Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation

by Andrew Weissmann

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - In the first and only inside account of the Mueller investigation, one of the special counsel's most trusted prosecutors breaks his silence on the team's history-making search for the truth, their painstaking deliberations and costly mistakes, and Trump's unprecedented efforts to stifle their report.

"Weissmann delivers the kind of forceful, ringing indictment that Mueller's report did not."--The New York Times

In May 2017, Robert Mueller was tapped to lead an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, coordination by foreign agents with Donald Trump's campaign, and obstruction of justice by the president. Mueller assembled a "dream team" of top prosecutors, and for the next twenty-two months, the investigation was a black box and the subject of endless anticipation and speculation--until April 2019, when the special counsel's report was released.

In Where Law Ends, legendary prosecutor Andrew Weissmann--a key player in the Special Counsel's Office--finally pulls back the curtain to reveal exactly what went on inside the investigation, including the heated debates, painful deliberations, and mistakes of the team--not to mention the external efforts by the president and Attorney General William Barr to manipulate the investigation to their political ends. 

Weissmann puts the reader in the room as Mueller's team made their most consequential decisions, such as whether to subpoena the president, whether to conduct a full financial investigation of Trump, and whether to explicitly recommend obstruction charges against him. Weissmann also details for the first time the debilitating effects that President Trump himself had on the investigation, through his dangling of pardons and his constant threats to shut down the inquiry and fire Mueller, which left the team racing against the clock and essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.  

In Where Law Ends, Weissmann conjures the camaraderie and esprit de corps of the investigative units led by the enigmatic Mueller, a distinguished public servant who is revealed here, in a way we have never seen him before, as a manager, a colleague, and a very human presence. Weissmann is as candid about the team's mistakes as he is about its successes, and is committed to accurately documenting the historic investigation for future generations to assess and learn from. Ultimately, Where Law Ends is a story about a team of public servants, dedicated to the rule of law, tasked with investigating a president who did everything he could to stand in their way.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Law, Audiobook, True Crime, Memoir

403 pages, Hardcover

First published September 29, 2020

About the author

Andrew Weissmann is a Professor of Practice. He teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure.

Andrew served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (2017-19) and as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015-2019). From 2011 to 2013, Weissmann served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He previously served as special counsel to then-Director Mueller in 2005, after which he was a partner at Jenner & Block. From 2002-2005, he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force in Washington, D.C., where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company’s collapse. Weissmann was a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division. He prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families.

Andrew is the co-host of the popular podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNBC. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for it, The New York Times, The Atlantic, & The Washington Post. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation , was a New York Times bestseller.

He has taught criminal law and procedure at Fordham Law School and Brooklyn Law School. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University and attended the University of Geneva on a Fulbright Fellowship.

Reviews

[Donald Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Weissmann is a clear, succinct and careful writer. His skills as an author will hopefully be with us again.

This book led me to despair and frustration. As a lawyer approaching my 40th year in practice, having started with a bachelor's degree in Government with a split minor in American History and Economics, I had all of my young man's (and now older man's) cherished aspirations for my country drowned under the true rendition of recent government history.

The author clearly documents the many flaws in the system to investigate errant Presidents. We are at the proverbial crossroad for keeping politicians honest and honorable.

Thank goodness Mr. Weissmann wrote his Epilogue. It was the redeeming voice from the dispiriting telling of the story. The Mueller report was a wasted experience the only value of which would be to teach us how to do it differently. As a student of history I must tell you the odds are against us making any quick or meaningful progress.

The problem is that all persons are human, with loyalties, histories and feelings. Even Mr. Weissmann reveals how his fondness for Mr. Mueller colors our perception, analysis and conclusions of events/actions.

The three tiered system of checks and balances has been exposed as not enough. With the Senate in the hands of hyper partisans, there is no check on the President. Senate reform must be part of any solution. The same could be true for the House as well for future events. The answer must come by another change of the "Special Counsel" scheme. A Special Counsel must be free of the supervision of the President and the President's Attorney General. The Courts, aside from any jurist who would have decisional authority over a case, must play a role in supervising the "Special Counsel". The lifetime appointment is the only guard against hyper partisan decisions and even this is a paltry guard. Some system must be engineered to limit all partisan influence as much as possible though as humans we will never be perfect.

The current system is flawed beyond belief. The "Animal Farm" logic of presidential immunity from prosecution is spun from whole cloth. The Constitution gives a limited immunity to members of Congress but offers no such protection for a President. This fact alone should end the debate about Presidential Immunity. I feel like one of the hard working animals in George Orwell's story and it is more than disheartening!

The book documents the resources and hard work involved in the inquiry. Jeffrey Toobin's book did the same. I must tell you though how an average American cannot have a team of lawyers on their case with the resources like the FBI and other information gatherers. I envy the Department of Justice lawyer who can work a case like they can. With all of that they did not even look into the President's potential financial motives for his actions.

This is a long review for me and I could wax for much more on specific ideas for reform and feelings of disappointment; but, I have to pay my utility bill and my growing food bill.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.

This is Book #20 in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.

There’s nothing like getting some insider knowledge about the contents and processes of important documents that play a significant role in the political process. While it may be my political background, I was pleased to find Andrew Weissmann had written this book to educate the reader a little more about the ins and outs of the Mueller Report, a document that divided the country (though not equally) and caused such a stir over the last few years. Weissmann seeks to help the reader better understand all the steps of the process, as well as some of the findings of the Report, dispelling the myths propagated by the misleading memo by Attorney-General Barr and not fully refuted by Robert Mueller himself. Recommended to those who may have an interest in the Report and its findings (including those, like me, who read the public version of the document), as well as some strong conclusions that never made it to publication.

