Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation

Weissman rewrites history here and it isn’t pretty. Yes, the Mueller team of top-notch prosecutors unraveled many complexities of the Russian attack on the 2016 U.S. election and detailed it for the history books. Yes, they made it clear that there were many instances of suspicious conduct between members of the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) and Russian spies, intelligence officials/hackers, Assange and WikiiLeaks and others. It could all clearly be called “collusion” even if they didn’t meet the standard of saying they could charge a crime and get a conviction. Anyway, it’s crystal clear that Mueller was never going to prosecute a sitting president anyway. That’s why Vol. 2–brimming with at least 10 instances of probable criminal obstruction of justice–didn’t go anywhere either. (And I don’t believe Weissman that they thought punting to Congress was the answer. Republicans were Trump enablers, not his critics. As with the Ukraine impeachment, no Republicans would be removing Trump from office based on a referral to Congress.) Weissman is a tough prosecutor who took on Enron, as well as the members of the Gambino, Columbe and Genovese crime families—but wasn’t quite bold enough (with Mueller et al) to fully take on Donald Trump. In 2016, Russian intelligence officers hacked and stole Democratic emails. With the help of WikiLeaks—and apparently members of the Trump campaign—they weaponized them to successfully sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Much of this book –like the Mueller Report—lacks an emotional core toward its subject. The Russians are still here, still working to cheat for Trump, although iit seems no one wants to talk with the public about it. (See pp. 116-118 of Woodward’s book “Rage” for just one alarming interference with actual voting in Florida). If Chris Wray gets out a sentence or two to Congress, he quickly finds Trump tweeting about replacing him. The ability of Donald Trump to intimidate people who, unlike him, respect the law and the Constitution continues to be astonishing. What are they so afraid of? That’s the question I had reading Weissman’s book. (“Where the Law Ends, Tyranny Begins” is a quote from John Locke. If only the outrage and passion of this quote had informed this book..) Weissman wishes they’d done more—subpoenaed Trump perhaps. They didn’t subpoena Don Jr and Ivanka either because they were afraid Trump would get mad and shut them down. But mostly his criticism of Mueller, an icon to so many, is lip-service. At worst, he was “naive” when Barr, a personal friend, intercepted the report with his own misleading “summary” of it. Barr is the villain of the piece—not even Trump who also deserves to be. (Weissman does little to document the truly bizarre and disturbing tirades of a sitting president against those involved in this investigation.) Weissman corrects some of the President’s lying (for example, about Strzok and Page, who disliked Trump but never leaked to the press about the investigation. It was only Clinton who was hurt by the FBI–McCabe’s leak about the Clinton Foundation and Comey’s mishandling of her email investigation–twice.) He takes some of the halo off of Comey Trump always fails to mention that nothing came out about his campaign members being investigated until after the election was over. Considering the incredible story they uncovered—probably the greatest espionage coup in history—it is a rather lackluster read. (And why no indictment of Manafort for conspiracy? That investigation was Weissman’s job. Repeatedly giving campaign polling data to a Russian spy wasn’t conspiratorial enough? With Russians weaponizing social media with micro-targeting? The Trump Tower meeting with a representative from the Russian government promising to “help” Trump win wasn’t enough? Not questioning Veselnetskaya and Don Jr and Ivanka was really inexcusable (the former may have been unavailable in Russia, but the Trumps weren’t questioned for fear of upsetting their father.) The recent Senate intelligence report said Trump lied to Mueller about not knowing Roger Stone was an intermediary to WikiLeaks. (Very obvious from Bannon and Gates,, too.) And they referred Kushner, Don Jr. and Bannon to the DOJ for investigation of lying under oath. More potential consequences than the Mueller team gave them. And Mueller allowed Trump to not only answer questions in writing (with lawyers) but to ignore most of them. He answered -some- of the written questions about the campaign. And refused to answer ANY questions about the