By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The DOJ’s inspector general has cautioned senators about the potential chilling effect on whistleblowing and witness cooperation if interview transcripts are released. This warning arrives as the Trump administration and its allies seek to scrutinize the FBI’s initial investigation into collusion. While a previous IG report found the investigation to be flawed but not biased against Trump, Republicans now aim to selectively use interview contents to criticize FBI personnel, potentially for financial gain.
Read the original article here
The release of transcripts from the Russia probe by a DOJ watchdog is creating significant ripples, potentially opening the floodgates for further scrutiny and discussion surrounding the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. This move, spurred by pressure from Republican senators, brings to light previously unseen details that are crucial for understanding the complexities of the inquiry.
It’s important to address the persistent narrative that the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” The facts emerging from the investigation and subsequent reports, including the Mueller report, strongly contradict this claim. There’s a distinct lack of credible evidence to support allegations of treason or a high-level conspiracy orchestrated against Donald Trump by figures like Obama or James Comey. These accusations often run counter to established intelligence findings and appear to be politically motivated rather than fact-based.
A point often overlooked in the “hoax” narrative is the FBI’s public announcement of its investigation into Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2016 election, while the Russia investigation remained largely under wraps. If a conspiracy against Trump were indeed in play, as some suggest, it would seem counterintuitive for the FBI to highlight an investigation into a rival candidate while simultaneously concealing one potentially damaging to Trump. This timing raises questions about the purported conspiracy.
One of the most significant takeaways from the Mueller investigation is that it did *not* exonerate Donald Trump. The oft-repeated phrase “no collusion” is largely a misleading, right-wing slogan popularized by Trump himself. Mueller’s team was not investigating “collusion” as a standalone concept, and the term appears infrequently in the report, and never in a context suggesting Trump or his campaign were absolved of wrongdoing.
Furthermore, both the Mueller probe and a Republican-led Senate panel reached a consensus: Russia actively engaged in “information warfare” and sought to interfere in the 2016 election. The objective was to benefit the Trump campaign and undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. This interference was not a passive observation; the Russians directly targeted American election systems.
Russian intelligence operations involved hacking organizations, employees, and volunteers connected to the Clinton campaign. Beyond direct attacks, Russia actively manipulated American voters and encouraged hackers to target Democratic computer networks. The scale of this operation was considerable, with the “Internet Research Agency” beginning its efforts as early as mid-2014, gathering information for an elaborate interference campaign.
By the close of 2016, Russian-generated fake social media accounts had reached millions of American voters. These accounts served a dual purpose: promoting Donald Trump and exacerbating divisions within the American electorate. The Mueller report meticulously details how this Russian interference campaign ensnared American political operatives, including individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
The report dedicates over 100 pages to detailing numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals. Evidence suggests Russian agents actively sought cooperation from the Trump campaign, even posing as American citizens. The report reveals that several individuals connected to the campaign provided false information to Mueller’s team and actively attempted to obstruct the investigation into these very contacts.
Specific instances highlight these connections. WikiLeaks, for example, directly communicated with Russian entities on Twitter, expressing interest in any “Hillary-related” information to be released promptly. This culminated in the release of tens of thousands of stolen emails and documents shortly before the Democratic National Convention, aimed at damaging Clinton’s campaign.
The roots of some of these connections trace back to 2013, when Trump’s Miss Universe Pageant took place in Moscow. It was during this event that the Trump family encountered Aras Agalarov, a Russian billionaire with close ties to Vladimir Putin, who owned the venue. Within months of this meeting, Don Jr. entered into a preliminary agreement with Agalarov’s company to develop a Trump Tower property in Moscow.
The decision by Trump to run for president in 2015 did not sever these emerging ties. The pursuit of the Moscow project continued, with Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, and developer Felix Sater spearheading the effort. Sater communicated to Cohen his belief that they could “engineer” Trump’s presidency with the backing of “all of Putin’s team.” The Moscow project thus emerged as a significant nexus for Russian contacts, one of about a dozen identified by Mueller.
The report also details specific individuals and their interactions. Campaign aide Carter Page met with Russians and delivered a speech in Russia. Michael Flynn, who later became National Security Advisor, had extensive contact with the Russian ambassador, including discussions about potentially softening sanctions. Similarly, then-Senator Jeff Sessions met with the Russian ambassador.
Further adding to the picture, campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with Russian intelligence. Campaign aide George Papadopoulos repeatedly met with a Russian intelligence agent who informed him of Russia’s possession of damaging information about Clinton. The infamous June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting also serves as a key point of contact. On the day of this meeting, which was pitched to Trump Jr. by Russians offering dirt on Clinton, he expressed his enthusiasm for the prospect.
The private reactions of President Trump to the appointment of a special counsel are also telling. On page 77 of Volume II of the Mueller report, it’s noted that Trump privately stated the appointment was “the end of his presidency.” These are not the words typically associated with an innocent individual facing scrutiny.
Furthermore, President Trump’s alleged attempts to undermine the investigation are documented. After a Washington Post report revealed he was under investigation for obstruction of justice, Trump reportedly instructed White House counsel Don McGahn to call acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing that Mueller had conflicts and should be removed. McGahn did not comply with this directive.
Mueller’s report details at least ten instances of alleged obstruction of justice by Trump. While a sitting president cannot be indicted, according to DOJ policy at the time, Mueller’s findings suggest these actions were intended to prevent further examination of the president’s and his campaign’s conduct. Specific passages, such as those on pages 89 and 97 of Volume II, highlight that substantial evidence indicated attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to investigations of the president’s behavior and intended to halt scrutiny of the campaign’s actions.
The investigation ultimately led to the indictment of 34 individuals. Several key figures from the Trump campaign pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, including Rick Gates and Michael Flynn. Roger Stone faced charges for obstructing justice and lying to Congress about his contacts with Russians and his involvement in the release of stolen documents.
Crucially, the “Steele Dossier” was not the genesis of Mueller’s findings. The investigation predated the dossier’s release and was initiated in response to two primary factors: Russia’s hacking of the DNC and emerging intelligence about Russian efforts to connect with the Trump campaign to acquire damaging information on Clinton.
Trump’s public statements, such as urging hackers to find missing emails during a 2016 press conference, are also noteworthy. Within hours of these remarks, Russian intelligence services reportedly targeted Clinton’s office for the first time.
For years, Trump has actively downplayed the severity of Russian cyberattacks and election interference, often aligning his views with Putin’s over those of U.S. intelligence agencies. The Mueller report itself stated that Trump’s campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
There have also been reports of his administration considering halting offensive cyber and information operations against Russia. The dismissal of the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, Timothy Haugh—a non-partisan appointee significant in overseeing cyber defense against Russian threats—further fueled concerns. Trump’s suggestion of a joint cybersecurity task force with Russia, despite Russia remaining a primary cyber threat, met with swift bipartisan backlash. The Republican party’s reluctance to address foreign election interference, often attributed to perceived political benefit from such meddling, adds another layer to this complex issue. These findings collectively suggest that the concerns surrounding foreign interference and campaign conduct were firmly rooted in substantial evidence, and that Democrats were justified in voicing and acting upon these concerns from the outset.