When President Trump fired James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., on May 9, 2017, many Americans were justifiably worried that investigators would never be permitted to get to the bottom of Russia’s attack on our 2016 election and any potential involvement of Mr. Trump’s associates. Despite continued attempts by the president to impede the investigation, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, has, in under two years, indicted dozens of Russians and Americans and submitted a report for review to Attorney General William Barr.
Now that Mr. Mueller’s investigation is complete (or nearly complete), the Department of Justice must formally reveal its findings to Congress and the American people, which have separate and enormously consequential responsibilities of their own. These responsibilities cannot be carried out fully without direct access to the material that is in the report. Understanding this, the House of Representatives has already unanimously passed a resolution calling for the report’s release, and in recent polling vast majorities of Americans have agreed with this approach.
The report that Mr. Mueller submitted to Mr. Barr for review should be viewed in combination with the remarkable assertions and conclusions that the special counsel has already reached in the form of indictments and guilty pleas of Trump associates and Russian nationals and organizations.
Mr. Mueller and his team have already established that the Russian government engaged in a multipronged attack on our democracy. To review: Russian military intelligence officers hacked computers, networks and email accounts associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, and then released hacked material via WikiLeaks. Separately, Russians used fraudulent social media accounts to directly influence American opinions about the 2016 election. As the nation’s intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee have separately concluded, these efforts were calculated to help Mr. Trump’s candidacy for president and to denigrate his opponent’s.
We also know that senior members of the Trump campaign, including the president’s son, son-in-law and campaign chairman, met with Russians who promised “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton. If there was in fact “no collusion,” as the president so often claims, it apparently was not for lack of trying. The special counsel has secured guilty pleas on serious federal felony charges from Trump associates, including Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; the deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates; a former national security adviser, Michael Flynn; a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos; and Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
What do all these men have in common? They lied to investigators about the nature of their relationships with foreign powers, and they worked for the Trump campaign. And that’s before we even start talking about Roger Stone.
Regardless of whether efforts by Trump associates to coordinate with or benefit from interference by Russia or WikiLeaks were criminal, the fact that Mr. Trump and his campaign strategists sought to benefit from a foreign adversary’s efforts to undermine our democracy is one of the greatest breaches of public trust our country has ever witnessed. If Mr. Mueller ultimately determined that indicting the president’s associates for this conduct was not appropriate, that does not mean that there should not be consequences for this outrageous breach of trust.
Though these and other findings have already been made public, many key questions remain. Chief among these is whether the special counsel found evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed justice by engaging in a pattern of conduct calculated to impede investigations of his campaign and his administration, including by firing Mr. Comey; attempting to force out the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and pushing Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal from the Russia inquiry; and potentially by dangling pardons to key defendants. Congress and the American people deserve to know the truth about the facts and circumstances of the president’s possibly obstructive acts. Obstruction of an investigation is not only criminal conduct, but also an affront to our system of government and the faith that the American people have in it.
Equally important the report should begin to answer the crucial question that hangs over the entire Trump presidency: What did the president know and when did he know it? It is possible, for example, that Mr. Mueller may have uncovered evidence that Mr. Trump knew in advance of the numerous interactions between high-level campaign officials and Russian operatives, or that he knew of the plan to disseminate the hacked emails at strategically important times. This type of explosive revelation could indicate that the president was intentionally helping a malicious foreign power undermine our democracy. If the president knew about this conduct — and continued to protect and reward high-level intermediaries like Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort when he assumed office — the public could rightfully question his fitness to continue to serve as president.
The report may also shed light on why the special counsel has apparently declined to indict Mr. Trump. That it is Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting president is well known. Given that, Mr. Mueller may have decided that some of Mr. Trump’s conduct, while deeply concerning, unacceptable or even potentially illegal, did not rise to the level of a chargeable offense in the presidential context. In such circumstances, the Justice Department is functionally deferring to Congress’s primary jurisdiction over presidential accountability and should transmit to Congress whatever materials are relevant, particularly to potential abuses of power.