transition or his presidency. Even then, per the Senate report, he lied to them about Stone. But they let him refuse to answer anything he didn’t want to answer (most of it). What were these Mueller team prosecutors so afraid of? Weissman doesn’t mention the worst thing Mueller did, the greatest failure of all. Yes, Rosenstein prohibited them from following the money to see if Trump was compromised, and shut down the investigation into that that McCabe had (courageously imo) opened. And, yes, Barr sabotaged them and lied to the public about their conclusions before they could see the real report. But Mueller had a second chance to let Americans know what they had really found when he appeared in Congress. By then, there was no fear of being fired. Nothing but deference to the DOJ and President to prevent Mueller from laying out the facts of what they had found. Instead of educating the public, Mueller refused to answer Democrats’ questions. “If it’s in the report, I concur,” he would say, over and over. He was willing to talk about the Russians, but not about the Trump campaign or Trump himself and how he repeatedly obstructed the investigation. Mueller could have laid it all on camera and correct Barr-Trump for repeatedly lying about it. But he refused to do so. He wouldn’t even read excerpts from the report on camera when asked. .No wonder the following day, Trump called Ukraine and strong-armed the president to (1) announce a (false) investigation of Joe Biden and (2) announce that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered iin 2016–and had done it for Clinton, not Trump.. In this way, Trump could cheat to win again– could attack a political opponent and also exonerate both himself and Putin for sabotaging Clinton’s campaign. (Weissman, bizarrely, says Trump wanted Ukraine to say they had interfered in 2016 for TRUMP. Not true, and it doesn’t even make sense. Trump told the Ukrainian president (Zelensky) to say that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the U.S. election for HILLARY CLINTON. That it hadn’t really been Putin sabotaging the Clinton campaign in order to help Trump. As usual, Trump was defending and protecting Putin, in order to falsely exonerate him–and, of course, to exonerate himself from encouraging and “welcoming” Putin for cheating on Trump’s behalf. Trump never let up on lying about what happened in the 2016 election and calling all the evidence about connections between hiis campaign and Russians/WikiLeaks “a hoax” and a “witchhunt”. He even, bizarrely, would accuse Obama, Biden, McCabe, Comey and others of “treason” Mueller could have spoken out and told the public the truth about Trump and Russia, but he failed to do it. Was he afraid of destabilizing the presidency? Subservient to authority or the GOP? The opportunity to be a truth-teller was there, when he went to Congress, and in that moment, Mueller failed his country.)) Weissman is sorry that they didn’t try harder to let Americans know that the president probably illegally obstructed the investigation at least 10 times. (Side note: Volume 2 was easier to read than Vol 1. But constantly referring to “the president” and never “Trump” gave it an unnecessarily deferential tone that weakened the criticism of the conduct being described. Why not write it like history, hold Trump accountable by actually using his name?) Weissman has his own chance to summarize their work here, and he doesn’t take it either. I know it was all in the report (448 pages) but a couple of summary pages would help people who he knows are never going to read it. It’s what Mueller also could have done in Congress—to even greater effect—but refused to. Weissman seems to want the responsibility to lie with Barr. But they all seem so intimidated and inhibited by Trump. It makes you wonder: What if they hadn’t been? What if they did subpoena…indict…be fired… or have a court fight? Couldn’t all of that have educated the public, perhaps outraged them as well? It could have made a stand for justice, at least, a stand against corruption, cheating with an adversary and coverup from Trump that seems so much worse than Watergate. Even if Trump continued his ongoing “Saturday Night Massacre”-style obstruction, by taking a stand, Mueller & Co could have given a lesson about the Constitution and the limits of presidential power for the history books. Instead, Mueller, Weissman & Co had taken on terrorists, crooked corporations like Enron and the toughest crime families in America, but were unable or unwilling to take on the president of the United States, even if it was someone like Donald Trump.

