The Mueller Report – “Declassified”: Aye, “the Ides of March are Come” and Gone

“Director Mueller and future FBI directors, if the trend of politicization continues, must demonstrate courage and independence in conducting politically sensitive investigations. . . It is left up to the Department of Justice and its principal investigative agency, the FBI, to ensure that such investigations will occur. . . The very future of the criminal justice system depends on it.” – I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI*

Listening to the House and Senate debate the Special Counsel Robert Mueller Report brings to mind William Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar. Like a character in the play forewarns Caesar, some Congressional members forewarn of impeachment. Such warnings may be considered theatrics. Why? Accusations of the U.S. President’s complicity in election interference, among other allegations, appear to be nothing short of a grand ole spectacle.

Some see the alleged election interference as an attack on the country. Interesting use of words; September 11, 2001 was the last time the U.S. was attacked. In fact, “in November 2002 the United States Congress and President George W. Bush established by law the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission.” I do not recall the impetus of a full disclosure then?

Yet, access to the “full” Mueller Report by Congress continues to be debated. It seems to me such a request is likely to go on deaf ears in the general public as they have lost trust in their government or are inundated with issues hitting close to home: economy, health, housing, education, infrastructure, etc. Like the authorized edition of “The 9/11 Commission Report”, the Mueller Report may follow suit.  

Election Interference and Security

President Trump appears to have successfully abated the accusations of election interference. Such triumph brings to mind my paper, “State of the Union: The President, “The Big Four,” and The Fox and the Lion.” Referencing Machiavelli, I argued that by all appearances, President Trump has protected himself from traps and defended himself from wolves. Will he persevere? We shall see.

The claims of detractors of the President need to be deliberated on to be formally repudiated by the independent counsel’s findings. To be sure, one needs to consider the reports of technological advances and cybersecurity competition arising from Russia, China, and non-state actors. But as critics have set their sights specifically on Russia, an image came to mind where the fox and the lion are joined by the bear.

If one accepts the argument that Russia ‘interfered”, then one needs to accept the humiliating fact that with all the U.S. technological advances and enormous defense spending, the U.S. continues to “miss the mark.” In a hearing on Russian Foreign Policy, Sen. Mark Warner stated “we should have seen this coming.” So while the President may have eluded traps and fought off wolves, by the time the U.S. saw the Russians coming, like the bear, it was too late. Or, did the U.S. see the Russians coming?

In 2009 “ the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the military’s R&D arm, issued a Social Media in Strategic Communication proposal that called for $42 million to go toward better social networking analytics. The idea is to track the spread of ideas on networks such as Facebook, find people participating in ‘persuasion campaigns,’ and develop countermeasures.”

Yes, DARPA was apparently engaging in preemptive if not preventive measures on what is now being called “election interference” during the first term of the Obama Administration. Mr. Obama, it appears those interfering didn’t “cut it out.” But, neither did the U.S. in conducting surveillance.

Recall Snowden’s allegations of the U.S. conducting surveillance on other countries. Then there are those who argue that the U.S. has for years interfered in government elections and selection of party leaders. Looks like the hunter become the prey.

Referencing Jacques Ellul, the author of the 1964 book “The Technological Society,” John Wilkinson, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions notes, “Ellul holds the Americans to be the most conformist people in the world, but in fairness it must be objected that, in his own analysis, the Soviets seem better to deserve this dubious honor since they have made even politics into a technique.”  I find Ellul’s words blunt and accurate, albeit they were referencing the U.S.S.R, not The Russian Federation.   

Election Security has been repeatedly discussed since the 2016 election. Yet, last month, it was concluded by members in Congress actual hacking into systems did not occur, but a dispersement of misinformation. If one agrees with this assertion, then the responsibility points to social media. Why?

As an open and free system, networks facilitate a platform by which users freely engage in both dispersing and receiving information. It seems to me that it is not incumbent of these networks, as it has not been for traditional media, to regulate “free speech”, nor is it feasible given their scale. This thinking is not popular with those in government who are unable to face the fact that their party lost an election on account of their overconfidence and lack of strategic campaigning and planning.  My response: Failure to plan on your part does not constitute a crisis and regulation on the part of the social networks.

Adherents of regulation are obviously overwhelmed with the magnitude of securing elections, specifically 2020. Wilkinson, referring to Ellul, “The Americans, apart from technicizing the electoral process, have left at least the sphere of politics to the operations of amateurish bunglers and have thereby preserved a modicum of humanity.” I understand Ellul to mean that unlike the use of technology in the electoral process, people, with all their flaws, engage in the political arena devoid of machinery.  Ellul is gracious, but as a consequence, sometimes human engagement naturally leads to human error.

Lack of Trust in Washington and the Media

People may remember Joseph A. Califano, Jr., as he writes in his book, “as a McNamara whiz kid, an LBJ assistant, an architect of the Great Society, the Washington Post lawyer during Watergate, the originator of the anti-smoking campaign, the founder of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. . .” In my work with the government and my graduate studies, I came to know Mr. Califano as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, a critical role in need of someone of Mr. Califano’s stature. I find Mr. Califano inspiring and someone who made a “few waves.”

Speaking of his experience working during President Lyndon B. Johnson’s term in office, Califano comments on his “conversations with so many of the key players” in Washington concluding that “despite all our political, professional, and personal jockeying and ambitions, we trusted each other.”** Sir, regrettably, that Washington is no more.

The media in general has made a mockery of politics and reporting. Network executives have supplanted the art of good reporting with loathsome writing conducive of alley gossip where mindless minds want to know. Fortunately, there are some who take pride in the art of good reporting, valuing a time when as Califano notes, “Good reporters took the Constitution’s words to heart, then ran with them to expand that freedom.”** People, good reporters are out there, you just need to make the effort to find them.

Mueller’s Findings?

What will the Mueller Report disclose from his ultimate findings? I think given past investigations, the question to ask is: Did Mueller conduct an independent and aggressive investigation? My sentiments are aligned with someone who I think is an authority on the matter of investigations and Robert Mueller, I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI.

In his past observations of Mueller, the FBI, and an “an increasingly politicized Department of Justice”, Smith writes:

“At some point, if it hasn’t already occurred, there will be a need to conduct an aggressive investigation that is also politically sensitive. The true test for Mueller will be his courage to do so and whether he has the independence…to aggressively and thoroughly conduct an investigation that may have adverse political impact. I am not especially optimistic that will occur.” – I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI*

*I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI statements in this paper are from his 2004 book Inside, A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI. Smith’s statements here are not meant to reflect the 2017-Present Special Counsel Robert Mueller Investigation.

 **Joseph A. Califano, Jr. statements in this paper are from his 2004 book Inside, A Public and Private Life. Califano’s statements here are not meant to reflect present-day politicians in Washington or those currently reporting for the media.