That is precisely why the entire report must be made available not only to the public’s representatives in Congress, but also to the public as a whole. The responsibility for holding to account any bad actors identified in the report, President Trump included, now falls on the American people and Congress. Without direct access to Mr. Mueller’s full report, Congress cannot responsibly decide whether to exercise its powers of oversight or impeachment, and the American people will be unable to make a fully informed decision about whether Mr. Trump can be trusted with the high office he occupies.
The report, and the findings and evidence supporting it, must be released.
Noah Bookbinder (@NoahBookbinder) is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: email@example.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
天下彩6363 uss【星】【落】【摇】【头】“【事】【实】【上】，【我】【都】【不】【明】【白】。” 【星】【落】【看】【向】【恩】【美】【老】【师】【走】【远】【的】【身】【影】，【心】【下】【思】【绪】【万】【千】。 【忽】【然】【想】【到】【银】【耳】【刚】【刚】【消】【失】【不】【见】【的】【事】【情】，【忙】【叉】【腰】【直】【迫】【银】【耳】【近】【在】【咫】【尺】【的】【脸】，【眼】【神】【直】【勾】【勾】【的】【盯】【着】【他】“【你】【刚】【去】【哪】【里】【了】，【你】【还】【没】【给】【我】【个】【解】【释】！” 【见】【星】【落】【气】【鼓】【鼓】【的】【样】【子】，【银】【耳】【打】【着】【哈】【哈】【想】【蒙】【混】【过】【关】，【见】【星】【落】【实】【在】【不】【为】【所】【动】，【便】【吁】【了】【口】【气】
【八】【月】【八】【日】【下】【午】【三】【点】，《【星】【光】》【节】【目】【第】【二】【轮】，【总】【第】【五】【期】【正】【式】【开】【始】【录】【制】。 【经】【过】【了】【第】【一】【轮】【残】【酷】【的】【淘】【汰】，【如】【今】【的】【参】【赛】【选】【手】【已】【经】【被】【淘】【汰】【了】【一】【半】，【只】【剩】【十】【六】【组】【了】。 【而】【这】【一】【轮】，【会】【再】【次】【淘】【汰】【一】【半】，【只】【留】【下】【八】【组】。 【可】【以】【说】，【竞】【争】【从】【一】【开】【始】【就】【进】【入】【了】【白】【热】【化】。 【挟】【着】【第】【一】【轮】【横】【扫】【一】【切】【的】【姿】【态】，【冯】【御】【再】【一】【次】【作】【为】【开】【场】，【拉】【开】【了】【第】
【对】【于】【痣】【城】【剑】【八】【会】【直】【接】【同】【意】，【王】【晓】【辉】【也】【不】【太】【在】【意】。 【毕】【竟】【一】【开】【始】【就】【已】【经】【考】【虑】【到】【了】，【痣】【城】【剑】【八】【可】【能】【会】【存】【在】【赖】【账】【的】【情】【况】，【那】【么】【全】【部】【答】【应】，【然】【后】【看】【以】【后】【做】【不】【做】【的】【到】，【最】【后】【在】【决】【定】【是】【不】【是】【要】【赖】【账】，【自】【然】【是】【很】【正】【常】【的】【事】【情】。 【毕】【竟】【痣】【城】【剑】【八】【现】【在】【控】【制】【的】【死】【神】，【正】【在】【被】【前】【进】**【方】【面】【的】【死】【神】，【与】【十】【一】【番】【队】【的】【死】【神】【大】【战】，【这】【里】【与】【自】【己】【扯】
