RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Dreyfuss writes: "By now, it's clear: Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into Russiagate and related matters, is a determined, relentless inquisitor whose investigation could lead to criminal charges against a wide range of Donald Trump's staff, associates, former campaign officials and members of his immediate family."

Former FBI director Robert Mueller, now special counsel for the Trump-Russia investigation. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP)
Former FBI director Robert Mueller, now special counsel for the Trump-Russia investigation. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP)

Why Trump Should Be Afraid With Robert Mueller on the Case

By Bob Dreyfuss, Rolling Stone

11 August 17

Indictment and impeachment are on the table as the special counsel moves into high gear

y now, it's clear: Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into Russiagate and related matters, is a determined, relentless inquisitor whose investigation could lead to criminal charges against a wide range of Donald Trump's staff, associates, former campaign officials and members of his immediate family. And, when its work is complete, it isn't out of the question that Mueller's team could deliver a report triggering Trump's impeachment.

Since his appointment on May 17th, Mueller, a notoriously press-shy former FBI director, has been operating behind the scenes to put together a formidable army of prosecutors, Justice Department officials and investigators. Already, Mueller's team includes 16 attorneys, along with more than 20 staff members, and it's likely more will be added as the investigation moves forward. The work of the special counsel, which began in a nondescript, temporary facility in southwest Washington, D.C., recently moved to another, secure suite of offices to more easily handle top-secret and highly classified intelligence reports that will play a crucial role in informing Mueller's mission.

Trump, of course, is lashing out at Mueller, the congressional panels, his own attorney general and Department of Justice, the FBI and the media over what he called, in a tweet, "the single greatest witch hunt in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people." He's warned that any move by Mueller to investigate his or his family's business dealings might be a red line that could lead him to fire Mueller. He's toyed with ousting Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from Russiagate because of his own set of questionable meetings with Russian officials in 2016, since by firing Sessions he might be able to appoint a replacement who could order the firing of Mueller. And he's reportedly considered using the power of presidential pardons to prevent Mueller from prosecuting any members of his team – including, remarkably, seeking to pardon himself. None of this, according to numerous experts, sounds like the way someone who's innocent of any wrongdoing would act.

From the start, Mueller had a broad mandate – and it isn't limited to the question of Russia. The statement appointing Mueller authorized him to investigate "any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump," along with "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus "any other matters within the scope" of the law. That statement also gave Mueller the job of looking into efforts by Trump or others to impede or block the inquiry.

What that means, and what's scariest for the White House, is that Mueller isn't limited just to the question of collusion between Trump and Moscow. Mueller might suspect that the ties between the Trump organization and the allied financial and real estate empire run by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to Russian banks and various Putin-linked oligarchs, even going back years, might help explain Trump's ties to Russia – making that fair game for the special counsel's office. In addition, should any evidence of other crimes emerge while looking into the Trump-Kushner businesses – such as financial misdeeds, involvement in money-laundering or improper real estate deals, for instance – well, that too could lead to indictments.

And then there's the question of obstruction of justice. Even if Mueller can't prove collusion with Russia and doesn't find any financial or real estate wrongdoing, he can still nail the president if he determines Trump tried illegally to obstruct the investigations that are underway – not only by the special counsel, but by the FBI itself, the Department of Justice and the several congressional committees that are looking into Russiagate.

Though Mueller's office is mostly independent of the Department of Justice and the White House, Mueller still operates under the oversight of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who controls the special counsel's budget and who, under certain circumstances, can overrule his decisions. On the other hand, the department's regulations covering the work of a special counsel say explicitly that the counsel isn't "subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official in the department," and it adds that Rosenstein must give "great weight" to decisions taken by Mueller. If Rosenstein acts to block something that Mueller is doing, he'd be required to explain why he's doing so to Congress. Rosenstein has stated publicly, and in testimony before Congress, that he intends to give Mueller wide latitude to carry out the investigation and not to interfere with it except under extraordinary circumstances.

Theoretically, Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, could fire him. However, he told Congress he would only fire Mueller for "good cause," adding, "I am required to put that cause in writing. If there were good cause I would consider it. If there were not good cause, it wouldn't matter to me what anybody says."

By "anybody," he means President Trump.

