement and cooperation from independent counsel <a href="https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/">Lawrence Walsh</a> than is promised by Barr. And we went on to dig up striking material during months of hearings. </p>
<p>I believe the House will now pick up where the Department of Justice has left off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Tiefer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Mueller report is out, heavily redacted and the investigative materials it’s based on aren’t public. That’s where Congress comes in, writes a former House counsel. Now they can investigate.Charles Tiefer, Professor of law, University of BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157652019-04-18T20:49:16Z2019-04-18T20:49:16ZWhat happens next with the Mueller report? 3 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270064/original/file-20190418-28106-87g8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General William Barr at an April 18 press conference about the public release of the special counsel’s report on Donald Trump.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c1f2dd364890466c8d41edd7eb1d08cb/11/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One month after Robert Mueller submitted the <a href="https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664/note/a8d336ef-e98d-4a08-987d-b4c154b22700.pdf">final report</a> on his investigation into Donald Trump, its contents have finally been made public – meaning that the Department of Justice is no longer the only one analyzing and interpreting Mueller’s findings. </p>
<p>Attorney General William Barr has publicly stated his belief that Mueller’s inquiry exonerates the president of criminal wrongdoing. Now, the American public will get to draw its own conclusions. </p>
<p>Congress, state prosecutors and district attorneys nationwide, too, are digging into the Mueller report to decide whether Mueller found evidence that Trump obstructed justice, colluded with Russia or committed any impeachable offenses. Beyond Mueller’s federal inquiry, a dozen city and state prosecutors have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/us/trump-investigations-new-york.html">launched investigations</a> into possible criminal wrongdoing by Trump, his family and his business.</p>
<p>As Mueller’s investigation evolves from political saga to legal analysis, here are three key threads our experts have been watching.</p>
<h2>1. Obstruction of justice</h2>
<p>Barr’s determination that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice differs from the conclusion Mueller drew in his own report. According to the special counsel, “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” </p>
<p>How can two people draw different conclusions from the same evidence?</p>
<p>“Obstruction of justice is a complicated matter,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-obstruction-of-justice-an-explainer-114270">writes law professor David Orentlicher of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress summarizing the findings of Mueller’s report.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/fb81cf81c274490e90b6a3d6b162287c/6/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent.</p>
<p>“Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime,” Orentlicher says.</p>
<p>But other actions may constitute obstruction too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction may not be, because the law requires a “corrupt” intention to obstruct justice as well.</p>
<p>President Trump did many things that influenced federal investigations into him and his aides, Orentlicher points out, including firing FBI Director James Comey, publicly attacking the special counsel’s work and pressuring former Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation.</p>
<p>The legal question Congress and prosecutors nationwide must now determine is: Did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<h2>2. Who does the attorney general work for?</h2>
<p>In the April 18 press conference, Barr cited the White House’s “full cooperation” with Mueller’s investigation as evidence of “noncorrupt motives.”</p>
<p>Critics of the attorney general contend that Barr is not an objective authority on Trump’s behavior since he is a political appointee picked by Trump. </p>
<p>Barr, a veteran lawyer who previously served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, also believes the Constitution <a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">gives the president almost unlimited power</a>, says Austin Sarat, a political scientist at Amherst College. Barr has referred to the attorney general – the government’s top prosecutor – as “<a href="https://m.cnn.com/en/article/h_8f34ccf949816e62148597dcff8769f3">the president’s lawyer</a>.” </p>
<p>So who does the attorney general work for? The question dates back centuries.</p>
<p>“The office of attorney general is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was created when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789,” Sarat says. </p>
<p>That law that laid out such limited duties for the role that “the attorney general was to be a part-time official” reporting to the president, according to Sarat.</p>
<p>As a result, “throughout American history, there have been different visions of the role of the attorney general,” he writes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr was handpicked by Trump to be in office when the Mueller report came in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/Jose Luis Magana</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Impeachment</h2>
<p>Congress won’t only be reading Mueller’s report to determine whether Trump committed obstruction of justice. It’s likely that some Democratic lawmakers will also be looking for any indication that the president committed an impeachable offense.</p>
<p>In his report, special counsel Mueller appears to have acknowledged Congress’s role in going beyond the findings of his report. </p>
<p>“Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” he wrote. </p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution states that the president can be removed from office after being both impeached and convicted for “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”</p>
<p>What exactly constitutes a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” however, has always been <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trump-hasnt-been-impeached-and-likely-wont-be-100081">open to interpretation</a>, says University of Buffalo political scientist Jacob Neiheisel.</p>
<p>President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice during the investigation into his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon in 1974 after Watergate accused him of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. </p>
<p>Neiheisel believes that “the articles of impeachment against Trump might look remarkably similar to those levied against Nixon and Clinton.” </p>
<p>Lawmakers actually drew up articles of impeachment against the president well before the Mueller report was released. </p>
<p>In November 2017, “five Democrats in the House accused the president of obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI director James Comey, undermining the independence of the federal judiciary, accepting emoluments from a foreign government and other charges,” says Neiheisel.</p>
