The Forgotten Truths of the Mueller Report

A Starting Point for 'The Krasnov File" Here on Deeper Look

As a professional intelligence officer and investigator, I try to follow core principles. These include rigorous fact-checking, maintaining objectivity, scrutinizing sources, and distinguishing between credible intelligence and noise. I prioritize evidence over assumptions, patterns over anecdotes, and verifiable truths over convenient narratives. My goal is not just to collect information but to understand its context, implications, and potential biases.

As a corollary, I try to avoid falling into the trap of confirmation bias, accepting information at face value, or allowing emotions to override analytical rigor. I resist the lure of sensationalism, partisan spin, and unverified claims—because in intelligence and investigative work, being wrong can be far worse than being uncertain. For me, it’s okay to be uncertain, and it’s ONLY okay to be certain when the evidence is overwhelming.

I realize this may make me kind of quaint in today’s world of information warfare, where propaganda, misinformation, and half-truths dominate discourse. But I believe in these principles . That’s why I take a Deeper Look—to separate signal from noise and offer insight grounded in reality.

As our community knows, I’ve begun takin a “deeper look” at the long relationship between Trump and Russia. I know there are quite a few pundits who are convinced he is “Agent Krasnov” and I may join their ranks if full analysis leaves me confident that this is the truth. But I’m not there yet. I’m working through the evidence with an open mind. I’m sharing my journey because I believe a lot of us are in the same boat — what are we supposed to make of Trump’s recent actions in which it seems like he’s fully joined Team Putin andabandoned Team Free World? I don’t know the answer. I do know the process that will help me arrive at an answer, and I’m doing it now.

One thought I had was — The Mueller Report deserves a refresh. Here was a detailed, multi-million dollar investigation headed by a man who — until lately-was regarded as a paragaon of non-partisan virtue an professionalism. I know there has been an attempt to disredit him but honestly, he’s the real deal and his report is meaningful.

So - what were the key points in his report that are worth remembering? Here they are:

Russian Interference was “sweeping and systematic”

First, and most importantly, the report establishes: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” There were two components — the social media campaign and the hacking-and-release campaign. The Russian campaign began in 2014 as an effort to simply fan the flames of polarization and discord, but over time evolved into support of Trump.

The FBI Investigation into Russian interference and involvement with the Trump began with a report from a foreign government, not the Steele Dossier.

The investigation into the Trump campaign began in July 2016 based on a report from a “foreign government” about a meeting in May 2016 in which Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos told Professor George Mifsud that the Russian government had Hillary Clinton’s emails. This was before anyone in the US Government had seen the so-called “Steele Dossier.” The report states: “Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.”

The Trump Campaign had many links to the Russians.

The report documents over 100 actual meetings between Trump campaign officials and the Russians. That’s about 100 more than would be “normal” in any other campaign. That said, the context of this campaign was different — i.e. Trump was a businessman who had long ties to Russia, so some degree of contact might be understandable. But the number of meetings with Russians, and the number of people in Trump’s orbit who had meetings with Russians, and the degree to which those people tried to hide the meetings, was extraordinary.

The Russian Government and the Trump Campaign had the same goal — defeat Hillary Clinton and get Donald Trump elected.

The many meetings between Trump campaign personalities and Russian government represented took place within the context of shared objectives (to help Trump defeat Hillary) and a belief that Russia could help the Trump campaign achieve his objective. Time and again, in various ways, Trump officials signaled that Russian help was appreciated and desired.

For the Actions of the Trump Campaign to be chargeable as felony conspiracy, a “high bar” must be cleared.

