by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
While there are valid criticisms of Mueller’s investigation (my colleague Andy McCarthy has made a number of thoughtful critiques), the bottom-line results were impressive even before he delivered his final report. Thanks to his indictments, sentencing memoranda, and other documents, we gained a far more complete picture of the nature of Russian interference in the election, learned far more about actual and attempted contacts between Trump-campaign officials (and allies, such as Roger Stone) and Russians assets or operatives, and uncovered serious criminal wrongdoing by high-ranking members of Trump’s campaign team.
Not only did these findings and indictments render a valuable public service, but their very thoroughness enhanced the credibility of the vital conclusion that came next — that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
When we read the report — and given President Trump’s public support for its release, we’ll likely see it soon enough — we will almost certainly learn additional material facts about Russian actions, Trump’s conduct, and the conduct of his senior team. Members of Congress will be able to make their own judgments about obstruction of justice and likely critique or support Mueller’s conclusions about collusion, but we’ll be working with facts — not unsupported, anonymous allegations, not rapidly changing news reports, and not hysterical talking-head presuppositions.