<p>House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have previously sought to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/03/11/feature/nancy-pelosi-on-impeaching-president-trump-hes-just-not-worth-it/?utm_term=.ee430d08d816">tamp down any discussion of impeaching Trump</a>, believing that this extreme option should be pursued only if the evidence against the president was so compelling that impeachment proceedings would have broad bipartisan support. </p>
<p>Now that Mueller’s report is out, the debate over impeachment will arguably be much harder to quash. </p>
<p><em>This article is a round-up of stories from The Conversation’s archive.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The full report on the special counsel’s Trump investigation has now been made public. As people, Congress and prosecutors nationwide dig into Mueller’s findings, here are three key issues to watch.Catesby Holmes, International Editor | Politics Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1151882019-04-10T13:46:11Z2019-04-10T13:46:11ZTrump supporters on Twitter during 2016 US election show little evidence of Russian infiltration – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268416/original/file-20190409-2921-gcp0kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The biggest little bird in the nest. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/donald-trump-social-media-communication-vector-656904574?src=idm7TVmH8D1Idr_BCQ0V9g-1-16">doamama</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president">meteoric rise</a> from political outsider to president of the United States surprised nearly everyone – not least political analysts and scientists. Many are hoping for an easy explanation from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-mueller-probe-kenneth-starr-sees-eerie-echoes-of-his-1990s-clinton-investigation-113509">Mueller report</a>, including evidence of heavy Russian interference in the campaign. Mueller <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/robert-mueller-investigation-what-we-know.html">has indicted</a> numerous Russians in this regard, though more details will emerge when the report is published in the coming days. </p>
<p>In our <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214854">new paper</a>, which has been published in the PLoS One journal, we have covered similar ground via Trump’s stronghold: Twitter. By sampling some 250,000 accounts, we found a powerful new group of Trump supporters emerged during the election and effectively usurped the Republican Party on the social network. But very much to our surprise, very few bots or Russian accounts were involved. This suggests that if the Russians were acting to influence the election, the effect at least on Twitter may have been much more limited than <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump">has been claimed</a>. </p>
<p>We identified three kinds of Twitter accounts that were particularly relevant to the election: a Republican Party group; a Trump group; and a group of more extreme <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/alt-right/549242/">alt-right</a> adherents. We classified accounts into these groups based on who they followed and the hashtags and other words that they used in posts. The Trump group often used #maga, for instance, as in “make America great again”, and also “Trump supporter”. Mainstream Republicans often used #tcot or #tgdn, respectively “top conservatives on Twitter” and “Twitter gulag defence network”; while the far right used the #altright hashtag and words like “white” and “nationalist”. </p>
<h2>What happened on Twitter</h2>
<p>When we looked at how these three groups had developed over time, we found the Republican accounts mainly dated from the <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters-march-washington/story?id=8557120">Tea Party marches</a> following Barack Obama’s first election victory in 2008, and also the 2012 Obama vs Romney <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20216038">campaign</a>. Conversely, the Trump and alt-right groups had largely emerged during the 2016 election campaign. </p>
<p>By late 2016, very few new accounts were being opened that fit the characteristics of our Republican Twitter group. We found a big shift in following behaviour as well, with existing Republican accounts becoming more likely to follow accounts in our Trump group rather than other mainstream Republicans. This reflects the way in which Trump suddenly jumped ahead of a crowded field in the Republican primaries. When you combine the followers of the three Twitter groups, they amount to some 57m unique users: this almost certainly made the difference in an election where the margin of victory was so tight – remember Trump <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/us2016/results">beat</a> Hillary Clinton in the electoral college, but without winning the popular vote, winning key marginal states by only a few tens of thousands of votes. </p>
<p>But what drove support for this shift? Staying with following behaviour, we found that members of all three groups tended to follow people who came under the same group, while those that we identified within the Trump and Republican groups frequently followed one another. But while members of the alt-right group followed those in the Trump group, this was not reciprocated to the same degree. This suggests that the widely held idea that the far right were very influential in the growth of support for Trump may be an exaggeration. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rarer than you’d think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/donald-trump-social-media-communication-vector-656904574?src=idm7TVmH8D1Idr_BCQ0V9g-1-16">PP77LSK</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To estimate Twitter bots, we used a US tool called <a href="https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu">Botometer</a>, which scores each account on the likelihood that it is automated. We concluded that Twitter bots and <a href="https://www.recode.net/2017/11/2/16598312/russia-twitter-trump-twitter-deactivated-handle-list">foreign accounts</a> were certainly part of Trump’s Twitter community, and <a href="http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/politicalbots/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/11/Data-Memo-US-Election.pdf">played a role</a> in spreading his message, but were vastly outnumbered by the massive groups of real-life supporters who suddenly started joining Twitter and following one another after Trump announced his election campaign. In fact, we found more automated accounts in the Republican Party’s group than in Trump’s group. Our findings match <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/majority-americans-were-not-exposed-fake-news-2016-us-election-twitter-study-suggests">other recent research</a>, which found that fake news was not nearly as pervasive on Twitter and Facebook as previously feared; in the case of Twitter, for instance, 80% of fake news appeared on only 1.1% of users’ newsfeeds.</p>
<p>Our point is not that foreign-owned bots generating fake news didn’t interfere with the election, but rather that they probably had less influence than various other factors – particularly Trump himself, his group of highly motivated supporters and the US media. Trump’s supporters did not coalesce around an army of bots – they do appear to have been a grassroots movement of previously disengaged voters.