Andrew Weissmann opens the book offering some background about his legal training and some of the early work he did within the US Attorney’s Office in New York. He also explores some of the key work he did during the Enron investigation, which is where he cut his teeth on high-profile prosecuting that involved wheeling and dealing, which makes his selection as part of the Special Counsel’s Office all the more understandable. The curious reader can read more about this, as it does lay an interesting groundwork for the bulk of the book.

Weissmann explores his history with Mueller as well, having worked together when the latter was Director of the FBI. Their friendship, predominantly professional, allowed both men to understand one another and forge a great relationship, such that the selection of Weissmann to head up one of the three arms of the investigation was almost a foregone conclusion. The early days of cobbling together a team saw Weissmann work to vet the best possible candidates to fill key roles and prepare the groundwork for an effective and thorough analysis of the topics under the purview of the ask from the Department of Justice.

Weissmann’s primary focus was exploring the role that Paul Manafort played in the larger scheme of Russian involvement in the 2016 US Presidential Election. There is a detailed analysis of many findings surrounding Manafort’s meetings and financial dealings as they related to Russian involvement. Manafort was, it should be noted, Trump’s campaign manager, tying many of his actions directly to the candidate and those in his inner circle. Weissmann drives this point home repeatedly throughout, though there are times when it would appear some of the actors (the Trump children, especially) pled ignorance to any wrongdoing, which made the investigation even harder.

While Weissmann’s role was specific, he does discuss the other arms of the investigation and their findings throughout. Much of this is quite eye-opening, including the digital breadcrumbs of Russian involvement and successful skewing of the 2016 campaign, particularly through social media. The reader will, should they pay close attention, see some of the proof that Weissmann and the Mueller team uncovered repeated examples of Russian meddling and involvement that violated key American laws. When this came to light after the election, nothing was done and, at times, it was dismissed as being ‘fake news’ or sour grapes. There is an apt parallel between the proved interference by Russia in the election campaign and the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, where a foreign government attacked America. While the examples are quite chilling, the results were completely different, which only exacerbates the corruption within the Trump Administration, as they refused to cede to the intelligence presented, dismissing it as useless or lies.

Throughout the investigative process, Weissmann mentions the worry about a Mueller firing, which served to rein in many of the actions. Pushing too hard on the Trump children could easily have ended the investigation with one choice by the president. Choosing to pressure or ask too many questions could also have helped fuel a White House desire to disband the Special Counsel Investigation. How a thorough and forthright investigation could move forward with the constant veil of imminent firing eludes me (and, at times, Weissmann) though it would seem Mueller and his team did their best to cobble together truths in order to present a complete investigative document.

Weissmann adds a wonderful narrative surrounding interviews that came to light about a serious push to fire Mueller when the investigation was gaining momentum. There are some damning moments in which Trump sought to have Mueller fired, while the White House Counsel refused to comply. Parallels between Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre and the potential for a similar event here appeared repeatedly, where President Trump sought to block progress within the Investigation by neutralising the Special Counsel. Slanderous sentiments about Mueller and those in supervisory roles emerged, as though this was a political witch-hunt out to defame a righteous political leader. That Mueller was not fired appears shocking after reading some of the accounts that Weissmann provides. One can only imagine the added political drama should Mueller have been fired (and the spin on the right about such an action).

Weissmann comments throughout on the role that President Trump did play throughout the investigation, which served to be more interesting than many of the actors who were directly involved. His constant tweets and public statements, hinting at how people should act in regards to the investigation served to cause issues and opened the door to discussion of obstruction charges. Weissmann rightly draws parallels between Trump and a mafia don, offering the power of pardons to those who were convicted, rather than the promise to ‘off’ those who snitched. That this was done blatantly and without regard for the rule of law is chilling and disgusting at times. What’s worse, no one within Justice sought to muzzle it, but rather went along with the obvious violations, which only furthers the mafia/lapdog relationship the Trump Administration appears to promote.

One of the interesting narratives that emerge in the book is the decision not to subpoena President Trump as part of the investigation. Weissmann lays out his legal and investigative reasons for why he felt it was important to do so, going to far as to explain how it would have changed the final commentary of the submitted investigation. There is, however, also a frank discussion of some of the concerns that arose about making such a move, namely that it would be rejected by the Deputy Attorney General, which could also lead to a Mueller firing. While Robert Mueller weighed all his options, he chose not to take the gamble and the final investigative report drew on testimony and evidence that did not include direct (or indirect) answers from President Donald Trump.

There is surely a fine line between a partisan publication and one that espouses the rule of law. Weissmann’s book will appear to some as coming down harshly against the Trump Administration and therefore being ‘pro-Democrat’. Weissmann argues throughout, with strong substantiation, that his arguments are supported by the law and the evidence that came to light. His thorough analysis of the legal and political arguments come not from the corner of a smear, but rather the collection of evidence and testimony that he uncovered within the Special Counsel’s Office. His scathing attack on the whitewashing by Attorney-General Barr is both believable and substantiated, which elucidates that Justice is nothing but a laptop for the corruption spewing from the Oval Office and West Wing. Each chapter offers the reader a clear and layman explanation of the evidence and choices made by its members, especially Robert Mueller. That the final report did not turn out at Weissmann might have liked does not lessen the content of the book, nor should the reader think that this is sour grapes. It is a look behind the curtain for those who may not completely understand the process or final decisions made in the published report. I took so much away from this book and can better contrast it with some of the key aspects of the Mueller Report. Was the final submission a failure for those who were sure that Donald Trump played a role in colluding? Is there a clear and decisive path to show that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential Election? Did President Trump obstruct justice through his sentiments and tweets? Take Weissmann’s analysis and the wording of the final report to draw your own conclusions. However, before trying to vilify Mueller for being too restrained or iron-fisted, realise that the Court of Public Opinion offers a verdict with greater ease than those with legal standing. While the second National Nightmare is not yet over, one can hope it will end soon. One drama done and only the next, Election Night 2020!

