Andrew C. McCarthy:
The rationale for Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel is that Russia conducted a cyberespionage attack — hacking — to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign, and that the Trump campaign may somehow have “colluded” in this offense. Mueller has been at this for six months, and the FBI for a year before that. So isn’t it about time we asked: Could Mueller prove that Russia did it?
Forget Trump. What about Russia?
We have paid too much attention to the so-called collusion component of the probe — speculation about Trump-campaign coordination in Russia’s perfidy. There appears to be no proof of that sort of collusion. Because it has been our focus, though, Mueller has gotten a free pass on a defect that would be fatal to any related prosecution theory: He cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia is guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee and prominent Democrats.
This doesn’t mean it didn’t happen — like the U.S. intelligence agencies, I’m assuming it did, and that Russia should continue to be the subject of intense government counterintelligence efforts. The point is that Mueller can’t prove it in court, which is the only thing for which a prosecutor is needed. If he can’t establish to the required standard of proof that Russia conducted an espionage attack on the election, it is impossible to prove that anyone conspired with Russia to do so. There is no criminal case.
Plainly, that is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to appease Democrats angered over former FBI director James Comey’s firing in May, appointed a special counsel without specifying any crimes that the Justice Department is purportedly too conflicted to investigate (as the pertinent regulations require). This infirmity was papered over by calling the probe a “counterintelligence” investigation — which is not a criminal investigation but an information-gathering exercise to defend the nation against foreign threats to American interests.
Rosenstein did not identify a crime because he did not have one. There are two reasons for this, but we have focused myopically on the wrong one: the fact that contacts between Trump associates and the Russian regime do not prove they conspired together in an espionage scheme. That simply shows that Mueller does not have a case. The more basic problem is that he cannot have a case. Russia’s espionage operation cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so it will never be possible to prove the Trump campaign colluded in it.
Let’s concede that there is some evidence — not much, but some — of contacts between Trump associates and operatives of the Russian regime. On its face, this is not incriminating — no more than the fact of contacts between the Clinton camp and the Russian regime. What would make the Trump-Russia contacts criminal would be indications that they facilitated Russia’s cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election.
This raises the question: What is the proof that Russia conducted a cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election? Here we get to the critical distinction between counterintelligence and criminal investigations — a distinction I have been harping on since before Mueller’s appointment.
The government, the media, and most of the public accept the premise that Russia interfered in the election. But not because this assertion has been proved in court. Instead, it is based on an intelligence judgment by three agencies, the FBI, CIA and NSA, announced under the auspices of a fourth, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
All four agencies were run by Obama appointees. The Obama administration had a history of politicizing intelligence to serve administration narratives, and the intelligence judgment in question cannot be divorced from politics because it was announced just as Obama’s party was fashioning a narrative that Russian espionage had stolen the election from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, it is not my purpose here to make a partisan argument. The point is to consider the nature of intelligence judgments — to contrast them with courtroom findings. This dichotomy does depend on which party is running the executive branch.
The objective of a criminal investigation is a prosecution, not a national-security judgment. In a prosecution, each essential element of the offense charged must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is virtually certain that Mueller could never establish, to this exacting standard of proof, that Russia is guilty of cyberespionage — at least in the absence of an accomplice witness involved in the hacking, which he apparently does not have despite the government’s 18 months of investigative effort.
The intelligence agencies may have high confidence in their judgment about Russian espionage. But that does not mean this judgment could ever be proved in a criminal prosecution. In fact, the intelligence agencies’ own January 6 report on “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Presidential Election” flatly states: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” (Report, p. 13, Annex B, explaining “Estimative Language.”)
Let that sink in.
A comparison is in order: If a prosecutor presenting an indictment were to say, “This allegation is not intended to imply that we have proof that shows the allegation to be a fact,” the jury would say, “Not guilty.” Indeed, the judge would dismiss the case before it ever got to jury deliberations.
Still, if you think about what intelligence agencies are for, their humility about the uncertainty of their judgments makes sense. They are protecting national security. When American lives are at stake, we do not wait to take action until the threats against us can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We make judgments, as the agencies’ Russia report admits, based on sources of information and analytic reasoning.
The information on which these judgments are based is often fragmentary and so highly sensitive — e.g., covert agents who would be killed if revealed — that it cannot be exposed publicly without compromising top-secret intelligence operations, which would endanger the nation. The analytic reasoning gives us not courtroom proof of fact but the intelligence agencies’ perceptions of probability. Intel analysts are highly trained and expert in their field; nevertheless, their conclusions are often highly debatable or wrong — which is to be expected: The information inputs are of varying quality, so the best output they can give you is often mere probability.
Prosecutors are not in the probability biz. They are not directly responsible for national security, even if their cases promote it. The prosecutor’s remit is to prove facts to a near certainty because the result of a prosecution is the removal of fundamental freedoms: liberty, property, and in a capital case, even life. This is why evidentiary rules suppress evidence that fails the tests of authenticity and reliability (while intelligence analysts can factor such evidence in, so long as they account for its suspect nature). It is also why the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is imposed in criminal cases — more demanding than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in civil cases and the “probable cause” standard that applies to arrests or search warrants, both of which are themselves much more demanding than the supposition that frequently supports intelligence judgments.
The agencies’ Russia report informs us from the get-go that the full extent of their knowledge and the bases for their assessments cannot be demonstrated publicly because “the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.”