Trump’s victory seems more driven by his own particular style of campaigning, galvanising his followers into a political backlash against “Washington elites”. </p>
<p>These kinds of movements certainly aren’t unknown. Political analysts are very familiar with the concept of the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/what-overton-window">Overton Window</a>, in which the political centre ground shifts in response to pressure from disenfranchised and frustrated groups on the fringes. In Trump’s case, the shift was surprisingly rapid. In only a few months, a relatively small group had grown to the point it was able to subsume the traditional Republican Party. </p>
<h2>Predicting the future</h2>
<p>Our era will long be remembered for the populist swings that took place in politics – not only Trump but elections in the likes of Hungary and Japan, and also the UK’s Brexit referendum. These results frequently surprised politicians and the media, prompting <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/03/opinion-polls-missed-trump-and-brexit-this-french-newspaper-says-it-has-the-solution/">much</a> discussion <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/macron-won-but-the-french-polls-were-way-off/">about</a> problems with the tools with which we have tracked people’s voting intentions. </p>
<p>We think that our method, or one derived from it, can be a valuable addition to the toolbox in future. By following the development of political groups on Twitter, you can observe what is happening in real time. In future, this could help identify disenfranchised voter groups amenable to populist candidates and better understand their behaviour and the issues that motivate them. Our method might also make it easier to determine when extremist political minorities, massively amplified by the global reach of Twitter, might be exerting a disproportionate level of influence. </p>
<p>Studying Twitter allows you to observe these things at a speed that traditional polling and analysis can’t match. Hopefully by studying the world of online political discourse in a more rigorous and systematic way like this, we can finally start to catch up with the breakneck speed of modern political change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115188/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Bryden receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Silverman receives funding from the Medical Research Council and the Chief Scientist Office as a member of the University of Glasgow's MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit. </span></em></p>On the back of the Mueller investigation’s apparent exoneration of the POTUS, here’s another surprise.John Bryden, Research Fellow, Royal Holloway University of LondonEric Silverman, Research Fellow, Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1144172019-04-08T10:45:17Z2019-04-08T10:45:17ZFor the ‘political-infotainment-media complex,’ the Mueller investigation was a gold mine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267877/original/file-20190405-180041-3yot88.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the first year of 'Russiagate' coverage, the combined profits from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN increased by 13 percent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost 60 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY">warned</a> of a new force that fed off and profited from Cold War paranoia: the military-industrial complex.</p>
<p>Over the past couple of years, with Russia reappearing on the airwaves, a new corporate sector profiting from induced anxiety poses just as big a threat. </p>
<p>Let’s call it the political-infotainment-media complex. </p>
<p>On March 22, Robert Mueller <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-report-was-just-delivered-what-happens-now-n985986">delivered his sealed report</a> on the narrowly defined charge of “collusion” to Attorney General William Barr. After 22 months of hype – a period in which it was <a href="http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2017/">the most covered story in America</a> – “Russiagate” seemed to end with a whimper. Neither reporters nor the public have read the Mueller report, but that hasn’t stopped <a href="https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million">rampant speculation</a> over what’s in the report, who “lost” and who “won.”</p>
<p>None of this analysis, however, explores the larger structural problems in today’s media environment. Why was this story covered to the extent it was? What does it say about the incentive model in place for corporate media outlets? </p>
<p><a href="https://bellisario.psu.edu/people/individual/matthew-jordan">As a media scholar</a> trying to understand today’s rapidly changing media landscape, I view the Mueller investigation coverage as a direct symptom of a political-infotainment-media complex that has blurred the lines between tabloid soap operas and respectable journalism. </p>
<h2>Infotainment is the hook</h2>
<p>To understand what happened with coverage of the Mueller investigation – and is already happening again in its second act – it’s important to understand the incentives of media networks, old and new. </p>
<p>In his seminal work “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=c3pK97NgNPIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Television:+Technology+and+Cultural+Form&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3h8jIgbfhAhWvs1kKHfI0BxQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Television: Technology and Cultural Form</a>,” media critic Raymond Williams explained how, in the early days of television, people would often tune in for a single program and then turn off the TV. </p>
<p>But television networks soon figured out they could maximize advertising revenue if people watched all of a network’s shows, one after the other. TV producers, using commercials and promotions for other shows as a connective glue, strove to create a “flow” from one show to the next.</p>
<p>This cultivation technique is still on full display – we see it when cable news hosts pass the baton from one show to the next. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJoxohZ6MFg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Rachel Maddow will ‘hand off’ to Lawrence O'Donnell, creating a seamless transition.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there is also something new going on. Stories like the Mueller investigation transcend individual networks and play out across all outlets, with each adapting the storyline for its particular audience. Sustaining itself beyond a particular news cycle, the investigation has played out like one epic television series – a perfect example of how the political infotainment sector profits from serial stories with long narrative arcs, cliff hangers and periodic revelations. </p>
<p>The more convoluted the story, the more audiences are drawn to preferred networks to confirm their biases. The more outlets tease the “bombshell,” the more it feeds interest. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There were enough ‘bombshells’ in the coverage of the Mueller investigation to wipe out a city.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/201901/n_msnbc_radford_mitchell_190113_1920x1080.jpg">MSNBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Speculation pays off</h2>
