Introduction
"Where Law Ends" provides an insider's account of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and potential obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump. Written by Andrew Weissmann, one of the lead prosecutors on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, the book offers a behind-the-scenes look at this historic investigation and its controversial aftermath.
Weissmann aims to set the record straight on what the investigation actually uncovered, arguing that many people got the wrong impression due to how the final report was presented to the public. He contends that the facts and findings of the 22-month investigation were intentionally buried and misrepresented.
The book takes readers through Weissmann's background as a federal prosecutor, his role leading one of the key teams in the Special Counsel's Office, and the major discoveries and challenges faced during the investigation. Weissmann provides his perspective on the investigation's successes and shortcomings, as well as his concerns about how the findings were ultimately handled by Attorney General William Barr.
Through this account, Weissmann seeks to inform the public about what really happened during this consequential investigation and raise important questions about presidential power, oversight, and the rule of law in America.
Weissmann's Background and Path to the Special Counsel's Office
Andrew Weissmann had an extensive career in law enforcement and prosecution before joining the Special Counsel's team in 2017. He spent time as a federal prosecutor with the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) in the 1990s, where he handled high-profile cases against notorious crime families. This included prosecuting Vincent "The Chin" Gigante of the Genovese crime family and John Gotti, head of the Gambino family.
After his time at EDNY, Weissmann was part of the Enron Task Force, which exposed one of the most egregious corporate fraud cases in US history. This experience proved valuable preparation for his later work on the Special Counsel investigation.
Weissmann then moved to the FBI, where he first met Robert Mueller, who was the bureau's director at the time. He came to admire Mueller as a no-nonsense, analytical leader with a keen ability to listen. During his time at the FBI, Weissmann observed Mueller's methodical approach to assessing national security threats in the aftermath of 9/11.
In 2013, Weissmann left the FBI to lead the fraud section of the Department of Justice. That same year, Mueller stepped down as FBI director. However, the two were reunited in 2017 when Mueller accepted the role of Special Counsel and asked Weissmann to join his team.
The Special Counsel Investigation Takes Shape
In late May 2017, Weissmann received a call from the Special Counsel's Office and met with Mueller and two colleagues already on the team - Jim Quarles, who had worked on the Watergate case, and Aaron Zebley, who Weissmann knew from the FBI. During this meeting, Weissmann learned about the parameters of the Special Counsel investigation and how the teams would be structured. He quickly decided to join the effort.
The Special Counsel's Office had several key tasks:
- Investigate Russian interference in the 2016 US election
- Determine if there was coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign
- Examine potential obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the FBI's investigation of Michael Flynn
To tackle these issues, Mueller set up three teams:
- Team R: Focused on Russia-related matters
- Team 600: Examined obstruction of justice issues
- Team M: Concentrated on Paul Manafort
Weissmann was chosen to lead Team M, given his background in fraud investigations. Manafort was of particular interest because he had served as Trump's campaign chairman and had extensive financial and political dealings with Russia and Ukraine.
By early June 2017, Weissmann was settling into his new office and diving into the Manafort investigation. He quickly learned that Manafort was already the subject of four ongoing federal investigations related to his financial activities and political lobbying work in the US and Ukraine, some of which involved Russian interests.
Building the Case Against Paul Manafort
As Weissmann and Team M dug into Manafort's background, they uncovered a lavish lifestyle financed by questionable means. Manafort spent extravagantly, including $100,000 annually on gardening for his Hamptons estate and millions on clothing, such as a $15,000 ostrich-leather jacket.
The team identified two of Manafort's main recent benefactors: Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with ties to the Kremlin, and the political party of Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine. Yanukovych was a controversial figure who had won the Ukrainian presidency in 2010 with Manafort as his campaign manager, only to flee to Russia in 2014 amid protests against his autocratic regime.
Weissmann's team benefited from ongoing investigations into Manafort's activities:
The Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) of the Department of Justice had been investigating Manafort's foreign bank accounts and offshore companies for years. There were suspicions that he was using these to launder money and evade US taxes.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit of the DOJ had been looking into Manafort's unregistered lobbying on behalf of foreign interests. Between 2012 and 2014, Manafort had conducted extensive lobbying in the US to improve the image of Yanukovych's government without properly registering these activities.
When confronted about his lobbying work, Manafort claimed through a lawyer that he had no records from this period. However, a search warrant executed on Manafort's Virginia condo turned up extensive evidence of his lobbying efforts for Ukraine, contradicting his statements to federal officers. The search also uncovered correspondence detailing Manafort's work with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and references to "briefing the Putin government" about efforts to make various countries more amenable to Deripaska's business interests.
