After listening to Trey Gowdy today, in an interview, I have to change my mind about the Mueller Report being released. As a political junkie, I really wanted to see it. I thought releasing it was a good idea. Now, I think releasing it is a really bad idea. This has nothing to do with the current President.
First, it is illegal to release a good portion of it. Grand jury testimony and classified information cannot be released, by law. It doesn't matter how much anyone, even powerful politicians, want to see it. Additionally, if Reps. Schiff or Nadler leak the information, which they will if they get it, they should go to prison.
Gowdy, a former prosecutor, said that any time an investigation is performed, the investigating body gives the information to the prosecutors. The prosecutors then determine whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In this country, every single person, no matter what, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, with evidence, in a court of law.
If no evidence, or insufficient evidence, is present to indict any individual for a crime, the investigation concludes and the person being investigated is not publicly smeared with the accusations that were not supported with enough evidence.
Think about that. The Mueller investigation has concluded and the investigation is not recommending any additional charges against anyone. So...... what would be the point of demanding its release? Simple....... to smear anyone included in the investigation publicly, including those not being charged with doing anything wrong. Doing this does not allow the accused to defend themselves or to present exonerating or exculpatory evidence, as would be done in a court room. It is fundamentally unfair to the accused.
Looking toward the future, this would set a terrible precedent. Any individual can be accused of any heinous crime by almost anyone. If the investigation concludes showing that it never occurred, using this precedent, the mere fact that the investigation occurred can be put in the public sphere. As Secretary Donovan once said, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" Just like newspaper retractions on page twenty after a phony headline on page one, there is no removing that stain entirely.
The implications of this in politics are enormous. Every candidate will have accusations thrown at them from opposition research and, despite being cleared, those accusations will be in the public arena. If the prosecutors conclude that there is no crime, there is absolutely no reason to nitpick over findings in the report. Nothing will change and the accused individuals lose their rights to defend themselves. No matter where you fall in the political spectrum, this should scare you.
Take any politician, at random... say, imaginary Animal House Senator Blutarski.... and he is accused of having sex with under-aged children. An investigation is completed and there is ZERO evidence that he ever did anything of the sort. Using this precedent, news reporters and opposition politicians can demand that the details of the investigation be made public and the media will report on "the investigation into Senator Blutarski having sex with kids" even though there isn't a shred of truth to it. The media will defend their partisan actions by saying, "We didn't accuse him. We are just reporting that there is an investigation." What will that do to Senator Blutarski's re-election hopes? He is smeared for life. That will then happen in EVERY campaign, on both sides.
Think that scenario is far-fetched? The FBI already did it to Senator Ted Stevens, in order to make him lose his re-election. That is one of the reasons the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. That is precisely why it was done. After the election was over and he barely lost, Stevens was exonerated, but the damage was done. Just a note, one of the people who was identified as committing prosecutorial misconduct in that case was Andrew Weissmann. Recognize that name? No? He was a prominent member of the Mueller investigation.
Therefore, as much as I really want to see that report, releasing it to the public, or to partisans in Congress, for that matter, is a very bad precedent to set.
As an aside, technically, this investigation was illegal to begin with. Both James Comey and Lisa Page have testified, under oath, that there was no evidence of a crime when the investigation began. Therefore, the appointment of the Special Counsel violated the very statute that created the office, because the statute specifically states that one is appointed to investigate a specified crime. There was no specified crime and thus there should have never legally been an appointment. The only crime that led to the appointment was committed by former FBI Director James Comey when he leaked classified information to the media. intentionally.