<p>For much of the past century, journalism was grounded in <a href="http://www.nupress.northwestern.edu/content/journalism-and-realism">restrained realism</a>, with dispassionate objectivity tied to professional norms.</p>
<p>But many of today’s mainstream media outlets follow something like the profit-minded business model of the original purveyor of “fake news,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-century-ago-progressives-were-the-ones-shouting-fake-news-90614">William Randolph Hearst</a>. Hearst sought to “fournish” a war that he could serialize and monetize, and he famously goaded the American public into war against Spain <a href="https://medium.com/covilian-military-intelligence-group/you-furnish-the-pictures-and-ill-furnish-the-war-67de6c0e1210">with disinformation dressed up as news</a>.</p>
<p>“Don’t be afraid to make a mistake,” <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=n4p0O97RntAC&lpg=PA165&dq=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake%2C%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake,%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&f=false">Hearst once advised</a>. “Your readers might like it.” </p>
<p>Today’s media business model doesn’t reward patience and scrupulous fact-checking. To do so is to risk missing out on clicks, eyeballs and ad revenue. </p>
<p>Furthermore, today’s outlets can easily profit from misinformation and speculation. </p>
<p>Each mistake – say, a front-page story about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.d0f403dfba5f">how the Russians hacked America’s electrical grid</a> – might require a retraction or an apology. But during its lifespan, that same mistake can boost profits, ratings and advertising revenue.</p>
<p>Once speculating about news is no longer seen as a problem and becomes a normal part of production, a whole new line of infotainment becomes available. </p>
<p>The Mueller investigation, which featured a tight-lipped investigator, created an enormous vacuum for speculation – for hundreds of round tables and panels featuring lawyers, politicians, political consultants and intelligence officers to theorize over the next twist, the latest clues and possible outcomes. Of course, it didn’t hurt that the story involved espionage, sex, celebrity, corruption and betrayal.</p>
<h2>Trolling for dollars</h2>
<p>With every subpoena, indictment or denial related to Trump’s connection to Russia, the dollars rolled in.</p>
<p>In the first year of Russiagate, total profits from cable news’ big three – Fox News, MSNBC and CNN – <a href="https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/cable-news/">increased by 13 percent</a>. </p>
<p>In 2018, during peak Mueller investigation coverage, MSNBC’s <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2018-ratings-fox-news-is-the-most-watched-network-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943">ratings rose by 10 percent during prime-time hours</a>. “The Rachel Maddow Show” rode the serial story to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">the top ranking among the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic</a>. During one six-week period in July and August 2017, Maddow covered the story <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/article/21486/Robert-Mueller-russiagate-Trump-Rachel-Maddow">more than all other news topics combined</a>. </p>
<p>For 22 months, networks like CNN and MSNBC sold hope that a white knight would save the country from a corrupt villain, and that the looming event Twitter users dubbed “#MuellerTime” would lead to catharsis and relief. Ratings soared, so the network had no incentive to change its tune. </p>
<p>Hundreds of subsidiary media outlets emerged to meet the emotional needs of like-minded consumers with new content and repurposed bites that circulated through social media. Views and clicks increased. It didn’t matter whether media producers were agreeing with or inveighing against the Mueller-will-save-us storyline. The incentives guaranteed serial repetition.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, #Resistance Twitter stars like Seth Abramson fed followers open-sourced reports and pulled together various strands <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/resistance-twitter-star-seth-abramson-wants-to-turn-his-threads-into-a-book">to create coherent narratives</a> that he eventually spun into gold with his best-selling book “<a href="https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?lang=en">Proof of Conspiracy</a>.” Fans waited with baited breath for Abramson’s lengthy threads and responded with popcorn-eating gifs as they ate up his analysis in real time.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1079522200657510400"}"></div></p>
<p>Across the spectacular chasm dividing American politics, Fox News has also profited from Russiagate by pushing an epic defense narrative. Beginning each day with “Fox and Friends,” which <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248">Trump often live-tweets to his 59.5 million followers</a>, the network has stoked audience rage with disinformation about villainous “deranged” Democrats besieging their celebrity savior to try to reverse the results of the 2016 election.</p>
<p>A pro-Trump audience has made Sean Hannity’s nightly show <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">number one in overall viewership</a> across cable news networks. These intensely loyal viewers managed their hopes and fears by scouring the internet to confirm Fox’s narrative, joining <a href="https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-wing-twitter/">like-minded media fans</a> to rage against the investigation using hashtags like <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/witchhunt?lang=en">#WitchHunt</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RussiaHoax?src=hash&lang=en">#RussiaHoax</a>.</p>
<h2>Striking digital gold</h2>
<p>Media scholars are only beginning to come to term with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807483">the significance</a> of this new mode of passionate engagement with politics through social media. </p>
<p>One thing is clear: Pro-Trump and pro-Mueller audiences have been a gold mine for social media outlets like Twitter.</p>
<p>In 2017, market analysis revealed that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-trump-worth-to-twitter-one-analyst-estimates-2-billion">roughly one-fifth of Twitter’s value was generated by Trump-related traffic</a>. “Russiagate” made Trump’s Twitter finger <a href="http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive">particularly itchy</a> – he has tweeted the words “Witch Hunt” 185 times, “Mueller” 96 times and “collusion” 185 times. </p>
<p>The increased engagement pushed <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/25/twitter-q3-2018/">profits from its digital licensing division to $108 million</a> as the company sold data-driven predictions of users’ future behavior to would-be advertisers and political campaigns. </p>
<p>Perhaps the instant gratification and additional revenue stream of social media has pushed more traditional cable news outlets and newspapers into frothier, melodramatic territory to maximize their market potential.</p>
<p>But the political infotainment media complex doesn’t see speculation and melodrama as a journalistic problem that needs to be fixed; it’s a business model that’s becoming ingrained.</p>