Kudos, Mr. Weissmann, for a thorough and sensational look at all things Mueller Report. I’ll scan the final report again to complement this book. It’s sure to open my eyes!

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Lorna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation was a very sobering account of the inside machinations of the Mueller investigation by author and legendary prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann. The tragedy of this book is the tragedy of this presidency, and that is the ability of this lawless president to manipulate the levers of power and prevail as this dedicated team of public servants investigated the interference of Russia in the 2016 election, while at the same time Donald Trump did everything in his power to block their investigation and stand in their way to find the truth. After the results of the 2016 election were apparent and Hillary Clinton conceded the election, I very confidently told one of my sons that it would be okay because in the United States of America, we had checks and balances in our three branches of government. I was not prepared for the seizing of the presidency by this cabal, as well as the reluctance of any Republican to stand against this systematic breakdown of our democracy.

Andrew Weissmann looks at the role of the Mueller investigation and asks the question whether they did enough to determine whether this president obstructed justice. He concludes that perhaps they did not and they could have done more. It is a question that will haunt all of us. Here are a few of his humbling and startling conclusions:

"Watching the president in Helsinki, I recognized that the post-fact world was swallowing the one I'd always inhabited--not only as a prosecutor but as a citizen. The emperor had no clothes, but no one in the Republican Senate or House who was running for reelection was willing to say it. The world I knew was shaped by hard evidence and reason."

"There was no looking away now; we all knew what we were dealing with. The president was abusing his power, obstructing our investigation, and corroding our rule of law. . . . all of it made perfect sense if the president's sole objective was his own self-preservation; if he were, in the end, like an animal, clawing at the world with no concept of right or wrong."

"As one small witness to history, I now know that the death of democracy is possible. Fixing it is possible, too."

[Susan Tunis · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I do read a lot of political and current event titles, I was a little on the fence about reading this one. I decided to start reading and gave myself permission to bail if I wasn't feeling it. Well, permission not needed!

I think I feared this would be a defense of their work and conclusions, and that it would be less than candid. On the contrary, Mr. Weissman readily admits failures, mistakes, and regrets about how the Meuller team handled the investigation. Don't get me wrong, Weissmann doesn't appear to be a man with an axe to grind. He speaks worshipfully of Robert Mueller. But the book opens with William Barr egregiously reframing their conclusions. Weissmann then goes back to the beginning--well, even earlier, giving a little of his own background. But he quickly gets to the nitty gritty details of how they went about their investigation, and the people, institutions, and organizations that stymied their efforts. He relays wins and losses. And he makes it clear that Trump is guilty as hell.

It was surprisingly interesting. In an alternate universe, this story could be a bestselling legal thriller. The book isn't short, but it moves swiftly. Not only is he describing rather dramatic events, the thorny legal precedents they were wrestling with were pretty fascinating intellectually. Also, Weissmann's not a bad writer at all. He tells his story efficiently and effectively, with the occasional nice turn of phrase to boot. If, like me, you're frustrated by how the Mueller investigation went down, this book is definitely worth a read.

[Darya Silman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A firsthand, comprehensive account that leaves no doubt about the Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump's obstruction of justice.

In Where Law Ends: Inside The Mueller Investigation, Andrew Weissmann, a leader of one of the workgroups, shows the painstaking paths of investigating the sitting president.

The book aims to provide the public with the transparency and candor necessary to assess our actions, as well as to understand the failings in the system our nation has in place to undertake an investigation of a sitting president, for good or bad. The author takes readers behind the scenes to show the work of three groups within the investigation: Team R, directly digging into the Russian interference; Team M, tasked with exploring Paul Manafort's activities as Trump's campaign manager and before that, as a lobbyist for Ukraine; and Team 600, dealing with obstruction of justice by Donald J. Trump.

The investigation found out that the Russians had hacked and then leaked the information from servers of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sometimes in partnership with WikiLeaks. Russians also targeted federal and state election officials, trying to compromise the administration of the election. The cyber specialists traced the hackers down to a specific company, Internet Research Agency, LLC at 55 Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg, financed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch. Trump and his associates were ready to accept any help, even from the foreign state; Russians wanted to have leverage on the future U.S. president. Yet, Mueller and his team felt there was insufficient data beyond a reasonable doubt, clearly indicating the cooperation between the two sides.

The findings of Team M are even more astonishing in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Paul Manafort, convicted on many cases of bank fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion, testified that on August 2, 2016, he had had a meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence asset. The two discussed Russia's desire to snip off the piece of Eastern Ukraine, placing Viktor Yanukovych as the head of a new entity. Russians wanted a 'wink' from the future president, an assurance that the U.S. would not intervene.

Team 600's line of inquiry included the firing of Comey, Trump's welcoming the dirt on his opponents, regardless of the source of that dirt, and his numerous attempts to denigrate the Special Counsel's work, to name a few. The investigation faced a legal dilemma: Trump couldn't be indicted while in office, but simultaneously, the investigators felt if they subpoenaed the president, the whole team would be closed down, one way or another. Thus, the Mueller report saw the conclusion vaguely formulated: the president was neither totally vindicated nor was decisively accused.

The sole reason to remove one star from my rating is the author's calling a president of another country a thug. Contrary to Lenin's claim that the kitchen maid can rule the state, the presidency requires a particular character and charisma. Viktor Yanukovych, corrupt or not corrupt, pro-Russian or pro-West, still deserves respect, even if only timorous.

I recommend the book to people who, like me, wanted to get to the bottom of the claims of how exactly Russians helped Trump win the election.

After reading the book, I have one question left. Why didn't Russia intervene in the 2020 election on behalf of Trump? Was it because of the worse-than-ever relations between the countries (even Trump could see praising Russia in such circumstances as political suicide), or the intermediaries who might have possibly connected Trump with Russian intelligence were convicted and sentenced during the investigation?

