OPINION:
Most of us have vivid memories from September 11, 2001. Many remember where they were, who they were with and the feelings they had as they watched the twin towers fall in New York City. I remember searching the various news outlets all that day looking for fresh and accurate information, eventually settling on Shepherd Smith’s reporting on Fox News. The reason I opted to watch Shep was that unlike others who were wildly speculating about what was happening with little or no evidence to back up their claims and fears, Smith broke things down into two very simple categories. 1. Here’s what we know and 2. Here’s what we don’t know. On a very emotional and confusing day Shep Smith kept it factual.
Fast forward to March of 2019 and special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Trump and allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Emotions are running high on both sides of the political fence and the hyperbole from each party is difficult to stomach. In an effort to emulate the work of Shep Smith back on that dark day in September of 2001, allow me to share what we do know and what we don’t know about the Mueller report.
WHAT WE KNOW
The special counsel’s work took 675 days. His team consisted of 19 attorneys, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The team issued 2,800 subpoenas. They interviewed 500 individual witnesses and obtained nearly 500 search warrants, including the offices, files and computer records of Mr. Trump’s former personal attorney. The office of the special counsel got more than 230 orders for communications records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers and made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence. We know President Trump answered Mr. Mueller’s questions in writing.
We know the special counsel’s work was not cheap. Through September of 2018, the investigation had cost in excess of $25 million. We know separately the House Intelligence and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary held 28 hearings and issued three related reports. Grand total of nearly $42 million.
We know the mainstream media was obsessed with the story. According to the Media Research Center, between Mr. Trump’s inauguration and the March 21, 2019, evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS spent a combined 2,284 minutes (over 38 hours) on the Mueller investigation. In 2019, their coverage was 92 percent negative against President Trump.
We know it has been the No. 1 issue in Americans for the duration of the investigation. The social-media analytics company NewsWhip says that since May 2017 there have been 533,074 web articles published about Russia and Trump/Mueller. These articles have generated a whopping 245 million interactions, including likes, comments and shares on Twitter and Facebook.
We know that the special counsel found no evidence of Mr. Trump or the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians. We know this because the Attorney General of the United States William Barr told us so after he reviewed the special counsel report. One can be quite sure that if that information was contrary to the contents of the report, someone from Team Mueller would have spoken up.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
Former CIA Director John Brennan spoke on more than one occasion on cable news networks of having “first hand knowledge” of evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. One would assume a former CIA director might have intel most of the rest of us don’t. We don’t know what that alleged evidence was, what the source of it was or why the Mueller team found none of it in their exhaustive search. We do know a red-faced Brennan has acknowledged that despite his previous surety, he must have received some “bad intelligence.”
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, before, during and after the special counsel investigation has repeated some variation of “with all the evidence we already know of” in the Trump/Russia collusion case over and over. Even after the attorney general provided his initial summary this past weekend Ms. Waters again referenced all the evidence we already know of. We don’t know what alleged evidence she is referring to nor why the special counsel found none of it.
Congressman Adam Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. As such he has access to information most Americans cannot reach. Mr. Schiff has spent nearly two years talking about the “mountains of evidence” of collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russians. We don’t know what the alleged evidence he referenced was nor why the special counsel failed to find any of it.
Mr. Schiff also believes that despite the two years, 19 attorneys, 40 FBI agents and countless others that worked on the special counsel report costing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that Congress must investigate the matter further. We don’t know why he believes they are likely to find a different outcome than the special counsel.
MSNBC news personality Chris Matthews complained on-air shortly after the attorney general received the Mueller report and it became apparent there was no wrong-doing on the part of President Trump. Mr. Matthews wanted to know “How could they let him (Trump) get away with this?” We don’t know what Mr. Matthews meant by “this” or what law he believes “this” violated.
MORE THAT WE DO KNOW
We know one 2016 presidential campaign did take information from the Russians, paid for it and attempted to use it to impact the outcome of the election. When that failed they used it to impact the presidency itself. We know that was the Hillary Clinton campaign.
We know one 2016 presidential campaign chairman had an existing relationship with the Russians and conducted business with them that netted him tens of millions of dollars. We know that was John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
We know one U.S. president promised Vladimir Putin he would have more flexibility, more room to maneuver after his election. We know that was President Obama.
CONCLUSIONS
All of the information above breaks down what we know and what we don’t. You may make your own conclusions from that information.
In the meantime, Attorney General William Barr has promised a more comprehensive look at the report and hopes to scrub it of parts that are prohibited by law from being made public, then release all that remains. House and Senate Democrats have demanded it be released in its entirety despite knowing the law doesn’t allow this, which means no matter what Mr. Barr eventually makes public they will feign dissatisfaction.
Bottom line: Keep an eye out for all details as they become available, but don’t fall for the speculation and conjecture in the meantime. Each of us should make an effort to determine what you know, what you don’t know and react accordingly.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.