<p>Until there can be a <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/">public model for producing slower, less sensational and more careful journalism</a> – one that aims to separate truth from speculation and is inoculated from the quick lure of scooping-for-profit – Americans will be vulnerable to its unwarranted influence over political life. </p>
<p>For when the political-infotainment-media complex latches on to a serial story that feeds its profit centers, the stories that need to be covered for our democracy to properly function get left on the cutting room floor.</p>
<p>No matter what surprises or twists next season delivers, we’ll continue to miss the bigger picture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the rest of us, it’s another sign of the country’s eroding media and political landscape.Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1143982019-03-28T10:39:20Z2019-03-28T10:39:20ZWhat you need to know about the Mueller report: 4 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270046/original/file-20190418-28094-d3vbs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General William Barr at an April 18 press conference about the public release of the special counsel's report on Donald Trump. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c1f2dd364890466c8d41edd7eb1d08cb/11/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The political saga triggered by the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump, which has cast such a long shadow over his presidency, will continue long after the inquiry’s end.</p>
<p>According to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, prosecutor Robert Mueller <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/638169023/robert-mueller-submits-report-on-russia-investigation-to-attorney-general-barr">determined that Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia</a> to influence the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel did not make a conclusion about whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.</p>
<p>Because Barr has not made Mueller’s more than 300-page report public, his exact findings remain unknown. Congressional Democrats are demanding access to the full report by April 2 to see what Mueller uncovered during his 22-month investigation into the president.</p>
<p>As this federal probe turns into a partisan battle, here are four key threads our experts have been watching.</p>
<h2>1. Obstruction of justice</h2>
<p>In a March 24 letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings, Barr wrote that the evidence collected is “not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”</p>
<p>That differs from Mueller’s conclusion. He wrote that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” </p>
<p>How can two people draw different conclusions from the same evidence?</p>
<p>“Obstruction of justice is a complicated matter,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-obstruction-of-justice-an-explainer-114270">writes law professor David Orentlicher of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<p>According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent.</p>
<p>“Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime,” Orentlicher says.</p>
<p>But other actions may constitute obstruction too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction may not be, because the law requires a “corrupt” intention to obstruct justice as well.</p>
<p>President Trump did many things that influenced federal investigations into him and his aides, Orentlicher points out, including firing FBI Director James Comey and publicly attacking the special counsel’s work.</p>
<p>The legal question is: Did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/fb81cf81c274490e90b6a3d6b162287c/6/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Release of the report</h2>
<p>That’s among the many things House Democrats hope to learn from reading Mueller’s report. </p>
<p>But they <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-and-barr-could-stretch-claims-of-executive-privilege-and-grand-jury-secrecy-114166">may never see it</a>, writes Charles Tiefer, professor of law at the University of Baltimore. He expects Trump and Barr will do “everything in their power to keep secret the full report and, equally important, the materials underlying the report.”</p>
<p>Tiefer was special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra Investigation in the 1980s and has worked on many major House investigations.</p>
<p>“I saw the tricks the executive branch can pull to withhold evidence,” he says.</p>
<p>The main legal grounds Barr and Trump will try to use for suppressing the Mueller report, according to Tiefer, are executive privilege and grand jury secrecy.</p>
<p>Trump is likely to argue that executive privilege – the principle that the president can withhold certain information from the courts, Congress or others – permits him to keep much of the Mueller report private.</p>
<p>Executive privilege cannot be used to shield evidence of crime. But that’s where Barr’s exoneration of Trump really helps the White House, Tiefer says.</p>
<p>The attorney general, for his part, has already invoked grand jury secrecy – the rule that attorneys, jurors and others “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury” – to keep Mueller’s report private.</p>
<p>Tiefer suspects Barr will seek to maximize what’s the law by using “the much-deprecated ‘Midas touch’ doctrine,” which could bury “everything indirectly and remotely having some attenuated whiff of a grand jury” as protected information.</p>
<h2>3. Politics versus the law</h2>
<p>In demanding Mueller’s full report, Democrats have asserted that Barr cannot be trusted to interpret its findings objectively because he was appointed by the president. They say that makes his exoneration of Trump a political, rather than legal, determination.</p>
<p>The question of Barr’s independence first arose during his confirmation hearing in February.</p>
<p>Barr, a veteran lawyer who previously served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, interprets the Constitution as giving the president almost unlimited power. He has referred to the attorney general – the government’s top prosecutor – as “the president’s lawyer.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr was handpicked by Trump to be in office when the Mueller report came in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/Jose Luis Magana</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The question of who the attorney general works for <a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">dates back centuries</a>, says Austin Sarat, a political scientist at Amherst College. That’s because the position is not mentioned in the Constitution. </p>
<p>“It was created when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789,” Sarat writes.</p>
<p>That law called for the appointment of a person “learned in the law, to act as attorney general for the United States.” It laid out such limited duties for the role that “the attorney general was to be a part-time official” reporting to the president, Sarat says.</p>
<p>As a result, “Throughout American history, there have been different visions of the role of the attorney general and his or her relationship to the president,” he adds.</p>
<h2>4. Loyalty to the president</h2>
<p>Trump expects <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-a-president-demand-loyalty-from-people-who-work-for-him-95199">personal loyalty from his staff</a> – including from his attorney general – reports Yu Ouyang, professor of political science at Purdue University Northwest.</p>