I know some commenters will say I’m lying, I can’t possibly be a Republican because I maintain that President Trump doesn’t exemplify my idea of a Republican President. I can still believe in my party while disagreeing with their current and frankly mind-boggling nominee. But Trump is president until we vote in someone else. That’s the blessing of a democracy. If we don’t like the guy who’s in office, we just wait a few years and try again. But even Trump – or any President – should be kept in check and limited to their assigned roles more readily by adopting reforms to ensure the rule of law is honored. And Andrew Weissmann, in this book, Where the Law Ends, has some logical and feasible suggestions. I think we need suggestions and ideas such as Weissmann’s, because our Presidents have started to stray and use their power in such a way that shows how close we are to stepping over the line and having our democracy destroyed. I’ve often wondered what it would take to break America down, and now I fear it could be a President’s irresponsible abuse of power, a pandemic, and foreign interference. However, I have hope, because this is America, and we’ve made it through hard times before and emerged stronger and more united. While Where the Law Ends is a weighty tome of a book, its most remarkable material is in the introduction and the epilogue. There Weissmann briefly summarizes the depth and breadth of the offenses and suggests reforms that would keep Presidents from overstepping their authority, disrespecting the rule of law, and abusing those who are performing their jobs by threatening them, firing them arbitrarily, or pardoning those who are being investigated. We shouldn’t have a President who has no loyalty, no respect, and no love for our country, our constitution, or our laws, flouting them with impunity, no matter their party. As for the middle of this book, it is a necessary and important factual recounting of the Mueller investigation. Necessary because we must record history and remember it accurately to learn from it and prevent it from recurring. I’d dock this book half a star because I found it so dry, and yet I must give it a star for completeness and a lack of hysterical drama. And Weissmann really demonstrates why the Mueller investigation was reported the way that it was, in its actual report and in Barr’s inaccurate summation. Because they tried so hard to keep the letter of the law, they were capsized by those who had no regard for the law at all, but only politics and power. Overall, this is an incredibly important account, but if you’re like me (I admit to ADD), use your favorite methods to keep your concentration so if you lag during the middle uber-factual recounting, you can keep focused and not lose yourself in the details. I have a feeling that Where the Law Ends is going to end up being required reading at universities. A few quotes: “As one small witness to history, I now know that the death of our democracy is possible. Fixing it is possible, too.” “When I read our report now, I see a document caught in the tension between our stated and de facto missions. In part, the report reads as a highly legalistic internal Justice Department document, akin to the scrupulously detailed prosecution memoranda prepared by prosecutors before bringing an indictment. At the same time, it is addressed to the American people—a public accounting of the facts we uncovered. Ultimately, the report does not serve either purpose adequately.” “First, a report that was truly addressed to the public would have been structured and written in a more straightforward manner, without the legal nomenclature of an internal prosecution memo. It would have drawn conclusions more clearly and explicitly, rather than risk overwhelming those conclusions with long, narrow disquisitions about the interpretation and application of the law. Such a report would have been more transparent about what we did not investigate, such as the president’s finances, and why, and would better emphasize which questions we were not able, or permitted, to sufficiently answer, such as the Department’s obstacles in seeking to interview and subpoena the president. And it would have proposed remedial steps to deal with problems like Russian interference, just as the 9/11 Commission Report addressed the threat of future terrorist attacks.” “We must first recognize that the power to pardon is conferred on the presidency—it is not a personal power of the man or woman who inhabits the office. As president, that person has a sworn duty to uphold the law fully and faithfully, not to undermine or invalidate it. And so, where a pardon is being used to protect the president personally, or to protect the president’s family, friends, or conspirators, it should not be seen as a valid exercise of that constitutional power.” “The special counsel’s report was a devastating recitation of how Russian government operatives had infiltrated our electoral process, a conclusion that we all believed to be our most important long-term finding and one that required immediate and decisive action by our political leaders. As to whether any member of the Trump campaign, or anyone else, conspired with the Russians, our report was mixed. We had found insufficient evidence to criminally charge a conspiracy with the Russians beyond a reasonable doubt—the high standard of proof required for any criminal charge and conviction. But the frequency and seriousness of interactions we uncovered between the campaign and the Russians were nevertheless chilling, with Trump campaign officials both receptive to, and soliciting, Russian assistance throughout the summer and fall of 2016.” “The facts here were no less appalling, although we had not indicted the president or, frustratingly, even taken the final leap of putting a label on what the facts added up to. Instead, our report set out numerous episodes that provided clear evidence against the president. However, we were forbidden from indicting him for these crimes, as we were employees of the Department of Justice and bound to follow an internal Department policy that no president could be indicted while in office—whether we agreed with that rule or not.”

