“If It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!” -The duck test.  “If it looks like obstruction, acts like obstruction, or has the intention of obstruction, it’s obstruction!”  The Trump test

By Glen Reaux

The analysis of the Mueller Report in the form that is being submitted is not a total or completed submission and review of all of the information in the report.  Rather, Xplicit News has decided to when possible, avoid repeating any information that has become a part of the public domain due to the reporting of other news sources.  The Official Mueller Report Analyzed Trump is Guilty focuses on details that have not become common knowledge.  In doing so, we feel that when added to the information that you have already been exposed to from other news sources this analysis will offer to you a more complete and in-depth look into what is one of the most important events in American history.  These events, due to their magnitude, have consequences that impact our entire global community.  Its effects have permanently changed the geopolitical landscape and the manner in which the world views our country.  Hopefully, this analysis will motivate you to hold your elected officials accountable and force them to right-the-wrong that has been done.  They need to put partisan bickering aside, uphold their oaths of office and their promises to you and the rest of the people of this country.  The rule-of-law is under attack by this so-called-president.  Our elected officials must institute the necessary checks and balances that will prevent this type of atrocity from ever happening again, even if this means amending the constitution.

In the analysis of this report, important information will be provided in a form that list page numbers, paragraph number, subject matter and then actual excerpts from the report.  After which, you may be presented with questions that are designed to prompt you to question the information provided or the motives of the people involved with the stated actions.  The excerpt will be in quotations marks and italicized.  The questions will be in boldface type.

Furthermore, in analyzing the information in the Mueller Report, you as an American citizen have to take the time to place it in perspective to several important areas needed to arrive at an accurate assessment as to how the information in the report will impact your life.  These areas are:

1. How do I feel about a sworn enemy of America determining who the leader of my government is?
2. How do I feel about someone that either solicits or accepts the help of an enemy of the state in an attempt to overthrow our election process?
3. Is that person treasonous?
4. What is the motivation for accepting the help and what is owed to the enemy for the help given?
5. What was the harm done to my country?
6. Would I, myself have accepted the help or would I have denied it and reported the incident to the FBI?
7. What kind of person would commit this treason and is he worthy to be president

Aside from evaluating yourself in relation to the materials and incidents in the report, you should also ask the following questions in relation to Donald Trump and to what you expect from a person that is to hold the office of the president of this great nation.  These steps should help you to establish an accurate context from which to evaluate this report, the institutions of our government, its elected officials and the magnitude of the events as you perceive them. Thus, helping you to arrive at your own conclusion as to whether or not the Mueller Investigation was a “witch hunt”, an illegal persecution of the president or a justifiable investigation of actions threatening our democracy.  These steps, the aforementioned questions and the following questions along with your conclusions drawn from this analysis should also help you decide upon what you feel should be the consequences for Donald Trump and his compatriots if any and how you should advise your elected officials to proceed, if at all.

1. What are the qualities or characteristics that you deem necessary in a president
2. Do you want a president that a sworn enemy of the US has openly endorsed and helped win the election”
3. Do you want a president that has sought the help of one or more American enemies to win the election
4. Do you want a president that favors a country that considers America its sworn enemy over America’s law Enforcement and intelligence agencies, bends the knee and kisses the ring of its leader?

Mueller Report

Volume I. Russian Interference in 2016 election

Page 5, paragraph 2 – Russian contacts with the campaign; “the investigation established that it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected that it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through the Russian effort…” 

Question 1.  Why did the Russian government perceive that it would benefit from a Trump presidency?

Page 6, paragraph 6 continued on page 7- 08/02/2016 Manafort and Kilimnik, New York City

“Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President).  They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.” 

Question 2. Was this plan Putin’s motivation for helping to elect Trump?

Question 3. Why did Manafort share internal polling data with Kilimnik if not to get Russian assistance in winning Midwestern states?

Question 4.  Michigan and Pennsylvania had not voted for a Republican since 1988 and Wisconsin had not voted for one since 1984. Although he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, Trump won these states by a total of only 77,744 votes which won him the Electoral College and the election.  Was this due to a concentrated Russian social media campaign guided by polling data provided by Manafort to Kilimnik?

Question 5. How is this not conspiracy on the part of the Trump campaign with the Russians to win the election?

Page 60, paragraph 4 – “Donald Trump Jr. coordination with WikiLeaks to disseminate Clinton campaign officials emails: “On October 12, 2016, WikiLeaks wrote again that it was “great to see you and your dad talking about our publications. Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us wlsearch.tk.” WikiLeaks wrote that the link would help Trump in “digging through” leaked emails and stated, “we just released Podesta emails Part 4.” Two days later, Trump Jr. publicly tweeted the wlsearch.tk link.”

Question 6.  Since the FBI has established the fact that WikiLeaks is an agent of the Russian government, how is Donald Trump Jr. not committing a crime by coordinating and facilitating the release of stolen election document and emails from the Clinton campaign, not a crime?