<p>The president fired the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in November 2017, reportedly because Sessions’ recused himself from overseeing the FBI’s probe into Russian meddling – a betrayal that opened the door for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. That’s how Barr got the attorney general job.</p>
<p>Ouyang, who studies loyalty and politics, says presidents it’s normal for presidents to prefer loyalists.</p>
<p>“Loyalty comes in handy for presidents when they enter office and ask, ‘How do I select the people who will help carry out my agenda?’”</p>
<p>What sets Trump apart, for Ouyang, is his “exceptional emphasis on loyalty.” He values it over other critical qualities like competence and honesty. And he appoints his staff accordingly.</p>
<p>That, say Democratic lawmakers, is why Barr cannot be the only public official to see the evidence Mueller collected on Trump.</p>
<p><em>This article is a round-up of stories from The Conversation’s archive.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114398/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
As the special counsel’s investigation of Trump turns into a partisan battle in Congress, here are four key issues to follow.Catesby Holmes, International Editor | Politics Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1142702019-03-26T22:15:43Z2019-03-26T22:15:43ZTrump and obstruction of justice: An explainer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265951/original/file-20190326-36260-1906ubr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Special counsel Robert Mueller reached no definitive conclusion about whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in firing FBI Director James Comey or attacking his own investigation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Hyungwon Kang, AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Reuters/Jonathan Ernst, Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. </p>
<p>But Mueller, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report.html">submitted his report to the Department of Justice</a> on March 22 after nearly two years of investigation, did not determine whether the president had obstructed justice during the FBI’s investigation into his campaign. </p>
<p>“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html#g-page-3">the special counsel stated</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html">Mueller’s report</a> has not been made public, but Attorney General William Barr does not share Mueller’s uncertainty about an obstruction charge. In a March 24 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html?module=inline">letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings</a>, Barr said he saw insufficient evidence to establish that the president had obstructed justice.</p>
<p>Democrats want to make their own determination about the evidence. They are now <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-chairmen-call-barr-submit-mueller-report-congress-april-2-n987241">demanding</a> that Barr’s office release Mueller’s report by April 2.</p>
<p>Truthfully, obstruction of justice is a complicated matter. As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UN4KCIEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">law professor and one-time elected official</a>, here’s my explanation of the crime – and its possible application to the president.</p>
<h2>What is obstruction of justice?</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505">federal law</a>, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. </p>
<p>Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime. </p>
<p>Other actions may constitute obstruction, too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction of justice may not be, because the law requires an intention to obstruct as well. </p>
<p>President Trump did many things to influence investigations into him and his aides – but did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<p>After the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference revealed that national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied, for example, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html">allegedly told FBI director James Comey</a>, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” </p>
<p>Flynn ultimately <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html">pleaded guilty</a> of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russia’s ambassador – an obstruction of justice crime – and is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-sentencing.html">awaiting sentencing</a>.</p>
<p>Soon after, Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/james-comey-firing">fired Comey</a>, who was overseeing the FBI’s Russia probe.</p>
<h2>How to determine criminal intent</h2>
<p>That behavior may <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532">constitute obstruction of justice</a>, but only if Trump pressured and later fired Comey for “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice">corrupt</a>” – meaning willfully improper – reasons. </p>
<p>Determining intent in an obstruction of justice case is often quite challenging for prosecutors, and it requires subjective judgment.</p>
<p>If Trump fired Comey in an effort to prevent the FBI from discovering incriminating information about him or his campaign, that would be “corrupt.”</p>
<p>Alternatively, Trump may have <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/985504808646971392">distrusted</a> Comey because he thought he handled the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton poorly, and consequently fired him. That would be his right as head of the executive branch of government.</p>
<p>The president has offered <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-s-statements-linking-russia-1494682462-htmlstory.html">both explanations</a> for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-fbi-book-excerpt-the-threat/582748/">dismissing Comey</a>. </p>
<p>In a May 2017 interview with NBC News, the president <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-seeks-to-backtrack-on-2017-comments-on-comey-firing-idUSKCN1LF19Q">said</a>, “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey” because of “this Russia thing.” </p>
<p>A few minutes later he <a href="https://www.apnews.com/db90fe2d11b0499b87cc0e5c22e52251">said</a> he fired Comey because “he’s the wrong man for that position.”</p>
<p>The objective of Trump’s statement to Comey about “letting Flynn go” is similarly ambiguous. </p>
<p>If the president was merely stating his hope that Flynn would escape the investigation unscathed, it would not constitute obstruction. But if this was Trump’s way of ordering Comey to clear Flynn, it would.</p>
<h2>Other evidence of obstruction</h2>
<p>Sometimes a single action or statement, standing alone, does not constitute obstruction of justice. But, when taken together with other actions, it creates a pattern of behavior that demonstrates corrupt intent.</p>
<p>For example, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-attacks-obstruction-investigation.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer">publicly attacked</a> Mueller, his investigation and other federal investigations into his campaign more than 1,100 times between March 2018 and Feb. 14, 2019, according to The New York Times. </p>