The revelation about the August 2, 2016, meeting is what fascinates me in politics: there are layers and layers of underground negotiations, and we'll never uncover all of them.

[Natali · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many ways to assess this book and I have concluded that they are all valid.

My initial take was that Weissmann was writing for posterity. He says so in the opening chapters, hoping that his memoir serves the same function as historical texts from the Nuremberg trials. He makes a strong argument for that after documenting how vehemently he disagreed with William Barr’s politicizing of the Special Counsel’s report. I think this purpose was well served.

He goes on to describe inner office conflicts and governmental pressure that kept the Special Counsel from doing its job. He laments that they could have done more and failed to. He does a good job of explaining all the complicated ways that Donald Trump has exploited and exposed the flaws of the judicial system and the office of the presidency. He also explains how our current government could never really succeed in exposing fully the corruption of this administration. I honestly cannot get over how much Trump has painted our country into a corner.

To some extent, this book is also about office politics. No one is above them, not even the Special Counsel of the FBI. Someone named Aaron won’t stop blocking team leaders’ every move. The President dangles pardons in front of every key witness, thwarting investigations. Mueller and this Aaron guy refuse to take the nuclear route and subpoena the President for a myriad of reasons that Weissmann does not agree with. He confesses that he and his colleagues had many “bitch fests” about the direction of the investigation.

And so you wonder: Did he write this because he is truly disgruntled with trying to do justice under a mob boss President? Did he write this because he wants history to note that he was not complicit? Did he write this to put a mirror under American noses to see if justice is still breathing?

I think: all of the above. I don’t think ego was removed from this book but he never professes that he could do that. He CARED about this. You can tell that it is all still a pit in his stomach. His ego was all in. He wanted to conclude this investigation decisively and fairly, and in a way that he could unequivocally answer for. Yet the political and hegemonic climate prevent that. Weissman is not even close to being over it. He may never be.

This book is long and it is erudite and I deem it to be honest and forthright. I think Weissmann successfully organizes a complicated investigation and does so with humility. I am haunted by this.

[April Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve read several of the books written about Trump, ranging from Bob Woodward’s to Mary Trump’s. All of them added something new to the story. However, this book about the Mueller Report was the most boring of the bunch. Yes, it had a few interesting sections, but for the most part, it was a struggle to get through. None of the other Trump books have been a struggle. In fact, I read most of the other books in one day.

[HR-ML · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gave this 4 stars.

The author was whip-smart, & a former federal prosecutor,
and legal counsel for the FBI. He knew Robert Mueller before
Andrew joined the Mueller investigation. Mueller had been a
federal prosecutor & FBI Director, the latter x 14 yrs. I will
refer to him as the author or by his initials AW.

The US Dept of Justice (an office of the executive branch
overseeing the FBI, federal prosecutors etc) chose Mueller
to head the investigation of: did Russia interfere in the 2016
US political election? Mueller created 3 teams: Team R: did
Russia interfere? Team M: what knowledge did Trump
campaign manager Paul Manafort have on this issue? &
Team 600- was there obstruction of justice before or after
special counsel Mueller was appointed? The investigation
took 22 months and used a total of 55 prosecutors, agents
& analysts. Each team concluded 'yes' to the afore-
mentioned questions. The Russians did interfere w/ our
2016 election, but the team could not tie them directly to
Trump.

Mueller & also DOJ concluded a sitting President couldn't
be charged w/ a crime. But there was a 5 year statute of
limitations.

Pres. Trump pressured Manafort and others that he'd not
give them a pardon, unless they followed his directions.
A Presidential pardon covered federal criminal cases only,
not state criminal cases, not civil cases.

The author served as a federal prosecutor & mostly worked
on cases involving white color crime, the Mob, financial
crime IE money-laundering. He headed Mueller's Team M.

AW highly respected Mueller. However he questioned
Mueller decisions: not to pursue a money trail between
the Russian government & Trump, he declined to call
Trump before a federal grand jury & declined to indicate
in final Mueller report they had evidence that Trump
DID obstruct justice. Mueller considered the last one the
role of a grand jury, to accuse a perp of this.

Reportedly Trump agreed ahead of time (possibly before
he became US President) to ignore Russia if they invaded
industrial eastern Ukraine for financial gain. And Putin
planned to replace Ukraine's President. If so, what did
Russia give Trump in return?

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

“As one small witness to history, I now know that the death of our democracy is possible. Fixing it is possible too. Andrew Weismann
Weismann was the Lead Prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office. This is his account of working on the Mueller Report, what he saw and what went wrong. It’s very discouraging but he leaves on a hopeful note. I hope we actually have hope.

[Bettie]

This is what happened when Mueller’s team subpoenaed Deutsche Bank in 2017. Angry White House reaction led prosecutors to back off. https://nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/

[Regan · Rating 3 out of 5]

What an absolutely fantastic read. This is not another Trump book although it wouldn't have been written had he not been such a horrible person. It is about the people who worked so diligently for Robert Mueller during the investigation. Weissmann takes his readers into the way the members of the team were chose and why. He explains the qualifications each member -- from the team leaders to through each member of the team. He explains the laws that were reviewed and ones that were broken as well as the decisions on why each charge was made regarding each suspect. Weissmann uses plain language so the lay person can easily understand each subject raised in the book.

Most of the focus is on Manafort and Gates and their crimes. This is a very enlightening read and one I'd recommend as required reading in high school and college history classes.

For me personally, I was a legal secretary for about 30 years and among the reasons I enjoyed it so much is that Weissmann's telling of the investigation left me giving serious thought to returning to a profession I loved before retiring from it.

This is a marvelous, unbiased, well written, informational book on a process we have seen really only once and one would hope never need to see again. That said, I'll read anything Mr. Weissman writes because he makes even the mundane aspects of an investigation come to life as well as educate.