This mounting evidence allowed the Special Counsel's Office to build a strong case against Manafort for financial crimes and illegal lobbying activities.
Investigating Obstruction of Justice
While Team M focused on Manafort, Team 600 was tasked with examining potential obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security advisor.
Flynn had been caught lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the US. Team 600 was particularly interested in whether Trump had tried to interfere with the FBI's investigation into Flynn and the broader probe into Russian election interference.
An early piece of evidence came in the form of Comey's notes, which recorded that Trump had asked for leniency in the Flynn matter and requested Comey's "loyalty." While compelling, an even more significant document soon emerged.
In June 2017, Team 600 received a draft of an early letter justifying Comey's firing, written by Trump and his advisor Stephen Miller. This letter differed significantly from the official justification provided by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which cited Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as the reason for his dismissal.
In Trump's draft letter, he claimed that Comey had opened the Russia investigation while repeatedly assuring Trump that the president himself wasn't under investigation. The timing of this draft coincided with a press conference where Comey had refused to publicly state whether Trump was personally under investigation.
This draft letter, along with subsequent interviews with White House staff, confirmed suspicions that Trump had decided to fire Comey long before Rosenstein's recommendation. Trump even stated on national television that he was going to fire Comey "regardless of [Rosenstein's] recommendation."
While the president has the authority to fire the FBI director without cause, the circumstances and motivations surrounding Comey's dismissal raised serious questions about potential obstruction of justice.
Russian Interference in the 2016 Election
As Teams M and 600 pursued their respective investigations, Team R was hard at work examining Russia's interference in the 2016 election and any potential coordination with the Trump campaign.
By late 2017, Team R had made significant discoveries about the extent of Russian involvement:
The team confirmed that a branch of the Russian military known as the GRU was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee's servers.
In August 2017, lawyers from Facebook provided the Special Counsel's Office with information about a large number of Russia-based social media accounts that had been spreading disinformation and stoking political divisions within the United States.
Further investigation revealed that these accounts were linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian organization funded by oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin. The IRA employed people to work around the clock posting on social media, organizing demonstrations, and interacting with unwitting Americans to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Team R discovered that prominent figures associated with the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Sean Hannity, and Kellyanne Conway, had interacted with or shared content from IRA-controlled accounts.
Despite these findings and subsequent confirmation by a Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, President Trump continued to deny Russian interference and seemed reluctant to take action to prevent future attacks.
The Trump Tower Meeting
One of the early pieces of evidence examined by Team R was the infamous meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016. This meeting involved key members of the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, as well as Russian lawyer Natalya Veselnitskaya and other Russian operatives.
Initially, Donald Trump Jr. denied having any campaign-related meetings with Russians. When news of the Trump Tower meeting became public, he changed his story, claiming it was primarily about Russian adoptions. However, this explanation glossed over the fact that Russian adoptions were linked to US sanctions against Russia, which Veselnitskaya was known to oppose.
When pressed further, Trump Jr. made the surprising decision to release his emails related to the meeting on social media. These emails revealed that the impetus for the meeting was an offer from Russian operatives to provide the Trump campaign with allegedly incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.
While it's unclear whether any valuable information was actually exchanged during the meeting, the willingness of the Trump campaign to meet with Russian operatives for this purpose raised serious legal and ethical questions.
Legal Challenges and Unprecedented Situations
The Special Counsel's investigation often found itself in uncharted legal territory. One key question was whether accepting information from foreign entities could be considered a violation of campaign finance laws, which prohibit candidates from soliciting or accepting anything of value from foreigners.
The Special Counsel's team believed that compromising information on an opponent would likely qualify as a "thing of value." However, they also needed to prove that the Trump campaign members involved knew that accepting such information from foreigners was illegal. Given the lack of political experience of some participants, like Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, this could be challenging to establish.
Another unprecedented situation arose from President Trump's public statement in July 2016, when he said, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that are missing." While Trump later claimed this was a joke, Team R found evidence that Russian hackers had initiated a new attack on Clinton's private email accounts immediately following this statement.
The investigation also grappled with the question of whether a sitting president could be indicted. Existing opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel stated that this was not possible, but these opinions had never been legally challenged. This limitation significantly impacted how the Special Counsel's Office approached its investigation and final report.
Indictments, Convictions, and the Threat of Presidential Pardons
As the investigation progressed, several indictments and convictions were secured:
Paul Manafort was indicted on 12 criminal charges, including money laundering, tax evasion, failure to register as a foreign lobbyist, and lying to federal officials. He was ultimately sentenced to seven and a half years in prison.