<p>Trump has the constitutional right to mount a “<a href="https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/11/10/why-do-defendants-always-mount-a-vigorous-defense/">vigorous defense</a>” to potential criminal charges and, under the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a>, to voice his opinions.</p>
<p>But the president’s behavior toward Comey looks more damning when viewed alongside his efforts to discredit the special counsel’s work. </p>
<h2>Obstruction can occur even without collusion</h2>
<p>Because it can be so difficult to discern a person’s intent, prosecutors often charge obstruction combined with other related charges. </p>
<p>In 1974, when the House of Representatives filed charges against <a href="http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment">President Richard Nixon</a> as part of the impeachment process, it accused him of obstructive conduct that also violated other laws, including his authorizing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050174-2.htm">payments to buy the silence of potential witnesses</a> – bribery.</p>
<p>Nixon resigned and was given a <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5970967/what-was-watergate-scandal-nixon">presidential pardon for these crimes</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, in 1998, when the House of Representatives impeached <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm?noredirect=on">President Bill Clinton</a> on obstruction charges, it also charged him with perjury. He was acquitted on both counts.</p>
<p>While other charges are common in obstruction cases, they are not required. A person can be guilty of obstruction even when they are not trying to cover up their other misconduct.</p>
<p>This is important in Trump’s case because, in Barr’s view, if the president did not collude with Russia – as Mueller concluded – then there was nothing to obstruct.</p>
<p>“The evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Barr <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html">wrote</a> to Congress, “and … the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”</p>
<p>Legally, however, obstruction can still occur even in the absence of an underlying crime. President Trump might have interfered in the FBI and special counsel investigations not to protect himself from collusion charges but to protect members of his family or inner circle. </p>
<p>Ultimately, seven Trump operatives were <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489">indicted during Mueller’s investigation</a>. </p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>If Congress receives the full Mueller report, lawmakers will assess all evidence gathered during the 22-month special counsel investigation and together with their own investigation, make a determination about whether Trump obstructed justice.</p>
<p>They may agree with Barr that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice. But if there is a strong case that he committed that crime, Trump likely won’t face charges while in office because Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download">guidelines</a> state that sitting presidents should not be prosecuted. </p>
<p>If obstruction charges are merited, therefore, Congress would have to raise them during an impeachment proceeding – a process House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so far <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/03/11/feature/nancy-pelosi-on-impeaching-president-trump-hes-just-not-worth-it/">opposes</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, Trump could be charged with obstruction after he leaves office.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114270/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Between 2002 and 2008, David Orentlicher served in the Indiana House of Representatives. He ran for Congress in 2015 as a Democrat.</span></em></p>Legally, a person can obstruct justice even if he committed no other crime – though it is harder to prove. It all depends on the intent behind pressuring investigators, say, or firing an FBI director.David Orentlicher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1142442019-03-26T19:18:34Z2019-03-26T19:18:34ZRussia responds to Mueller report: Moscow wins, Putin is stronger than Trump and US is a ‘pain in the a - -’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265897/original/file-20190326-36267-1j39vr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cars pass the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, March 25, 2019.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Russia-Trump-Mueller-Reaction/cb1769c072b6441d96f197a4ea9808c5/8/0">AP/Pavel Golovkin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“A mountain has given birth to a mouse. The ‘Russian affair’ falls to pieces <a href="https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2019/03/23_a_12260755.shtml">before our eyes</a>.” </p>
<p>So pronounced the Russian news site Gazeta.ru, as word of the completed Mueller report swept around the world.</p>
<p>Thus far, official Russian response to the Mueller findings has been scornful. Leaders are taking the conclusions of U.S. Attorney General William Barr – that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html">the report shows no collusion</a> between the Kremlin and U.S. President Donald Trump – as a chance to <a href="https://www.kp.ru/online/news/3424920/">dismiss all claims</a> of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.</p>
<p>The Mueller investigation in fact confirms that Russian government agents did meddle in U.S. politics, resulting in <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/who-has-already-been-indicted-russia-investigation/">the 2018 indictments of 25 Russians</a>. But Russian agencies like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs call charges of covert information warfare “<a href="http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3584133">far-fetched lies</a>.” </p>
<p>“It’s hard to find <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/25/we-told-you-so-russian-officials-react-to-mueller-report-on-collusion-a64939">a black cat in a dark room</a>, especially if it’s not there,” scoffed Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. (The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/25/chinese-proverb-that-russia-cited-respond-mueller-report-does-not-appear-be-chinese-proverb/?utm_term=.195d6102bbc3">same phrase was used by Russia’s defense minister</a> in 2014, to deny the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine – a fact the government later acknowledged to be true.)</p>
<p>Kremlin pundits may be claiming Trump’s victory as Russia’s victory. But that doesn’t mean they are showing him the <a href="http://www.eastview.com/russians_on_trump/">same sympathy they did two years ago</a>, when the investigation into the president and his election committee began. </p>
<p>Today, most Russian media outlets are holding up the Mueller story as just another example of <a href="https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/quotes/2019/02/18/794466-kogda-donald-poveril-putinu">American dysfunction</a>. Trump is cast as a symptom of larger problems, rather than as the man who might solve them.</p>
<h2>Dysfunctional America</h2>
<p>Those alleged “larger problems” are emphasized in what, for Russia, has been a much bigger news story in recent days. Somber Russian journalists commemorated the 20th anniversary of <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/454646-yugoslavia-nato-bombing-iraq-libya/">NATO’s decision to bomb Yugoslavia</a> for its suppression of the Albanian independence movement in Kosovo. </p>