Mueller thus can’t prove what the agencies claim to know. But this limitation is not the half of it.
The most critical physical evidence of Russian cyberespionage is the DNC server system alleged to have been hacked. Inexplicably (given how central the server system is to the controversy that has roiled the nation for a year), the Justice Department never compelled the surrender of this server system to the government so the FBI could conduct a forensic examination. Instead, for this essential analysis, we are expected to rely on CrowdStrike, a private DNC contractor.
Think about that: We’re to expect a jury in a criminal trial would simply accept non-law-enforcement conclusions paid for by the DNC, under circumstances in which (a) the DNC is invested in the storyline that Russia is the culprit in its effort to steal the election from Mrs. Clinton; (b) the DNC declined requests by the government to surrender its server system for FBI examination; and (c) the incumbent Democratic administration’s Justice Department unaccountably refrained from demanding — by grand jury subpoena or search warrant — that the DNC’s server system be turned over to the FBI.
Just end the entire sham.
So the goal is not to find the truth but to find an excuse to remove Trump… because he defeated Hillary.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: They are recycling the sexual accusations against Trump, they have nothing new just keep trying old wornout tricks. He is nutz, he is hitler, hes a pig be kind rewind. I can see visions of Hillary taping her soaps on a Beta Max.
@kitt: Yes, the attack on Moore with false accusations has failed, Russian collusion has failed, Colagate will fail, the media is cratering, so time to roll out the disappearing accusers of sexual abuse by Trump, as predicted.
@kitt: I’m sure y’all agree with Roy that this was a better country when we embraced slavery and woman couldn’t vote. Too late now but we can still lock up them homosexuals and baby killers.
Bill Trump is an admitted sexual abuser–SAID SO on his buddy Howard Stern’s show–more than once. Hell he’s proud of it–boys will be boys ya know.
Kitt’s got no problem with it—why should other women?
Bill and Kitt—where’s the 3RD Trumpeteer RT?
@rich wheeler: Maybe your return will bring RT out .
You are right Rich I could not care less about women who didnt get therapy years ago with 40 year old accusations, or any of Trumps conquests of women who throw themselves at a guy that has bucks, clean out of give a Fs.
Gays dont care, dont feel one way or the other about them, except wouldnt leave a male gay unsupervised with a teen boy, ever.
http://bit.ly/2BDHpFn Really want to talk about the abortion industry, or are you just trying ANOTHER worn out liberal card?
You shouldnt care about who is President you voted for someone that had 0 chance of winning, you have no skin in the game.
Can you see that there is an impeach Trump agenda with liberals the dont care about the reason just impeach. Have you come up with anything he has done while in office that would warrant sedition?
No, it’s much better now that Democrats don’t control the South. Republicans have gotten rid of that, but Democrats are trying hard to bring it back in vogue. Doug Jones feels running racist and race-baiting ads is his chance for success.
No, he isn’t and no, he didn’t. Besides, even if he was, why would you worry about it? You liberals LOVE sex abusers. You vote them into office and keep them there.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: The liberals dont see that slavery is still in effect, the cotton fields have been swapped for the voting booth.
Slave quarters swapped for ghettos and low income housing. Their form of racism is so much worse. Mental chains and financial whips, poor education and twisted history.
Women who refuse to get into the feminist hooptiemobile must be degraded, then I look at how their “women” behave and happily take a pass.
Moore’s wife “Well one of our attorneys is a Jew.” Stand by on their banker.
His election would be a gift to the Dems.
Since they cannot present a viable candidate or a policy that benefits the citizens, they have to take what they can get. They certainly don’t have a record of success to brag about.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: He got beat by a better candidate and a better man —-Repubs got lucky–he would have been a nightmare for them and a liability in 2018.
Sure, anyone that supports aborting a baby up to the time it is born can’t be all bad, can they?
Democrats found a winning tactic. They will abuse it to its fullest.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Stop whining Bill.
@RICH WHEELER: Hey, it ain’t me crying about losing a completely legitimate and legal election, claiming Russian interference. I’ll leave the whining to you liberal whiners.
So, you approve of partial birth abortion and abortion at the time of birth? Wow.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: They cant prove Russian anything, the FBI destoyed all the laptops of Hillabeasts accomplices after giving everyone involved immunity…excuse me were those laptops government property therefore taxpayers laptops? We may never know as the accounting at the State Dept loses and improperly keeps financial records, not as bad as the Pentagon their book-keeping records for the last 10 years shows losses that could pay off the National Debt, like Hilldabeasts emails poof gone. It didnt start with Obamas admin.
It reaches back way back I wonder why the Bushs are now ok with the Progressives.
If Trump can just get accounting in All the ABC departments clean our debt might be paid off in his First 4 years.
I guess we can defund and disband GAO they are useless.
Now we find Schumer knocked up a high school cheerleader, paid for abortions and then ditched her so she committed suicide. Unconfirmed accusations, but what does that matter? Only the accusations matter.
Schumer should resign and turn himself over to the police in Texas, where rampant liberalism has not yet overtaken true justice.
Interesting leaks https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/13/fusion-gps-files-court-complaint-about-news-leaks/
She wasn’t a long term secretary or in the mail room. She may have has access to the Trump “wiretap info”.
@Kitt: Oh…. I’m sure it’s nothing.