Page 167, paragraph 2 – page 168, paragraph 1- United Nations Vote on Israeli Settlements – “On December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council calling on Israel to cease settlement activities in Palestinian territory. The Security Council, which includes Russia, was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day. There was speculation in the media that the Obama Administration would not oppose the resolution.  According to Flynn, the Transition Team regarded the vote as a significant issue and wanted to support Israel by opposing the resolution. On December 22, 2016, multiple members of the Transition Team, as well as President-Elect Trump, communicated with foreign government officials to determine their views on the resolution and to rally support to delay the vote or defeat the resolution. Kushner led the effort for the Transition Team; Flynn was responsible for the Russian government. Minutes after an early morning phone call with Kushner on December 22, Flynn called Kislyak. According to Flynn, he informed Kislyak about the vote and the Transition Team’s opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution. Later that day, President-Elect Trump spoke with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi about the vote. Ultimately, Egypt postponed the vote.”

Question 8.  Why would the Trump administration in violation of American Law, coordinate with Russia in an attempt to defeat an Obama administration foreign policy initiative to sanction Israel?

The Logan Act^{1} signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799 states:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Since these events took place in December of 2016, prior to Trump taking office, this was a violation of the Logan Act and a successful attempt to subvert Obama administration foreign policy.

Page 160, paragraph 2- page 161 – “In the meantime, although he had already formed the impression that Kislyak was not necessarily the right point of contact, Kushner went forward with the meeting that Kislyak had requested on November 16. It took place at Trump Tower on November 30, 2016. At Kushner’s invitation, Flynn also attended; Bannon was invited but did not attend. During the meeting, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, Kushner expressed a desire on the part of the incoming Administration to start afresh with U.S.-Russian relations. Kushner also asked Kislyak to identify the best person (whether Kislyak or someone else) with whom to direct future discussions — someone who had contact with Putin and the ability to speak for him. The three men also discussed U.S. policy toward Syria, and Kislyak floated the idea of having Russian generals brief the Transition Team on the topic using a secure communications line. After Flynn explained that there was no secure line in the Transition Team offices, Kushner asked Kislyak if they could communicate using secure facilities at the Russian Embassy.”

Question 9.  Why would the Russian ambassador want Russian Generals to advise the Trump team using a secure line?

Question 10. In further violation of the Logan Act, why would Kushner want to use the Russian embassy for secure back-channel communications?

Unrelated Note: In a November 26, 2018, article published in the Military Times titled “Americans and Russians Have Exchanged Gunfire in Syria More Than Once” an interview with Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, Special Representative for Syria Engagement explains in detail attacks on American military forces by Russian troops in Syria.  The transcript^{2} of the interview is available. The Trump administration responses to these attacks according to military experts have placed our troops at great risk and criticized as not significant.

Question 11. Why would a president allow attacks on American troops in a theater of war and not respond appropriately to protect our troops?

Question 12. Why would a US president continue to have friendly relations with said enemy power and side with that enemy over our own defense department and our foreign allies?

Volume 2.  Obstruction-of-Justice

Page 1, paragraph 4 – “First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”

Question 13.  Why would Donald Trump claim complete exoneration of all wrong-doings when the Justice Department which is under his jurisdiction has a standing policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime?

Question 14. Why would Attorney General Barr lie to Congress when he stated that this department policy did not affect Mueller’s decision not to indict Trump?

Page 2, paragraph 2 – “Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.”

Question 15. If Trump cannot be indicted for his crimes, why is he trying to discredit the investigation and the results provided by this report?

Question 16. Is this Justice Department rule constitutional since essentially their ruling would make the president immune from prosecution?   Essentially, the president could take out a gun during the state of the union speech while on national television kill several members of Congress sitting in the audience and be immune from prosecution.  Does this make sense anywhere  in the world?

Question 17.  Should the Constitution be amended to place the Justice Department under the Jurisdiction of the Congress or the Supreme Court to allow the indictment and possible conviction of a sitting president to prevent him from being above the law? If so, would you instruct your elected officials to amend it?

Page 2, paragraph 3 – “Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Question 18. Since the report states that the President’s behavior did not exonerate him from having committed crimes, should the Congress proceed with an impeachment investigation?

Definition of terms:

Obstruction-of-justice definition ^{3}{4}: “18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

Clarification: “endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

Definition of endeavor: verb – try hard to do or achieve something. noun – an attempt to achieve a goal.

Basically, the definition and the statute plainly state that if someone tries to obstruct justice that person has committed the crime of obstruction whether or not the attempt was successful.

Incidents of obstruction-of-Justice

1. The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him: Page 4, paragraph 4 – “On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre”

Question 19. Since the Special Counsel’s only mandate was to investigate Russian Interference into the 2016 election and Trump, what reason other than to obstruct the Russia investigation would Trump want to fire the Special Counsel?

2. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation: Page 5, paragraph 4 – “In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation.”
3. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed: Page 5, paragraph 5 – page 6, paragraph 1 – “In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed.”
4. Conduct towards Flynn and Manafort: Page 6, paragraph 2 – “When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s actions reflected “hostility” towards the President. During Manafort’s prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.”

Question 20. Was this action towards Flynn an attempt to intimidate Flynn as a witness which would result in obstruction-of-justice due to witness tampering?

Question 21. Was the praise of Manafort an action signaling to Manafort that the President was offering Manafort a pardon for his crimes if he refused to cooperate with the investigation? If so, this would also be obstruction-of-justice due to witness tampering.

5. Overarching factual issues: Page 7, paragraph 3 – “Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system’s integrity is the same.”

Conclusion

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Question 22.  Since the Justice Department does not allow a sitting president not be indicted and the investigation did not state that the president did not commit a crime, was the investigation engineered in such a way as to prevent a criminal case against the president.

Question 23.  Since the report does not exonerate the president of guilt or criminal behaviour and the only recourse for the American People is impeachment, should Trump be impeached by Congress as a means that allow for criminal indictments once he is removed from office?

Question 24.  Is a political reason not to impeach Trump more important than impeaching him to preserve the rule of law hence deterring future presidents from breaking the law?

In evaluating the facts as laid out in this analysis of the Mueller Report, it is obvious that although Mueller could not legally prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Trump campaign did collude with Russia to win the election, Trump and his campaign’s behaviour was unethical and perpetrated a fraud on the American people that resulted in a dishonest election result thus giving him the presidency.  It is also obvious that Trump obstructed justice and hindered and possibly altered the outcome of the investigation.  Furthermore, the statements made by Attorney General Barr in his initial 4-page summary, subsequent letter and testimony before Congress were false, taken out-of-context and intentionally misleading in an attempt to protect the president from the seriousness of his crimes as detailed in the Mueller Report.  By design, they were meant to confuse the public.  Robert Mueller did not intend for this report to be bastardized by Barr.  Since his hands were tied by unethical and illegal Justice Department rules, this report was meant to be a guide for Congress to use in impeachment proceedings against so-called-president Trump.

In furtherance of Trump’s criminal activities, a miscarriage of justice has occurred and will continue to occur as long as the Justice Department, a division of the Executive Branch that is controlled by Trump, through its abuse of power and policies in violation of the constitution and the rule-of-law protects the president.  In violation of the constitution, this makes so-called-president Trump above the law. Until this is changed there will be no justice in America and the country will continue to be subjected to the tyranny of Trump and future dictators.

Emboldened by his Justice Department, he has continued to defy the rule-of-law and is derelict in his duty to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.  So-called-president Trump has become complicit in ongoing attempts by Russia to overthrow our election system through his refusal to issues directives or funding to protect our election systems from further interference.  It is obvious by these actions and his history with Russian election interference that he welcomes their help and plans to use their assistance to win the next election in 2020.  The founding fathers and anyone with common sense would see this as an act of treason and proof of his guilt. While the Mueller Report by design could not find Trump guilty of any crimes, he is guilty and is proud of it. Any blind man could see that.  Blind or not, how do you see it?

Finally, you have to address the following questions.

1. What are the qualities or characteristics that you deem necessary in a president
2. Do you want a president that a sworn enemy of the US has openly endorsed and helped win the election”
3. Do you want a president that has sought the help of one or more American enemies to win the election
4. Do you want a president that favours a country that considers America its sworn enemy over America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, bends the knee and kisses the ring of its leader?
5. Do I vote for politicians that support the president or do they also need to be voted out of office?

Since the election process is corrupted, you cannot count on voting Trump out of office.  Your vote may not count.  What are you going to do about it? Can you force your representatives to impeach Trump?  Yes you can and you should! This may be your only hope.

https://www.gofundme.com/xplicit-news

Linked Sources and Documentation

1. Logan Act, pdf:The Logan Act
   
2. Transcript of Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, link: https://ru.usembassy.gov/special-representative-for-syria-engagement-jeffrey-in-interview-with-ria-novosti-and-kommersant/
3. Obstruction-of-justice definition, link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
4. Obstruction-of-justice, Congressional Research Service, pdf: Obstruction of Justice - Congressional Research Service
   
5. The Mueller Report Volume I Russian Interference In The 2016 Elections, pdf :https://www.dropbox.com/s/syc87tf1btjmnyl/Mueller-Report%20Volume%20I%20Russian%20Collusion.pdf?dl=0
6. The Mueller Report Volume II Obstrtuction-of-justice, pdf: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ua4ws0hfgl85uml/Mueller-Report%20Volume%20II%20Obstruction-of-justice.pdf?dl=0

Copyright © 2019, Glen Reaux, all rights reserved