<p>Their reports cast NATO’s Operation Allied Force as a <a href="https://jpgazeta.ru/aleksandr-rodzhers-napadenie-na-yugoslaviyu-glavnaya-oshibka-ssha/">U.S-led attempt at “regime change.”</a> The bombing campaign “failed to destroy most military targets, but was highly effective in terms of killing civilians,” read one report on RT’s Sunday evening news show, “The Weekly.”</p>
<p>As a historian of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, I was living in Moscow in 1999 when those NATO airstrikes began. My apartment, as luck would have it, was directly across the street from archnationalist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Zhirinovsky">Vladimir Zhirinovsky</a>’s campaign headquarters, where activists urged Russians to go to Belgrade to fight “for their Slavic brethren” in a “World War Three” against America – all as the theme from “The Godfather” blared in the background.</p>
<p>Back then, however, such anti-Western rhetoric was limited to a fringe political party. </p>
<p>Today, in contrast, it is promoted by the status quo. Monday, Russian Sen. Aleksei Pushkov tweeted that the Mueller investigation was “a <a href="https://twitter.com/alexey_pushkov/status/1110109402344898560?s=12">humiliation for the USA</a> and its political elites.” A typical comment posted in response read: “The whole country is full of idiots.”</p>
<p>“The word ‘conspiracy’ has become one of the most popular in the U.S. political lexicon,” noted Kremlin newspaper Russian Gazette, in an article titled “<a href="https://rg.ru/2019/03/24/dokazatelstv-rossijskogo-sleda-v-otchete-miullera-ne-okazalos.html">Mueller and the Void</a>.”</p>
<h2>Dysfunctional media</h2>
<p>At the same time, Russian media is playing up the <a href="https://www.rt.com/op-ed/454716-russiagate-mueller-report-collusion/">political divisions</a> in the U.S. They suggest that the Mueller report will stoke rather than heal them. </p>
<p>RT sent out a “breaking news” alert Sunday that read <a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/454647-mueller-report-obstruction-denial/">“Trump Is Still Bad</a> – Media and Democrats refuse to swallow Mueller’s red pill, grasp at obstruction straw.”</p>
<p>In line with <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6845565/Donald-Trump-Jr-trolls-Adam-Schiff-Robert-Mueller-clears-dad-colluding-Moscow.html">many tabloid publications</a> around <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6847949/Investigate-investigators-Republicans-offense-targeting-key-Russiagate-players.html">the world</a>, Russian news also immediately emphasized the calls for <a href="https://nation-news.ru/438433-v-ssha-nashli-sposob-nakazat-lzhecov-i-shutov-obvinyavshikh-trampa-v-sgovore-s-rf">“retaliation” and “punishment”</a> coming from Trump supporters. </p>
<p>The worst scorn, however, was reserved for Western journalists who, again to quote RT, were struggling to “<a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/454647-mueller-report-obstruction-denial/">spin the unspinnable</a>,” after having heavily promoted the collusion story. </p>
<p>While many U.S. media outlets are still fighting to keep the possibility of a cover-up alive, RT wrote on Sunday, “the BBC has passed into the ‘acceptance’ stage of grieving.”</p>
<p>All such coverage highlights an implicit contrast. As U.S. politicians trade recriminations, Moscow officials appear united and on message. And as Trump publicly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/politics/republicans-mueller-revenge.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Politics">savages his critics</a>, Russian President Vladimir Putin remains silent and above the fray. </p>
<h2>Dysfunctional Trump</h2>
<p>This difference between the two leaders is emphasized at every turn. Trump, despite his Mueller victory, is portrayed as weak, even as <a href="https://sm-news.ru/solovev-ne-isklyuchil-chto-doklad-myullera-pomozhet-trampu-na-vyborax-6851/">Russian pundits</a> speculate that he may now win re-election.</p>
<p>“There’s a chance to re-set much in our relations, but whether Trump will take the risk – that’s the question,” <a href="https://rg.ru/amp/2019/03/25/kosachev-o-doklade-miullera-est-shans-obnulit-mnogoe-v-otnosheniiah-rf-i-ssha.html?__twitter_impression=true">Sen. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee</a>, wrote Monday on Facebook. </p>
<p>Kosachev went on to urge Trump to revisit his decision to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-arms-control-treaty-with-russia-says-russian-violations-render-the-cold-war-agreement-moot/2019/02/01/84dc0db6-261f-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.7780fc235f18">pull out of treaties</a> limiting nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia.</p>
<p>While Kosachev’s language was tempered, his underlying message was a critical one, suggesting that Washington, not Moscow, disregards global well-being. </p>
<p>It’s the same line most Russian media takes in all international stories with a U.S. angle. That includes what Russia claims is the administration’s <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/454672-hrw-trump-golan-heights/">disastrous decision</a> to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. As the anchor of a <a href="https://www.1tv.ru/news/issue/2019-03-23/21:00#7">Monday television report on Channel One</a> said in regard to the Golan: “We are seeing how America’s hysterical internal politics are morphing into external politics” that are becoming a “growing global pain in the ass.” </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://video.sibnet.ru/video3346440-Harlamov__Grachev__Musagaliev___Gde_Logika__Putin_VS_Tramp/">2018 skit on the popular show</a> “Comedy Club,” two Trump and Putin impersonators faced off against each other in a game show called “Where’s the Logic?” </p>
<p>By way of introduction, the game show’s host posed a series of what were meant to be humorous questions.</p>
<p>“Why is it that a country that builds the longest bridge in Europe is considered an ‘aggressor’ and the one that builds a wall against Mexicans a full democracy?” he asked. The bridge referred to is, ironically, one that runs from the Russian mainland to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18287223">Crimea, the Ukrainian territory that Russia annexed</a> in 2014 amid international outcry.</p>
<p>The skit showed Trump as a bumbling, blustering figure who was consistently outmaneuvered by Putin. The Russian president was portrayed as knowing more about secret U.S. military sites around the world than Trump did. Putin – no surprise – ultimately won the contest 6-0. </p>
<p>Such cultural productions are important, because they provide the backdrop against which Russian leaders are responding to the Mueller report as well as framing their future relations with the United States. </p>
<p>Their message: Putin is stronger than Trump, and in any challenge, Russia wins.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct the Attorney General’s name.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cynthia Hooper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Russian media outlets are holding up the Mueller report as another example of American dysfunction, with President Trump a symptom of larger problems rather than the man who might solve them.Cynthia Hooper, Associate Professor of History, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.