By all accounts, the team Mueller has built is remarkably high-powered. Mueller's expert on Russia is Elizabeth Prelogar, a former Fulbright Scholar in Russia who is fluent in Russian, who came to Mueller from the office of the U.S. solicitor general. James Quarles, a former partner with Mueller at the law firm WilmerHale, happens to be a former prosecutor with the Watergate task force. Michael Dreeben, another of Mueller's lawyers, is the Justice Department's top criminal law expert. And the prosecutor who might worry the White House the most is Andrew Goldstein, who worked under former U.S Attorney Preet Bharara in the Southern District of New York. Earlier this year, Trump fired Bharara – after first promising him he could stay on – and it's considered likely that Goldstein, like Bharara, is familiar with the world of New York real estate that the Trump-Kushner empire is tangled up in.

Yet another Mueller specialist is Andrew Weissman, experienced in the art of "flipping" witnesses – that is, persuading people to turn against associates in exchange for lenient treatment or to escape prosecution altogether.

And last week, Mueller added to the team Greg Andres, a fraud specialist who's especially knowledgeable in the area of foreign bribery.

Aside from reporting the bare bones of his operation, Mueller hasn't said anything or released any information about what he's doing. He's held no press conferences. Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, tells Rolling Stone, "We do not have a website, nor have we issued any press releases."

So, what we know about Mueller's work so far comes by inference – by the actions taken by those who might be caught up in the inquiry, or from leaks (though it isn't clear if the leaks about Mueller are coming from his office or, more likely, from elsewhere in the government). Both Trump and Sessions, along with many Republican members of Congress, have repeatedly raised the issue of leaks, and they've promised to prosecute those doing the leaking. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Rosenstein said the Department of Justice would go after leakers, even if they were members of Congress or White House staffers.

There's no deadline for Mueller to complete his work, and there's no way to tell how long it might take.

The biggest news so far is last week's report, initially by the Wall Street Journal, that Mueller has empowered a grand jury. According to the Journal, Mueller asked Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for authority to empanel the grand jury. An earlier grand jury, part of an investigation that pre-dated Mueller's appointment, had been created by Justice Department prosecutors looking into cases involving General Flynn and Paul Manafort, and subpoenas had already been issued by a court in Alexandria, Virginia, in regard to those investigations. But the Mueller investigation has absorbed the Flynn and Manafort cases, bringing them under the umbrella of its own, larger investigation. Among the first set of subpoenas issued by the grand jury was a request for documents involving Flynn. But that's just the start.

"This is yet a further sign that there is a long-term, large-scale series of prosecutions being contemplated and being pursued by the special counsel," Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, told the Journal, about the creation of the grand jury in Washington. "If there was already a grand jury in Alexandria looking at Flynn, there would be no need to reinvent the wheel for the same guy. This suggests that the investigation is bigger and wider than Flynn, perhaps substantially so."

One sign of exactly how much bigger Mueller's inquiry might be came in a recent CNN report:

"Sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 elections, alongside the ongoing scrutiny of possible illegal coordination with Russian spy agencies and alleged attempts by President Donald Trump and others to obstruct the FBI investigation. Even investigative leads that have nothing to do with Russia but involve Trump associates are being referred to the special counsel to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate, according to two law enforcement sources."

In an important sign that Mueller considers the question of obstruction of justice a key part of his focus, he has also requested interviews with three top U.S. intelligence officials. They include Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Rogers, the NSA director, both reportedly asked by Trump to support him on Russiagate. Mueller also wants to talk to Richard Ledgett, a former deputy director at the NSA.

Another critical area that has come under Mueller's spotlight is the now famous meeting, held in June 2016, at which a group of Russians met with Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort, offering to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton that came from the Russian government. Whether or not that meeting will become the smoking gun of the inquiry into collusion isn't clear, but Mueller has reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas in connection with the Trump Tower meeting – presumably seeking testimony and documents from some or all of the participants. And, according to The Guardian, Mueller has specifically asked the White House to preserve documents concerning that meeting.

And Mueller's team has reportedly requested that members of Trump's presidential transition team preserve all documents and records related to the Russia investigation. Among the individuals specifically named in the request from Mueller, according to The New York Times, are not only Flynn and Manafort, but Carter Page, a former foreign policy aide on Trump's campaign in 2016, and Roger Stone, the mercurial and talkative Trump ally who's admitted that he was in contact with the alleged Russian hacking team Guccifer 2.0 at the height of the controversy last summer. A memo from the transition team's general counsel warned that staffers "have a duty to preserve any physical and electronic records that may be related in any way to the subject matter of the pending investigations," The Times reported.