The book reminded me of a line from the above song, “he wants it all and he wants it his way”. The book reads like a detective thriller and also reminded me of “All The President’s Men”. The author writes it chronologically and you get caught up with what’s going to happen next as he takes you through the events as they are happening. You feel as if you are in the room where it happened as the net closes around Trump. He responds by tweeting more and more hysterical attacks on anyone and everyone who doesn’t take his side. A.W. takes you through it all from the interviewing of the staff to carry out the Inquiry to the denouement. It’s quite exciting as you read the discovery of an email which is dynamite for the investigation, or someone being interviewed and confesses to something equally incredible. The investigation was split into 3 groups: Team R, Team M, and Team 600 ie. Russia, Manefort, and Obstruction. AW runs Team M and gets to realize that he is just a mini-me of Trump. In other words, somebody who believes that rules and the law do not apply to him and that there is nothing he wouldn’t do to enrich himself. AW had been extremely successful in prosecuting Enron and bringing down Mafia bosses. He explains the main tool he used was getting dirt on lower employees in the organization to flip on the top dogs. The more the team dug the more worried they became as they realized that the new President was totally lawless and there would be no limit that all the president’s men would go to for his interests. This is whether to protect him or increase his interests, usually financial. The information they got included private memos that Trump wrote which showed his frame of mind. They were full of bile, hostility, self-importance, self-gratification and total disregard for laws and norms unless they benefited him. The White House attorneys are supposed to work for the public, the WH as an institution, not the president personally. “We realized that the Oval Office was the Magic Kingdom- a reality-free zone, with just the ravings of our own Mad King George to deal with”. The main tool of getting people to flip was blocked more often than not due to the ravings of Trump. “It would become increasingly clear that Trump was wielding the presidential power of pardon as an enticement to deter witnesses from co-operating with our office, while simultaneously wielding his power to fire Mueller as a threat to keep us reined in”. This ever-present threat weakened them so much that they were too afraid to do many things they would normally do, such as subpoena the president. AW constantly compares how similar the work is to investigating a mafia organization in how it functions. Similar threats and pressures are there but it is much worse in this situation. A mafia boss could not close down his own investigation as could Trump. This meant, with the rules that they had to operate under, and Trump’s special powers, the Inquiry only did part of what they could have and should have done. In essence, AW states, the team got played by Attorney General Barr. They assumed that his personal friendship with Mueller would mean that Barr would play fair. The longer the investigation went on, they all realized that Barr was operating as Trump’s personal lawyer rather than on behalf of the people. In other words, he was getting money under false pretenses and was being totally immoral. The team that played by the rules lost, the team that played dirty won. The last chapter is spent analyzing Barr’s statements and explanations which prove that he is the second most dangerous man in America. AW also makes suggestions on how to ensure that the democracy is not ridden roughshod again by a lawless president only interested in himself. I write this as Trump is in hospital with Covid, the hoax as he declared originally. He said, “it will be gone by Easter”. Over 208,000 deaths later, and rising, even his most fanatical cult members now realize that it’s not just another variation of the flu. Due to his complete mismanagement of the epidemic from the start up to now many have died that should not have. The way he has treated the Ukraine has meant a greater number of Ukrainian deaths as a result, according to experts, by the Russian invasion. When the 63 million people voted for him in 2016, they did not realize that they were giving him a license to kill.

Lawyers are among the best writers in the English language. The satisfaction I enjoyed reading through Andrew Weissmann’s record of the Special Counsel’s trials, tribulations, successes and short falls is grounded in the perfection and precision of the language employed. Recognizing when a gerund functions as a noun and thus requires the possessive form of a qualifying pronoun, is one example. “Centred on”, rather than the sloppy “centred around”, is another. Small points for some perhaps, but a great pleasure for me as a writer and teacher of English. It made the reading of the text smooth and gratifying. The flow of the narrative, thus unencumbered by grammatical and syntactical errors, was greatly enhanced. The story itself is gripping and revelatory, fast-paced and persuasive, and not without its moments of side-splitting humour. Though a warrior after my own heart, Mr Weissmann is a gentleman par excellence, never failing to accord even the most desultory characters their due of humanity. A monumental, salutary and necessary contribution to the preserving of democracy in the troubled condition in which the United States of America currently finds itself.

This is a pricey hardback that I was looking forward to reading, but the poor binding is making it a challenge. The inner margins are a mere 18 mm wide, and the binding is very tight . The result is it’s a struggle to keep the book open enough to read it. By page 15 I was so irritated by the binding that I broke off to write this review. I feel the author has been badly treated by his publisher, Random House.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member