After two tortuous years of leaks and dire warnings that the âwalls are closing inâ on President Trump and his inner circle, the public deserves more than a four-page letter from the attorney general quoting only two partial sentences from Robert Muellerâs special counsel report.
The entire report should be published with as few redactions as possible. Some passages may reveal sensitive sources and methods of our intelligence agencies. Others may contain grand jury testimony. But beyond these, Muellerâs report should be provided to Congress and the public so we can all know what Mueller and the Justice Department now know.
One reason prosecutors generally donât hand over their full work product is that prosecutors arenât supposed to rat people out for doing something embarrassing or unseemly. Prosecutors are supposed to indict people for crimes. There is a principle that prosecutors donât release derogatory information about unindicted individuals. If a prosecutor doesnât think a personâs misdeeds merit prosecution, then they shouldnât publicize them.
But that principle should not apply in this case. When the target of the investigation is the president, the decision about indictment is for the House of Representatives to make, and itâs called impeachment.
A president is held to higher standards than private citizens, and Trump can handle the publication of derogatory information. He has, of course, already done so.
More importantly, some deeds that are not, or should not be, criminal or impeachable offenses are properly a matter for congressional oversight. If Trump has previously unknown business operations in Russia, Congress should know, even if the businesses are legal.
Release of the full Mueller report would not only tell us what we need to know about Trump. It might also tell us what we need to know about Democrats and the intelligence community. It certainly would tell us if Mueller has done his job thoroughly.
âCollusionâ was an unfounded conspiracy theory peddled by a party and a news media who couldnât handle the fact they had lost the 2016 election to a vulgar reality television star. So how did the bogus story arise that Trump was cheek by jowl with Vladimir Putin in Russiaâs meddling? It is laughably absurd to suggest that this massive investigation was spurred by Trumpâs joking request that Putin produce the emails Hillary Clinton had hidden from federal authorities.
Did the investigation arise from a fantasy memo that was part of Clinton’s campaign propaganda and which was financed by Democratic lawyers? The âdossier,â concocted by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, was so far-fetched that not one of its substantive claims has been verified, and much has been proven false. Were its flimsy claims believed as much by senior FBI officials and other security services as they were by news media organizations panting to accept any calumny against their hated president?
The public deserves to know how the collusion story was born. Was it screw-up or conspiracy?
Let’s get the full story.