[David Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

BOOK REVIEW - Where Law Ends by Andrew Weissmann (05.16.25)

Previously I read the Comey Report, the Mueller Report, the January. 6th Report, the Lost Not Stolen Report. So, I think it is fair so say that I understand the legal and political issues surrounding the abject corruption of Donald Trump (DJT) and his cohorts, sycophants, enablers, and mentors. The authors of the above are not anti-Trumpers. The majority are life long registered Republicans. They all have impeccable records and reputations. They are people that the government placed trust in, relied on, and honored for their service. I say that as an intro to this review and the verifiable reasons DJT is absolutely corrupt!

The title Where Law Ends is drawn from John Locke’s quote, “Where law ends, tyranny begins.” It’s a fitting epigraph for a book that exposes how close the nation came to losing its constitutional bearings.

The author, Andrew Weissmann, a lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation, delivers a gripping, insider’s account of one of the most consequential political and legal undertakings in American history. More than just a memoir, the book is a damning indictment of the systemic failures that allowed DJT to escape accountability for what Weissmann convincingly portrays as a pattern of obstruction, dishonesty, and abuse of power. It is a warning, reminding readers that the rule of law must never yield to the whims of the powerful.

Weissmann writes with the authority of experience, the clarity of a seasoned litigator, and the moral urgency of someone who has witnessed the inner workings of a broken system. He details the challenges faced by Mueller’s team, the bureaucratic and political resistance they encountered, and the ultimate failure to hold DJT accountable, despite ample evidence to do so. Below is my summary of 10 most compelling reasons why DJT should have been removed from office.

1. Obstruction of Justice - Weissmann outlines multiple episodes where DJT attempted to interfere with the Mueller investigation, including directing then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller—an act that meets the legal criteria for obstruction. Which McGahn refused shortly thereafter resigned.

2. Witness Tampering - DJT publicly and privately pressured witnesses, including Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, encouraging them to stay loyal and suggesting that pardons might be on the table if they did not cooperate.

3. Abuse of the Pardon Power – DJT used his constitutional pardon authority not as a tool of mercy, but as a political weapon to protect allies and discourage cooperation with investigators.

4. Refusal to Testify – DJT repeatedly refused to be interviewed by Mueller’s team, providing only written responses that were evasive and, “patently false.”

5. Disregard for Norms and Laws - DJT’s relentless attacks on the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the judiciary undermined public confidence in the institutions designed to safeguard democracy.

6. Russian Interference and Collusion Evidence - While Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy, Weissmann shows how Trump’s campaign eagerly welcomed and exploited Russian interference in the 2016 election, a betrayal of national interest.

7. Corrupt Firing of Comey - The dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, which DJT admitted was due to “this Russia thing,” was an open attempt to stifle a federal investigation.

8. Attempted Co-opting of DOJ – DJT pressured the DOJ to open baseless investigations into his political opponents and sought to use it as his personal legal defense firm.

9. Barr’s Misrepresentation of the Mueller Report - Barr’s misleading summary of the Mueller Report deliberately framed its findings in a light most favorable to Trump, distorting the truth for political gain.

10. Incitement of Insurrection - Though postdating the Mueller investigation, Weissmann’s work indirectly foreshadows DJT’s role in the January 6 insurrection, which was the apex of his disdain for legal boundaries.

Heroes and Villains

Among the cast of characters, Weissmann honors those who held firm against extraordinary pressure. James Comey, whose principled stance cost him his job, and Robert Mueller, who despite criticisms, led a complex and politically explosive investigation with integrity. Weissmann himself emerges as a determined, intellectually rigorous prosecutor committed to the rule of law.
Weissmann does not shy away from criticizing the caution and conservatism of the Mueller team. Weissmann acknowledges that their decision not to subpoena DJT or bring obstruction charges, despite overwhelming evidence, was a failure of courage. He writes: “The story of our investigation is not just about the conduct of Donald Trump. It is also about the choices made by those of us charged with ensuring that no one is above the law.”

The most stinging rebuke is reserved for Attorney General Barr, who Weissmann paints as the ultimate villain of the story—a figure who “weaponized the Department of Justice” to shield the President from consequences. Barr’s actions, Weissmann argues, represent a gross distortion of legal ethics and a betrayal of public trust.

One of the book’s most powerful reflections comes late in the narrative: “History will judge how we responded when the integrity of our legal institutions was put to the test. Did we rise to the challenge? Or did we flinch?”

[James Mc Donald · Rating 2 out of 5]

Orwellian title of book is doublethink to justify crime against potus & rest of us
Reviewed in the United States on October 10, 2020
Verified Purchase
The second star for customer rating is because honestly, for me, this was a really satisfying read because I had already thought Mr. Andrew Weissmann played a critical part of this tragic event but it was important to get his view as this is an important document because the book is indeed a firsthand, direct eyewitness account proving the law did indeed end; even before this bs Mueller Investigation started.

To be sure, there's been a coup attempt in this nation to take out the potus and it's been ongoing several years now. For me personally, I think I am a witness to the same process that distorted the truth about what happened in 1963 too, as it's the same today, including the Justice department, the FBI, the CIA and perhaps a few others including the MSM to cover up what's really going on in our nation. If you have personally read the Mueller report, you would know the report was created for the Attorney General. Also, if you read the scope memo yourself, you would know it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel."

Also, if you watched or have read the Mueller Hearing Transcripts, one will read this:

"Congress asked: So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Congress: Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER: May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
Congress: ... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated...
MUELLER: I -- I...
Congress: ... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

Congress: OK. Well, I -- you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at, you can't find it because -- I'll tell you why: It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?

MUELLER: That's correct.

Congress: Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him."