Flynn, who served just over three weeks as Trump's national security adviser, may be a particularly vulnerable target in Russiagate, not only because of his own ties to Russia but his connections to possibly unrelated wrongdoing involving his former company, the Flynn Intel Group. In the first known instance in which Mueller has sought actual documents, Mueller's investigators have asked the White House to hand over material related to Flynn, and they're reportedly poring over records involving Flynn and interviewing witnesses. It's not impossible that Flynn might be asked to "flip" as a witness himself.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday this weekend, Rosenstein pushed back against the charge that Mueller's investigation is overly broad. "It's not a fishing expedition," he said, noting that Mueller is operating precisely under the terms of the order that Rosenstein issued last May in naming him to the post. Asked whether Mueller can look into potential crimes involving "any matters that arose or may arise" from the inquiry, Rosenstein replied, "If he finds evidence of a crime that's within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of the investigation, then he can." Asked whether Mueller might be authorized to cross Trump's "red line," Rosenstein said the order naming Mueller "doesn't detail specifically who may be the subject of the investigation, because we don't reveal that publicly."

Appearing on the same program, Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, warned the president that getting rid of Mueller, if that's his intent, wouldn't be a smart move: "President Trump needs to realize, if he fires Robert Mueller, there's some significant chance that eventually Mueller will be the lead witness in his impeachment hearing."

Watch below: Everything we know about the members of Trump's campaign who had contact with the Russian government. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

-34 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-11 14:32
This is good and Dreyfus is exactly right -- "they" are out to get Trump and Mueller is running "formidable army of prosecutors, Justice Department officials and investigators." There are 36 attack dogs so far and the number is likely to grow.

They are looking into matters not connected to the 2016 elections. It is pretty clear that Trump will be taken down in one way or anothers. Many of his family members and associates are also likely to be taken down.

The big question is why are "they" doing this to Trump and who are "they." No one really disputes anymore that the US is going through a "regime change" just like it has imposed on very many third world nations. But still the question is who made the decision to launch this regime change.

You can't use the term "Deep State" on this website for fear that the Deep State Denialists will pop up and, well, deny that there is a Deep State. So I leave it to them to say who is behind this coup d'etat.

There is no apparent crime. Mueller has no probable cause driving his investigation. He's just an attack dog with an army of attack dogs.
+7 # Jaax88 2017-08-12 00:26
Ho hum. Not very enlightening with your
fake facts and all.
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-13 05:53
Jaax -- you illustrate perfectly well what is wrong with democrats. They have nothing to say other than I'm not him! RSN gives you 1500 characters, so why not articulate your position fully and with details. RSN is a discussion board. Discussion means that all people contribute to the discussion. Your comment does not contribute much at all. It is like a shrug of the shoulders -- "Ho hum." or a grunt.

Most of the facts of this issue are in contest. There are a few that are not in dispute. I'm trying to assert what I know or believe to be true. I'm not claiming to know everything, but I am laying out my position as best I know it. I'm trying to contribute to this on-going discussion. I'm playing my role in this community effort. Of course, people disagree. That is why we have discussions.
0 # Jaax88 2017-08-14 14:46
My comment is more meaningful than a few hundred words from you. Maybe you do not know American idiom, but I meant you are not saying anything new or useful. That was my opinion.

Some of your phrasing reads like you are asserting a proven fact, not just in this commentary, but in past comments of yours as well, when there are at least known differences of opinion or the facts are out right opposite of what you say.

An example of your misleading or inaccurate comments are:
1."I think the colluding with a foreign power part of this case is over. It proved not to be true."
Rasko who said it was proven that collusion with foreign power was untrue. I think just from Don Jr.'s email collusion with Russian is more likely than not regarding some collusion between trump or his surrogates and the Russians. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think any of the investigators have officially made that conclusion.
There are more such instances, but I do not want to go find them at this time.
+4 # Krackonis 2017-08-12 08:05
Clearly knows more about the Trump's crimes than you do.

"We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin government if employed at the correct levels the the appropriate commitment to success. .. Which will be offering a great service that can refocus, both internally and externally the policies of the Putin government."

- Paul Manafort 2005
+5 # sbessho 2017-08-12 15:55
RR: I know our ways are unfamiliar to you, but when the election system produces an incompetent demagogue as president, there is a remedy built into the Constitution. It is called impeachment, and it requires something like a criminal proceeding, which in turn requires investigation. That is what we are witnessing--not a "coup d'etat" as you so quaintly put it.
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-13 05:59
the constitution actually says a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. And it means that these were committed while in office. It does not say that a president can be impeached because a certain group of very powerful people in the CIA/NSA/FBI/NYT /Wapo/Demo Party/and others reject the results of the election. When a select faction of unelected people seek to overthrow an elected president, that is a coup d'etat.