【头】【天】【得】【了】【肖】【珏】【的】【口】【头】【保】【证】，【答】【应】【了】【之】【后】【宫】【宴】【会】【带】【着】【禾】【晏】【一】【道】【去】，【禾】【晏】【这】【一】【夜】【睡】【得】【分】【外】【香】【甜】。【到】【了】【第】【二】【日】【早】【上】，【等】【她】【醒】【来】【时】，【照】【例】【没】【有】【看】【到】【肖】【珏】，【只】【有】【一】【个】【白】【果】【坐】【在】【院】【子】【里】，【如】【昨】【日】【一】【般】【的】【等】【着】【她】【起】【床】【用】【饭】。 【禾】【晏】【上】【辈】【子】【便】【习】【惯】【早】【起】，【陡】【然】【间】【自】【己】【睡】【得】【日】【上】【三】【竿】，【让】【一】【个】【小】【姑】【娘】【等】【着】【自】【己】【还】【怪】【不】【好】【意】【思】【的】。【她】【问】【白】【果】，天下彩6363 uss【六】【年】【级】【打】【人】【柳】【下】【的】【那】【场】【闹】【剧】【中】，【加】【里】【清】【楚】【詹】【姆】【他】【们】【拥】【有】【的】【阿】【尼】【马】【格】【斯】【形】【态】，【当】【即】【便】【琢】【磨】【着】【怎】【么】【样】【才】【能】【绕】【过】【两】【名】【还】【在】【逗】【弄】【厉】【火】【的】【食】【死】【徒】。 【加】【里】【心】【生】【一】【计】，【缓】【缓】【闭】【上】【眼】【睛】，【装】【作】【已】【经】【昏】【睡】【过】【去】【的】【样】【子】，【毕】【竟】【刚】【刚】【挨】【了】【一】【记】【钻】【心】【咒】，【暂】【时】【昏】【迷】【也】【是】【很】【合】【情】【合】【理】【的】。 【闭】【上】【眼】【睛】【之】【后】，【他】【便】【控】【制】【着】【厉】【火】【逐】【渐】【休】【眠】，【朝】【着】【自】【己】
“【大】【姐】【啊】，【你】【还】【真】【是】【让】【我】【大】【开】【眼】【界】【呢】，【这】【内】【院】【也】【都】【快】【要】【成】【筛】【子】【了】！” “【这】【件】【事】【情】【绝】【不】【善】【罢】【甘】【休】！” 【云】【青】【虹】【此】【时】【也】【已】【经】【陷】【入】【了】【暴】【怒】【之】【中】。 【怎】【么】【能】【发】【生】【这】【样】【的】【事】【情】，【怎】【么】【可】【能】【发】【生】【这】【样】【的】【事】【情】？ 【在】【云】【家】【堡】【的】【腹】【心】【之】【地】，【竟】【然】【还】【有】【叛】【徒】，【在】【这】【样】【的】【地】【方】，【竟】【然】【有】【炸】【药】，【还】【有】***，【这】【实】【在】【是】【太】【可】【怕】【了】。
【对】【不】【起】，【仅】【有】【的】【一】【两】【个】【忠】【实】【读】【者】，【老】【渔】【我】【食】【言】【了】。 【原】【本】【吹】【自】【己】【无】【论】【如】【何】【都】【要】【坚】【持】【写】【到】100【万】【字】【的】，【但】【是】【最】【终】【止】【步】【于】66.6【万】【字】。 【这】【是】【老】【渔】【第】【一】【次】【认】【真】【写】【小】【说】，【心】【情】【和】【故】【事】【一】【样】，【高】【开】【低】【走】。 【但】【好】【歹】【从】4【月】14【号】【到】9【月】10【号】，【接】【近】150【天】【里】【没】【有】【断】【更】，【这】【也】【算】【成】【功】【的】【一】【部】【分】【吧】。 【这】【本】【书】【没】【有】【上】
“【怎】【么】【动】【了】【手】【脚】？” 【那】【些】【人】【在】【处】【理】【那】【些】【土】【的】【时】【候】，【都】【有】【他】【们】【自】【家】【人】【在】【监】【管】【着】。 【怎】【么】【可】【能】【会】【出】【现】【那】【种】【严】【重】【的】【疏】【忽】？ “【我】【看】【分】【明】【就】【是】【这】【村】【子】【的】【人】【不】【老】【实】，【上】【次】【卖】【给】【我】【们】【的】【土】【直】【接】【拿】【一】【些】【质】【量】【最】【差】【的】。” 【这】【一】【次】【他】【们】【在】【这】【里】【买】，【到】【时】【候】【他】【们】【直】【接】【到】【他】【们】【挖】【土】【的】【现】【场】【去】【指】【挥】【他】【们】【看】【中】【的】【土】【葬】，【村】【子】【里】【面】【的】【人】【给】【他】