There's more, a whole hell of a lot more you can read from Mueller Hearing Transcripts that will clearly point out it's all been a con job and I know for a fact this author and the numbnuts supporting this silly book are hoping you are too lazy or have drank too much of the kool-aid to even care. There's also the anomaly Democratic Senator Kamala Harris almost let out of the bag about the question to AG Barr on how was it that Rod Rosenstein could be a fact witness all while he was the one who authorized the Mueller investigation in the first place. It was funny to watch AG Barr's face when it registered in his brain what the Senator had asked as eventually, I also suspect AG Barr is a "fix it" sort of fellow too when the toys have been broken. It would be the same for Lee H. Hamilton and his role on the 9/11 Commission report and the Iran/Contra investigation, which also explains why I think AG Barr is a fix it sort of operator when you bring in Coke and the Heroin, the Clintons and the Bush clan into the picture .

It would be the same regarding Bruce Ore in that congress asked, why Ore put himself into the position of being a fact witness when Glenn Simpson already had a relationship with the FBI but Ore was not able to explain himself but rather only referenced he passed on the information from Glen Simpson to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and saying, “…and some people from the Department’s—Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and I gave them the information that I had received.”. One of those people from the Justice Department would be Andrew Weissmann.

All of this just naturally open up the can of worms from hell for Mr Weissmann as found in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation: OIG Report 09 Dec. 2019:

"Ohr's supervisors in ODAG also were unaware that Ohr, shortly after the U.S. elections in November 2016, and again in early 2017, participated in discussions about a money laundering investigation of Manafort that was then being led by prosecutors from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS), which is located in the Criminal Division (CRM) at the Department's headquarters. As described in more detail in Chapter Nine, in November 2016, Ohr told CRM Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz and Counsel to the CRM Assistant Attorney General Zainab Ahmad about information he was getting from Steele and Simpson about Manafort. Between November 16, 2016 and December 15, 2016, Ohr participated in several meetings that were attended, at various times, by some or all of the following individuals: Swartz, Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann (then Section Chief of CRM's Fraud Section), Strzok, and Lisa Page. The meetings involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann focused on their shared concern that MLARS was not moving quickly enough on the Manafort criminal investigation and whether there were steps they could take to move the investigation forward. The meetings with Strzok and Page focused primarily on whether the FBI could assess the case's relevance, if any, to the FBI's Russian interference investigation. MLARS was not represented at any of these meetings or told about them, and none of attendees had supervisory responsibility over the MLARS investigation.

There were no meetings about the Manafort case involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann from December 16, 2016 to January 30, 2017. On January 31, 2017, one day after Yates was removed as DAG, Ahmad, by then an Acting CRM Deputy Assistant Attorney General, after consulting with Swartz and Weissmann, sent an email to Lisa Page, copying Weissmann, Swartz, and Ohr, requesting a meeting the next day to discuss "a few Criminal Division related developments." The next day, February 1, Swartz, Ohr, Ahmad, and Weissmann met with Strzok, Lisa Page, and an FBI Acting Section Chief. None of the attendees at the meeting could explain to us what the "Criminal Division related developments" were, and we did not find any. Meeting notes reflect, among other things, that the group discussed the Manafort criminal investigation and efforts that the Department could undertake to investigate attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 elections. MLARS was not represented at, or told about, the meeting.

We are not aware of information indicating that any of the discussions involving Ohr, Swartz, Weissmann, Ahmad, Strzok, and Lisa Page resulted in any actions taken or not taken in the MLARS investigation, and ultimately the investigation remained with MLARS until it was transferred to the Office of the Special Counsel in May 2017. We also did not identify any Department policies prohibiting internal discussions about a pending investigation among officials not assigned to the matter, or between those officials and senior officials from the FBI. However, as described in Chapter Nine, we were told that there was a decision not to inform the leadership of CRM, both before and after the change in presidential administrations, of these discussions in order to insulate the MLARS investigation from becoming "politicized." We concluded that this decision, made in the absence of concerns of potential wrongdoing or misconduct, and for the purpose of avoiding the appearance that an investigation is "politicized," fundamentally misconstrued who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the Department's work. We agree with the concerns expressed to us by then DAG Yates and then CRM Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell. Department leaders cannot fulfill their management responsibilities, and be held accountable for the Department's actions, if subordinates intentionally withhold information from them in such circumstances."

Ore claimed “he tried to get Glenn Simpson to speak with the Bureau”, although James Baker who was the top FBI lawyer admitted in his congressional investigation Michael Sussmann, the lawyer for the DNC/HRC Perkins Coie was also giving information from the fake Russian dossier to the FBI for use in the collusion efforts against the Trump campaign.

There was also the question To Mueller at the Mueller hearings from congress asking, "When Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad joined your team, were you aware that Bruce Ohr, Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of 2016. Unfortunately, MUELLER said "again, I'm not going to speak to that issue." found here: United States House of Representatives. Transcripts of the Mueller Hearings: House Committee on the Judiciary & House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Hearings . Kindle Edition.

Finally, there's this: "Horowitz also found that immediately after the 2016 election—between November 16 and December 15—the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr attended several meetings that included the FBI’s Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and Andrew Weissmann, even though he had no departmental business working on the Russia investigation.

Whitaker, Matthew. Above the Law: The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump (p. 47). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I could go on and create a book about the bs in this book but just trying to kept it simple and just on one focused point but I've got to point out one more thing when I thought it was crazy the only one time the author referenced the Report on Russian Active Measures on page 134 all while he forgot to point out the rest of this from the same report as I read that report too and I think the author is hoping you won't as noted why here in that I think one of the first things I observed is the report could have a new classification review as much of the material blacked out in this publication can be found in other documents as exampled by the fact the same information is not blacked out in the “House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Meeting Transcript (January 29, 2018) that Includes BOTH The Nunes and Schiff Memos” or the “House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Interview of Glenn Simpson” which also happens to be a couple more interviews/investigations from Congress most Americans still have no clue about as if all of these documents were put together, it would tell anyone with a little bit of common sense there is some really damn seriously-disturbing stuff going on in my nation and many in Congress including major elements of the mainstream media platforms specifically, are attempting to distort/modify/cover up the facts. Why is that?

