(Bloomberg Opinion) -- When former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will have an opportunity to do what his detailed, 448-page report on Russia’s sabotage of the 2016 election largely failed to accomplish: render the results of his investigation comprehensible to the American public.
The failure was not Mueller’s alone. U.S. Attorney General William Barr preempted the report and distorted its findings. Mueller, who made no secret of his desire to avoid testifying, has an obligation to set the record straight. And Congress has an obligation to see that he does.
To that end, three main areas call for clarification: procedural issues, substantive findings, and lessons for the future.
The scope of Mueller’s investigation remains, even now, puzzlingly vague. For example, the report says little about the president’s finances. This is strange, bearing in mind that Trump was pursuing a real estate deal in Moscow requiring Kremlin approval through much of the 2016 campaign, while repeatedly claiming that he had no financial interests or “deals that could happen” in Russia. Therefore:
- Were Trump’s finances off-limits in the investigation? If so, who made that decision and why?
Though Mueller’s inquiries began as a hybrid of a criminal investigation and a counterintelligence investigation, the report deals with criminal matters only. In addition, more than a dozen investigations were passed to other federal offices. So:
- What happened to the related counterintelligence investigation? Is it still underway? When will the country be told what was found?
- How many of the investigations passed to other offices involve the president?
- Is the report to be seen as final and comprehensive — or did the destruction of evidence and other forms of obstruction (including political pressure) make any such closure impossible?
Turning to the findings, many legal experts, including former federal prosecutors, concluded from the evidence Mueller set out that the president had obstructed justice and that the report amounts to a referral to Congress to impeach the president. Yet nowhere does the report simply say this. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” is damning, to be sure — but maddeningly unclear. Hence:
- You say you lacked sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with “conspiracy” with Russian agents. Were there nevertheless clear instances of coordination, or collusion, between the campaign and Russian operatives?
- Is there a plausible explanation for the president’s conduct, once the investigation began, that does not involve obstruction of justice?
- The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Would the evidence, in your view, otherwise merit a criminal indictment?
When Mueller was director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he warned of “iron triangles” consisting of international organized criminals, corrupt government officials and business leaders seeking to “manipulate those at the highest levels of government.” That sounds prescient — and warrants two more questions.
- Have the forces you once described succeeded in manipulating “those at the highest levels” of our government?
- What can be done to prevent such manipulation now and in the future?
Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.