Katie Benner's New York Times review of Jeffrey Toobin's latest book, “True Crimes and Misdemeanors," wherein the author explains why President Trump came out basically unscathed, despite the fact that, as he
writes, the president “never really pretended to be anything other than what he
was — a narcissistic scoundrel.” He rightly argues that the investigation was
an utter political failure.
Mueller ran a by-the-book, narrow inquiry and adhered to
Justice Department rules that bar comment about ongoing investigations. He
provided ample evidence that the president broke the law, but in the end he
would not clearly say as much. His equivocation provided the president room to
declare that Mueller found “no collusion and no obstruction.” Toobin says that
this half-truth and falsehood, respectively, were a rhetorical success because
“simplicity rarely loses to complexity in battles in the public square.”
Trump, bound by very little, used his pulpit to misrepresent
the investigation as an out-of-control witch hunt and the investigators as
partisan liars and leakers. Neither Mueller nor the Justice Department fought
back, which Toobin says let Trump publicly define the special counsel’s work.
Toobin’s narrative unfolds like a tragedy. Before and after
the tumult of the 2016 election, the Justice Department investigated the Trump
campaign for ties to Russia; once in office the president opposed their work.
As Trump pressured department officials to protect his associates, Mueller was
quietly tapped in May 2017 to serve as special counsel and take over the
investigation.
That Trump would eventually undermine Mueller seemed absurd
on its face. Their résumés paint them as nearly caricatures of a hero and a
villain: Mueller a decorated Vietnam War veteran and devoted civil servant who
led the F.B.I. in the aftermath of 9/11; Trump a dishonest businessman and
D-list reality show star who once described dodging sexually transmitted
diseases as his “personal Vietnam.” Simply presenting them side by side “is to
challenge the conventions of journalistic balance,” Toobin writes.
Toobin primarily relies on details from the Mueller report
and the public record to reconstruct the investigation, but his own reporting
yields striking new information, especially in the case against the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company that weaponized social
media to manipulate voters. It was Facebook itself that brought the special
counsel evidence that the Russian outfit had used the platform to help Trump.
Jeannie Rhee, the Mueller team member who built the case against the I.R.A. for
defrauding the United States, faced a quandary. The company hadn’t hacked
Facebook or committed a traditional cybercrime. In fact, it used the platform
as intended, sharing viral information that influenced users. Employed as
designed, Facebook had become the perfect weapon, but how did that violate
United States law?
That question foreshadowed one of the investigation’s
central dilemmas: What do you do when you uncover acts that don’t explicitly
violate the law but that clearly seem wrong?
Mueller’s prosecutors could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the Trump team coordinated with Russia, even though campaign associates
seemed aware that the Kremlin was interfering in ways that likely favored
them. Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, shared
polling data with an oligarch linked to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Donald Trump Jr. agreed to meet at Trump Tower with a lawyer who represented
Russian interests, after being told that he might obtain negative information
about Hillary Clinton. But neither of those facts led to charges.
The 2017 revelation about the I.R.A. was part of the special
counsel’s whirlwind first year. In the fall it unsealed a guilty plea from the
former campaign associate George Papadopoulos, who had lied to investigators. It indicted
Manafort for financial crimes related to his lobbying work for pro-Russian
interests in Ukraine. It then indicted the I.R.A. for interfering in the election,
as well as other Russian operatives for hacking the Democrats. And in November
it had what felt like an enormous breakthrough: Don McGahn, the White House counsel, told Mueller’s team that
Trump had demanded that he fire Mueller — the clearest evidence yet that the
president obstructed justice.
But at that point, the investigation stalled and never
regained momentum, in large part, Toobin says, because Mueller was overly
cautious. He chose not to probe Trump’s financial ties to Russia, examine his
personal finances or obtain his tax returns. Investigators tried other methods
to establish connections between Trump and Russia but the president’s
associates stymied efforts to penetrate Trump’s orbit.
Mueller didn’t subpoena Trump after he reneged on an
agreement to be interviewed at Camp David in January 2018 — which Trump saw as
a sign of weakness and Toobin as Mueller’s key misstep. Trump was further
emboldened in May, when Mueller’s deputies told the White House that they would
not indict the president, in deference to a Justice Department legal opinion on
the matter. Trump’s public attacks helped to end the bipartisan support that
Mueller initially enjoyed, and made it nearly impossible for Congress to use
his findings as the basis for oversight measures, or even impeachment, once
opinion about him broke along party lines.
Toobin’s absorbing, fast-paced narrative is anchored by
detailed scenes of chaos inside the Trump administration and meetings between
Trump’s and Mueller’s lawyers. But it provides no hard information about how
and why Mueller came to make his most significant and ill-fated decisions. As a
former prosecutor and legal analyst, Toobin can offer somewhat satisfying
educated guesses, but ultimately Mueller’s caution and restraint remain an
enigma.
What is clear is that the Mueller investigation ultimately
taught Trump that he could largely act with impunity. No one in his
administration, or in any other branch of government, stopped him from
attacking the Russia probe, dodging an interview with Mueller’s team and
dangling pardons before witnesses to keep them from cooperating with
investigators. He emerged from the two-year inquiry unbroken, unbowed and
emboldened. And before the ink was dry on the report, he embarked on an effort
to strong-arm Ukraine into announcing that it would investigate Joe Biden and
his son. It also taught the American people that our system of checks and
balances no longer works when Congress believes it should enable, rather than
oversee, the president.
The Mueller report has been eclipsed by a parade of fresh
crises, and its immediacy has faded. A whistle-blower complaint about Trump’s
dealings with Ukraine led to his impeachment this past winter. A pandemic has
resulted in over 150,000 American deaths and brought the economy to a
standstill. And several recent killings of unarmed Black people sparked a
summer of nationwide protests and a revived civil rights movement.
But Toobin’s larger argument is that Trump’s attacks on
democracy will grow only more extreme in the months to come. If he is right,
then “True Crimes and Misdemeanors” stands as a chilling preview of what to
expect should Trump win a second term, and also as a road map for all that
needs repair should he lose.
To read more CLICK HERE
Posts