For someone who wants just a fast, simple outline of what Congress has to report on their investigation, it can be found on page 4 to page 11 with a basic, two or three line summary table of the findings that are detailed throughout the whole document with the “mandate to examine what Russian cyber activities and other active measures that were directed against the United States including alleged links between Russia and individuals associated with the presidential campaigns” and the US government’s response to these claimed events. Even so, the committee did note there remains a concern Russia will continue to “undermine Western democracies by stoking social strife, political unrest, and division.”

Finding #44: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.
Additional info

[Alison Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I owned this book for about a year before finally picking it up, and I think that while I have been avoiding the news as much as possible because every day there are like ten new reasons to want to swan dive into a volcano, I was moved to read it now to remember the halcyon days when we thought we might finally be done with this fucking monster.

BUT NOPE APPARENTLY A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED THE MONSTER BACK. Terrific. Great. Wonderful.

Anyway. This was a really informative and eye-opening read, and I would recommend it to anyone who was, let's say, disappointed with the less than satisfactory results of the Mueller investigation. Weissmann is a great writer and communicator and he really takes us inside the whole process (as much as he can legally, of course) to show the exhaustive work they did and the roadblocks they encountered. It's very detailed and thorough, but all explained in a way that non-lawyers can easily understand and absorb. I appreciated his honesty about ways they could have done better, about things he disagreed with, etc. I also appreciated the effort to show that the investigation not being the mic drop many of us were hoping for was not for want of trying or diligence on the part of Mueller's teams.

There were a few times where I thought we got a bit too much detail, that the play-by-play didn't need to be quite so granular. And other points where I wished there had been more information provided, although I recognize that he was hemmed in on some issues by the law. But I will say it never got dry or dull at all, like some politics-based nonfiction can do. Plus at one point he recounts himself saying "what the fuck" to one of his colleagues on the team and now I really need to hear him say that IRL because watching hours and hours of him on MSNBC being so proper and professional in his language makes it hard to imagine a swear word coming out of his mouth. Drop an f-bomb on Insta, Andrew!

Very worthwhile read if you want to pretend the last four years never happened and that the next four years aren't coming.

[Ted Haussman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This outstanding account pulls back the curtain on the Mueller special counsel investigation and chronicles the work that the prosecutors, agents, and investigators diligently performed. Constructively critical, Weissmann's recounting also details the various key decisions that were made, why they were made, and how (in his opinion) the overall team fell short. It's a stunning account of selfless service by those who took up the call to be a part of the team and a President who thwarted and obstructed the very investigation into him by coaxing targets to not be forthcoming, a plan, which because successful with Mueller, was then employed with greater vigor in the impeachment proceedings.

Weissman details how the special counsel regulations came into being, how they should be strengthened, and he offers well-reasoned conclusions for future special counsel.

[Stephen Morrissey · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Where Law Ends" presents the first behind-the-scenes look at the Special Counsel investigation of President Trump, from its birth at the time of the Comey firing all the way through the infamous Barr letter and eventual public release of the Mueller Report. Andrew Weissmann, a hard-nosed prosecutor, tells an oft-told tale of the Trump Era: well-intentioned citizens and institutionalists who put their trust in their institutions, only to find a president willing to bulldoze through norms, precedents, and institutions to preserve himself, his family, and his ego.

Weissmann pulls few punches - while he lauds Mueller continuously throughout the book as a stoic and determined leader of men, he subtly chides Mueller's timorous stance on several crucial issues: whether to subpoena the president; whether Mueller could indict the president; and how the Report should be written and presented to the American people. While Mueller may be spared some of the more direct attacks, Aaron Zebley, Mueller's deputy in the Special Counsel's office, comes in for harsher treatment as the "George McClellan" of the investigation: focused more on what could go wrong than what should happen for the good of the country.

One senses a distinct chasm in the Mueller office: hard-charging prosecutors like Weismann who want to investigate Trump and unearth every last scrap of evidence to show how truly troubling the man's actions were; and, on the other side, Zebley and Mueller, who constantly look askance at the metaphorical exit, hoping to avoid any sort of confrontation in the name of producing a stale Report.

Weissmann's narrative adds some much-needed color to the Mueller investigatory team. For years, the most any of us were treated with were obnoxious Trump tweets, the occasional court filing, and some grainy CNN footage of Mueller pulling up to the office in an SUV. Here, we are shown Mueller's dry wit, unbending determination, and unique way of leading men and women through long hours and tough work in order to fulfill a more noble mission than simple investigating, law enforcement, or lawyering.

So what went wrong? For Weismann, the problem with Mueller was timidity. He refused to subpoena Trump for an interview, fearing that time would be eaten away in a long court battle; he refused to cross Trump's purported "red line" and delve into Trump's finances; and he failed to make the Report clear as to whether Trump should be indicted, instead pushing out the mealymouthed "no indictment, but no exoneration" line, perhaps the ultimate symbol of institutional weakness in the Trump presidency.

Weissmann laments that more could have been done by the Special Counsel and his band of merry men. Stones were, undoubtedly, left unturned. Mueller did indeed find reprehensible behavior on the part of the president. But that truth, however profound, is not enough in 2020, nor was it enough when the Report was released.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, kudos to Weissmann for writing this book to set the record straight about the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Anyone who reads this book will have no doubt about Trump’s lying and manipulation. I don’t see how he could’ve been elected without that Russian interference.