The report reminds that “collusion” is not a crime — and thus the crimes that they were looking at were conspiracy, campaign finance violations, failure to register as a foreign agent, and lying to cover up unsavory contacts. The report makes the point that in all cases, the “bar” was high because of the way the laws are written. In particular the “scienter” element was a problem — scienter meaning prosecution would have to show that the actions were “knowing and willful.” There was concern that in many cases the individual in question did not know the law, and many of the laws require knowledge in order for intent to be proven — and without establishing intent, the prosecution would fail. For campaign finance violations, there was concern about the “thing of value” dimension to what was being offered — would it prove substantial enough to hold up in court as a felony? In all cases, Mueller was guided by Justice Department prosecution standards that require he have a “high probability” of success. Thus while there was overwhelming evidence of unsavory, inappropriate “collusion” — Mueller concluded that prosecution might fail not because unethical collusion didn’t take place — it did. But rather it might fail because the colluders either didn’t know the law well enough to meet the “knowing and willful” component, or covered their tracks well enough to make prosecution difficult.

The Inquiry Was Hampered by Deceitful Behavior by Many Trump Campaign Individuals

The inquiry did the best it could, but the report shows that the investigation was faced with repeated efforts by Trump and Trump allies to obfuscate and frustrate the investigation. In addition to lying (some of which resulted in prosecutions and some did not), individuals: “deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases , the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” All of that amounts to a big asterisk, that the investigation may not have gotten to the actual bottom of the situation.

In sum, Trump Campaign Officials cooperated with Russia toward a shared goal, but did not “coordinate or conspire” sufficiently to meet the standards used by DOJ in deciding to prosecute.

The report details the many contacts, the shared objectives, the deceitful behavior toward investigators, but in the end concludes that the high standard the DOJ uses for making prosecution decisions, no prosecution would have the high probability of success that the DOJ requires, and so no charges were brought. A key consideration was the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the charged individual “knowingly and willfully” violated a law about which they were knowledgable and aware. Mueller made he judgment that successful prosecution was, in essence, a 50-50 proposiion, and DOJ standards require a 90% probability of success. Hence, although the report documented a wide range of deceitful, inappropriate behavior, no charges were brought.

If the investigation had exonerated the President, it would say so. It doesn’t.

In one of the most widely quoted portions of the report, it makes clear that if the fact-finding had exonerated the President, the report would so state. It doesn’t. The full passage is: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ‘s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

My Comments on the Report

I realize this is a historical exercise and the situation today, in Marh 2025 is far advanced from where it was when the report was written. But it strikes me that there are forgotten truths here that need to be remembered, and so I’m glad I took the time to reread it.

It is hard to believe that a rational person could actually read the report and not conclude that it was undertaken fairly, without a partisan bias. We know that partisans, starting with the President himself, are claiming otherwise–but the report itself is an example of balance, probity, and sober analysis.

Unfortunately, for every person who actually has read the report, there were thousands who only heard about it, and who they heard about it from matters. Then Attorney General Barr officially presented the report to the public and in doing so he engaged in a highly partisan, intellectually dishonest presentation that utterly failed to convey what is actually in the report. No rational person could read the entire report and conclude that Attorney General Barr’s four page letter, or his press conference recitation, were a fair presentation of the contents of the report. . That’s really indisputable. He directly lied about what the report found about obstruction, claiming that Mueller was unable to reach a conclusion because the facts left him unable to do so, when it is clearly and unequivocally stated in the report that he never even attempted to reach a conclusion, but rather limited what he did based up on the OLC memo. Barr knew this and his misrepresentation is nothing short of breathtaking. It’s as if he didn’t care that people were going to read the report and see, clearly, that he had lied — because he knew that what he said would be what was reported on Fox News, etc, and it was what the President wanted, and that was what mattered. That is the calculation of a political operative.

The bottom line is that the report shows an absolutely irrefutable pattern of engagement between Trump and the Trump campaign and various players who were working on behalf of Vladimir Putin an Russia interests. There is no doubt that the Russian parties worked on behalf of Trump and Trump’s people welome their help.

Now as we delve back into the past let’s keep that much in mind, because what happened n the past is what helps us understand how the events of 2016 happened, and why.