I was in my early 20s when five men were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. (So you’d think it would have beefed up its security by 2016, no?) Of course, when the break-in occurred, most of America was totally unaware of what had happened and what the political ramifications would be. It took time and the hard work of a healthy media to bring to light the criminal activities of the Nixon administration.
Before the internet and C-SPAN, we relied on the news media to keep us informed, via daily newspapers, weekly news magazines, broadcast evening news, and, most notably, PBS, which broadcast most of the Watergate hearings. Some in the media, like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, did a yeoman’s job; the rest at least reported fact as fact and fiction as fiction.
In addition, there was the plethora of books written about Watergate, beginning with All The President’s Men, The Imperial Presidency, The Final Days, and Blind Ambition. I often thought that the best of the books was written not by a journalist or a historian, but by Nixon himself. Or, rather, the publication of his words as transcribed and rushed into print by The Washington Post, with commentary by Post reporters, including Woodward and Bernstein.
Reading the conversations that Nixon surreptitiously recorded was fascinating. Much of it was boring, and some was confusing, the transcripts peppered with the words “inaudible” and “unintelligible,” as the reel-to-reel tape system was incapable of clearly recording the voices of those who were distant from the microphones hidden in the Oval Office, the Cabinet room, and even Nixon’s office in the EEOB. And of course, much of it was redacted with the notorious phrase “expletive deleted.” (I got a kick out of the Republicans who found President Obama in shirtsleeves to be disrespectful of the Oval Office, when Nixon’s speech was littered with expletives that needed to be deleted.)
The publication of The Presidential Transcripts, in May of 1974, helped to turn the tide on impeachment in the public square. We all had the opportunity to peek at the man behind the curtain. And what we saw was not pleasant. By August, Nixon was forced to release the final tape that
... recorded a discussion between Nixon and White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman. Told that the FBI's investigation was leading to Nixon's reelection campaign, Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell the FBI, "Don't go any further into this case, period."
That was it: Evidence that almost from day one Nixon played a role in the conspiracy to conceal White House involvement. The House Judiciary Committee had already approved three articles of impeachment. But the vote was partisan: Democrats firmly against Nixon, Republicans mostly in support. He could still hope for acquittal in the Senate.
With the release of the incriminating tape--the famous "smoking gun"--Nixon's Republican support in Congress vanished.
Four days later he resigned.
Today there is another source document available to the public that is as rich in insider information and as revealing as were the Nixon transcripts. The Mueller report, which few in Congress appear to have read, is available in hard copy, digital, and audio versions.
Just because the Congress hasn’t read it does not mean that, as Americans, we shouldn't. It is just as much our responsibility to read this report as it is theirs, since without an informed citizenry, our democracy will die anyway. This is a foundational document that says much about the nation that we are today. How it is received and acted upon will determine the nation that we become.
Frankly, reading 448 pages written by lawyers is a rather daunting prospect. So let’s do it as a community, as a group read, similar to those done by a book club. We can all read roughly a hundred pages a week, and then meet here on Sundays to discuss what we have read and what it means.
Consider our community as you would a workout buddy: someone to help clarify some of the more confusing issues and to encourage you when you get tired or frustrated or angry at what you have read.
The Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, aka the Mueller report, is available as a free PDF from the Department of Justice. That is the only copy I don’t have. Being somewhat nerdish, I downloaded The Washington Post’s digital edition as soon as it was released, as well as Audible’s audio version. Amazon has free digital and audio versions, as well as versions with various pundits introducing the report or commenting on them, for a price.
I usually prefer to read digital books, but this one almost demanded a highlighter and a pen to make margin notes, so I spent the 10 dollars on Amazon for the great big paperback, which is a facsimile reproduction of the PDF. It has plenty of room in the margins for notes and makes it easy to use the appendices. I strongly recommend it for serious students of government. Or policy nerds.
I always turn first to the back of any nonfiction book, to see if there are footnotes, bibliographies, or appendices. Included in the appendices of the Mueller report is a thorough glossary that contains the names of all of the major players, who they are, what they do, a listing of the entities and corporations that are mentioned in the report, and a list of the acronyms used. There are also Trump’s answers to the special counsel’s questions and a list of cases that Mueller’s office transferred, referred, or completed.
Appendix A contains a copy of the original order 3915-2017 that granted Robert Mueller the authority
to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
For those, like myself, who have not memorized the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 600.4 of Title 28 reads:
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
I added the emphasis above to highlight Mueller’s authority to pursue obstruction of justice charges. This should be followed by a reading of the Department of Justice’s policy contained within the memorandum A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, which states unequivocally that
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
So Robert Mueller could investigate trump under the authority granted by the acting attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, but the policy of the DOJ would not allow him to indict a sitting president. The memorandum was issued in 2000 and concludes with:
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
This all means that a special counsel can investigate a sitting president for criminal behavior in gaining or while occupying the Oval Office, but he cannot have a jury indict him. Which further means that the Department of Justice believes that it is okay for someone to commit a crime to win an election or to obstruct an investigation of such a crime, as long as he is the president. Makes no sense to me, but then, I am not a lawyer.
Let’s start next week with the Introduction to Volume I, the Executive Summary, and parts I through III of Volume I, which include the special counsel’s Investigation, the Russian “active measures” social media campaign, and Russian hacking and dumping operations.
Hope to see you all then.