On Sunday, with the release of Attorney General William P. Barr's letter summarizing what Mueller's probe found, Trump was triumphant.
“There was no collusion with Russia. There was no obstruction, and — none whatsoever,” Trump said. “And it was a complete and total exoneration. It’s a shame that our country had to go through this.”
It took zero minutes for observers to note Trump’s assertions about what Mueller found were untrue. In Barr’s letter, he specifically quotes from Mueller’s findings about possible obstruction of justice: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” It was, instead, Barr who determined Trump’s actions would not have amounted to the level of a crime.
More broadly, though, it is ridiculous for Trump to claim to have been totally exonerated.
For example, Mueller’s determination that Trump’s campaign did not coordinate with Russian actors during the 2016 election leaves open a number of other questions about what Trump, his campaign and his allies may have been up to. There remain extensive questions about interactions between members of Trump’s circle and Russians over the course of the campaign and transition that are unresolved, like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner meeting with the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower on Dec. 1, 2016. There are questions about the extent to which members of Trump’s team knew about what WikiLeaks planned to release and how they knew it. Mueller’s team specifically suggested Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone had been asked by a senior campaign official to seek out more information about WikiLeaks, but we do not know who made that request and on whose behalf they did so.
Put another way, there are Russia-adjacent questions which exist, and for which we may never get answers — but one which could certainly still implicate Trump, if not on illegal coordination.
We also do not know whether Trump has been exposed to possible questions of perjury. He never sat for an interview with Mueller’s team but did offer written answers to questions they posed. Barr’s letter does not address those responses at all and, in an interview with CNN on Monday morning, Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said he thought Trump’s answers should be kept private.
Why? Well, reporting from CNN last year indicated Trump told Mueller’s team that, first, he had never been told about WikiLeaks’ coming releases by Stone and, second, he did not know about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked attorney before it happened.
It has always seemed unlikely that Trump did not know about that meeting. The evening the meeting was finalized by his son Donald Trump Jr., Trump gave a speech in which he promised to unveil dirt on Hillary Clinton — the exact point of the meeting, as his team understood it at the time. But Trump insists he did not know.
In his testimony before Congress last month, Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen said he had been in a meeting in about that time frame when Trump Jr. came to Trump’s office and confirmed a meeting had been finalized, something that was unusual for Trump Jr. to do, according to Cohen.
Cohen also testified that he was present for a call in July 2016 in which Stone told Trump WikiLeaks would soon release documents incriminating Clinton. That would seemingly undermine the reported assertion by Trump about his familiarity with what WikiLeaks was up to. And if CNN’s reporting about Trump’s answers is correct, it is hard to believe Cohen did not tell Mueller’s investigators the same contradictory thing and, then, that they would have failed to notice the conflict.
Speaking of Cohen, he was also involved in perhaps the most immediately incriminating activity by Trump: the two payments to women before the 2016 election aimed at burying stories about alleged affairs. Cohen pleaded guilty to two felony campaign finance charges last year while directly implicating Trump in the crimes. The parent company of the National Enquirer, which made one of the payments, also admitted guilt in the scheme.
No part of Barr's letter exonerates Trump on any involvement in those crimes.
Trump has similarly not been exonerated for any possible role in the Donald J. Trump Foundation having allegedly tried to influence the 2016 election through its charitable giving. Those alleged acts were described last year by former New York attorney general Barbara Underwood as involving “unlawful coordination” with the Trump campaign.
Trump has not been exonerated on any questions that exist around how his presidential inaugural committee raised and spent money. The committee is under federal investigation for possible misspending of donated funds and to determine whether donors hoped to access administration officials. The misspending could include excessive spending at Trump’s D.C. hotel, which ended up as the recipient of $1.5 million in inaugural funds. While Trump has at times denied involvement in the decision-making surrounding his inauguration, Bloomberg recently reported that he was heavily involved at a detailed level.
That his hotel made so much money from his inauguration is a reminder of another question that still hangs over Trump: whether his properties’ receiving money from foreign parties violates the Constitution’s clause barring the president from receiving emoluments.
Those are some of the known legal questions Trump faces. During his testimony on Capitol Hill, Cohen hinted at other possible questionable activity, like potential insurance or bank fraud. House Democrats quickly moved to request detailed information from Trump’s private business and several employees Cohen identified by name as having information about possible fraudulent activity.
Trump was exonerated by Mueller’s investigation on the question of whether his campaign coordinated on the Russian efforts to hack Trump’s political opponents or its program for influencing voters over social media. On everything else — including, explicitly, on obstruction of justice — Trump was not so lucky.