Rick Gates, Manafort's associate and Trump's deputy campaign chairman, was also indicted. He provided some cooperation with the investigation, revealing that Manafort had directed him to share campaign voter data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian operative.
George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign advisor, was indicted as well.
However, the threat of presidential pardons loomed large throughout the investigation. President Trump's willingness to use his pardon power as a means of rewarding loyalty created a significant obstacle to securing full cooperation from witnesses and defendants.
This use of the pardon power raised questions about the limits of presidential authority and whether such actions could themselves constitute obstruction of justice. The situation highlighted the need for clearer guidelines and potential reforms regarding the use of presidential pardons.
Limitations and Controversies Surrounding the Final Report
As the investigation neared its conclusion, several key decisions shaped the final report and its reception:
Mueller decided not to compel President Trump to answer questions in person, instead accepting written responses to a limited set of questions. This decision was influenced by concerns about potential retaliation, such as Trump firing Mueller or further limiting the investigation.
The Special Counsel's Office determined that, since a sitting president couldn't be indicted according to DOJ policy, the final report would neither recommend criminal charges nor explicitly exonerate the president.
When the report was submitted on March 2, 2019, it included a series of conclusions and findings summarizing the full 400-page document.
The most controversial aspect of the report's release came on March 24, 2019, when Attorney General William Barr made a public statement about its contents. Weissmann, who was traveling at the time, was shocked to hear Barr's characterization of the report's findings.
Barr's statement suggested that the report had concluded there was no evidence of collusion with Russia and that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had determined there was no obstruction of justice. This interpretation was at odds with the actual contents of the report, which did not make such definitive conclusions.
Weissmann argues that Barr's misrepresentation of the report's findings was a deliberate attempt to control the narrative and protect President Trump. This situation exposed a significant flaw in the system, as the president was able to appoint an attorney general who would act in his personal interest rather than serving as an independent arbiter of justice.
Lessons and Recommendations for the Future
Weissmann's account of the Special Counsel investigation highlights several areas where reforms or improvements could be made to strengthen the American system of checks and balances:
Clearer guidelines on the indictment of sitting presidents: The current DOJ policy against indicting sitting presidents should be reevaluated or legally challenged to determine its validity.
Stronger protections for special counsel investigations: Measures should be put in place to prevent a president from interfering with or terminating investigations into their own conduct.
Limits on the use of presidential pardons: Clearer rules or potential constitutional amendments may be needed to prevent the abuse of pardon power for personal or political gain.
Improved safeguards against foreign interference in elections: A dedicated task force or agency should be established to monitor and counteract foreign attempts to influence US elections.
Greater transparency in the release of special counsel reports: Procedures should be implemented to ensure that the findings of such investigations are accurately presented to the public, without being filtered or misrepresented by political appointees.
Strengthened ethics rules for campaign interactions with foreign entities: Clearer guidelines and training should be provided to campaign staff regarding the legality of accepting information or assistance from foreign sources.
Enhanced congressional oversight: Congress should assert its authority more forcefully in conducting parallel investigations and ensuring accountability for potential executive branch misconduct.
Conclusion
"Where Law Ends" provides a valuable insider's perspective on one of the most significant investigations in recent American history. Andrew Weissmann's account sheds light on the complexities, challenges, and controversies surrounding the Special Counsel's probe into Russian election interference and potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.
The book raises important questions about the limits of presidential power, the effectiveness of current legal and political systems in holding leaders accountable, and the ongoing threat of foreign interference in US elections. Weissmann's experiences and observations serve as a call to action for strengthening America's democratic institutions and the rule of law.
While the Mueller investigation resulted in several convictions and indictments, its ultimate impact was blunted by political maneuvering and a lack of clear precedent for dealing with many of the issues it uncovered. The controversy surrounding the presentation of the final report to the public underscores the need for greater transparency and independence in such high-stakes investigations.
As the United States continues to grapple with the aftermath of the 2016 election and the challenges to democratic norms that followed, the lessons from "Where Law Ends" offer valuable insights for policymakers, legal scholars, and citizens alike. The book serves as both a historical record and a warning about the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with determined efforts to undermine them.
Ultimately, Weissmann's account emphasizes the ongoing need for vigilance, reform, and a commitment to the rule of law in order to protect and strengthen American democracy for future generations. The unprecedented nature of the challenges faced during the Trump administration and the Mueller investigation should serve as a catalyst for meaningful changes to ensure that the United States is better prepared to confront similar threats in the future.