Trump was elected by the electoral standards that exist and are constitution. It privileges the Electoral College over the popular vote. That may be wrong, but it is constitutional. I'm not saying that the election was perfectly fair or honest. I believe republicans have cross checked and suppressed votes. The problem is no one, esp. democrats, is attempting to impeach Trump for voting corruption. Why are the democrats so silent on gerrymandering, cross checking, and electronic voting machines?
0 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 13:09
"Soft coup" is the term many, like Seymour Hersh and Glenn Greenwald, are using to describe the CIA, NSA and FBI actions to take down an elected president -- with the collusion of the left and msm.

All this may be over your head but one can be forgiven for ignorance. It's the smug arrogance that accompanies it that's so hard to take -- and, thanks to the Clintons, considered a hallmark of the left -- until Bernie came along to show people what a genuine progressive is.
+12 # janie1893 2017-08-11 23:55
Can they find enough information to apprehend
Trump before he decides to let loose on North Korea? I hope so!!
+4 # PABLO DIABLO 2017-08-12 00:23
Sorry Bob, but Trump will not be impeached. Not by a Republican Congress. So far RUSSIAGATE is mere speculation. Eight months and not a single shred of evidence. Plenty of criminal activity by Trump before he was elected (not impeachable). Problem is the powers that be (military/intel ligence) can't seem to control Trump, so the want the ever controllable Pence (war monger hiding behind Christian values). Gotta keep the War Machine well fed so it can continue to buy politicians who vote for war.
Meanwhile, regulations on Wall Street, the environment are quietly being rolled back and education is being privatized.
+9 # Texas Aggie 2017-08-12 09:50
Actually there is more than just a thread of evidence. We know that Jared was trying to establish a back connection to Moscow that only he and the drumpf organization (and the Russians) knew about. We know that intercepted phone calls show several members of the administration in compromising conversations with Russians they shouldn't have been talking with and which they failed to report.

And that is just in the public view. What else is there that Mueller hasn't released? Since he hasn't said anything, there is good reason to believe that what is in the public venue is just what reporters have been able to find out on their own, the tip of the iceberg, if you will.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2017-08-12 09:53
Between this story speculating on what has already been found out and what will be looked into along with all the other stories on the same subjects, if only a few of them go to jail, it will be a major disappointment.
+1 # sbessho 2017-08-12 15:49
But even a Republican Congress is subject to political pressure. Unless the people just sit back and let them do what they want, they might just realize that the way to keep their seats is to impeach Trump.
+1 # lfeuille 2017-08-12 19:03
By Republican constituents who really don't care all that much.
+1 # lfeuille 2017-08-12 19:01
It won't be "Russia-gate". It will be financial crimes. That is if the Dems take over in '18 or the Reps. go along. The chances aren't great.
+5 # ericlipps 2017-08-12 08:25
Aah, more chittering from the rodent. Just what I need to start the day.

"No one disputes any more that the US is going through a 'regime change' just like it has imposed on many third world nations"? No, sorry, RR, lots of people would dispute that: we're going through a perfectly legal and constitutional process of determining whether a president elected with a minority of the popular vote may have won the White House by colluding with a foreign power. That's the "apparent crime" under investigation.

I can understand that you don't like it. Cheer up. Maybe you'll get lucky and your Supreme Leader will get away clean.

In any case, there's no way a Republican Congress will vote to impeach a president of their own party, and even many Democrats don't want it, since Trump's removal would put a religious nut in the Oval Office.
+1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-14 06:58
Eric -- "we're going through a perfectly legal and constitutional process of determining whether a president elected with a minority of the popular vote may have won the White House by colluding with a foreign power. That's the "apparent crime" under investigation."

I think the colluding with a foreign power part of this case is over. It proved not to be true.

The first part about the constitutional process is really a challenge to the electoral college. Yes, Clinton did win the popular vote. So did Gore. But the constitution currently privileges the electoral college vote over the popular vote.

Maybe it is time for a change in the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. But impeaching the last president who was put in office by electoral vote just as were all his predecessors seems a strange way to go about revising the constitution. The real drivers of this regime change -- CIA/FBI/Deep State clearly don't want to eliminate the electoral college. That's not their agenda. It is just very distressing to see democrats or progressives jumping in bed with the Deep State.
0 # chapdrum 2017-08-12 18:00
I'd like to believe this, but based on evidence (and related indifference) to date, don't have much hope.
0 # draypoker 2017-08-13 10:04
The US seems to have at the top a group of people who behave and talk like fascists. But so far there do seem to be many at lower political levels who are not fascists and who may be able to resist the nonsense at the top. I certainly hope so as a fascist government in charge of nuclear weapons is rather daunting.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.