[Shannon Dyce · Rating 5 out of 5]

During the last year I read more than 10 other political books that covered this same issue and in my opinion this one was the most informative, insightful and thorough. Where Law Ends also covers a ton more information and first hand accounts. I learned so much from this book. I also appreciated the stories Andrew told about his personal and professional interactions with Robert Mueller. When I am reading a book I make a point of writing down vocabulary words that I don't usually use or the one for which I don't know the meaning. I had quite a nefarious list when I finished Andrew's book. My boy 'Weiss'man is 'wicked' (nefarious) smart. This book makes the top of my list of books that every voter should read. It would be a good start to healing the division that we have in our country today. If you don't have the time right now to read the whole book, do yourself and your country a favor and just simply read the epilogue. It, in and of itself, is jammed packed full of information. To my future grandchildren, this book would be a good start if you're trying to understand what in the world our country went here.

Some of my favorite quotes:

"The special counsel investigation is also an important story to be told I believe and one we must add to the historical record and the historical precedents of this book point the way towards this procedural account that explains our investigative process. That we are in an era in which conspiracy theories and wild speculation masquerade as truth, makes it all the more important to have a factual record for the future. Reasoned argument has been replaced by personal taunts. This book will permit the reader to replace invective with fact. This account is meant to provide the public with a transparency and candor necessary to assess our actions, as well as to understand the failings in the system our nation has been placed under investigation for the sitting president for good or bad."

"It was impossible to believe that a man who had spent much of the summer and fall of 2016 fomenting chants of "lock her up" at campaign rallies was suddenly offended that Comey had unfairly maligned Hillary Clinton. In context the effort to use the Rosenstein memo as the basis for the firing smell distinctly fishy and warranted investigation as to what the true reasons were for his firing and the weather in constituted an obstruction of justice. Still as a career justice department prosecutor I found the situation more nuanced than the black and white terms on which it was frequently discussed and feel is worth laying out those perplexities. Full discloser, I'm no fan of Jim Comey. I disapproved of much of his conduct in the run-up to the 2016 election for precisely the reasons Rosenstein articulated and I certainly didn't feel any great personal outrage on Comey's behalf when I heard you been terminated. A Bedrock principle for every prosecutor and agent to the Department of Justice is that prior to conviction you do not publicly announce your opinion of a person's guilt or innocence. Your views are irrelevant it is up to a grand jury to determine whether to bring charges and then is up to a trial jury to decide on a person's guilt. Disclosing a personal opinion threads on the accused presumption of innocence."

"In the end, I still don't know what motivated Mueller's decision not to issue a subpoena to Trump. It was left to Michael Dreven to articulate that reasoning in our report. Even now the language he arrived at and which Mueller ultimately signed off on, strikes me as problematic. Our report noted that Mueller had concluded that a subpoena was unwarranted since taking the president's testimony was not essential. We determined that the substantial quantity of information wed had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw our relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility. This statement makes sense though only if we had concluded in the report that the proof we had amassed was sufficient or insufficient to charge the president with a crime and in addition if we made the presumptuous conclusion that his testimony would be unlikely to change our calculus. This was not the case."

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book by one of the top investigators involved in the Muellar investigation. I found it riveting when the details and startling findings were uncovered. I was in those small windowless offices alongside them. The author was in charge of the Manaford case and I found this information the most compelling. The book also did a good job of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. However, the last quarter of the book was a bit preachy, long-winded, and minutia prone. I am glad that I read it as I now have a better understanding of what took place.

[Joan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essential reading for Americans concerned about the severe damage done to our democracy by President Trump. The final chapter contained recommendations by the author into how to fix problems with the Special Counsel’s inability to investigate when the ultimate source of the investigation, the President, has special powers to deter the investigation in myriad ways, ranging from firing people in the investigation to dangling potential pardons to people who are being investigated which was certainly a major issue with Manafort.

Let’s make something clear. Mueller was under guidelines of the office he worked for in the Department of Justice which says that they cannot indict a sitting President of the United States. This guideline has never been tested in court and the author believes it should be changed. The author has extensive suggestions for how to change the office of the Special Counsel. Many seem to make sense to me but I have not sat down and thought of possible issues, not having the background. Congress should sit down and examine Weissmann’s suggestions and adopt those that make sense to Congress.

More to the point, what the author states about deficiencies found in the Special Counsel in terms of interference and damage by trump is true in general for our nation. We need a special commission to study the trump presidency and determine what lessons need to be learned and applied by our country. Do we need to strengthen the usage of the 25th amendment when you are asking cabinet members to judge the man who appointed them to the job? How about impeachment? There were serious deficiencies in the impeachment trial due to complete lack of cooperation from trump and co. There needs to be better protections for brave civil servant and other career workers such as the Vindman twins, both of whom suffered persecution from trump, and Sally Yates.

Finally I am more certain after reading this that as a country we must hold trump accountable for the sake of the country. President Ford thought it would be best to take the easy route and resolve Watergate by pardoning Nixon. He was wrong on two levels. That pardon likely played an enormous role in Ford being a one term President. His action also led to the debacle of the Trump Presidency. We must learn from trump and make his many crimes impossible to repeat. I don’t have the knowledge to describe solutions. I only know that our country may not survive another grifter like Trump who is brazen enough to grab all he can grab for his own wealth.

I will not engage with cultists wishing to argue my opinion of trump. If I can, I will delete all such comments. For all others, I strongly urge that this book be read and considered in the beginning months of the Biden Presidency. Biden must not pardon trump!

[Maureen Sepulveda · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough, meticulous account by a lawyer who worked as part of Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference into 2016 election. Author is detailed about evidence collection and investigation especially of Paul Manafort. Author is honest in his critique of Special Counsel and areas he thought could have been handled differently. Over and over, author compared Trump’s behavior of trashing Special Counsel on Twitter and in Press and of dangling pardons as example of Trump acting like mafia boss, something I have felt for awhile. Author is former EDNY prosecutor who tried many members of NY Crime monster families so he’s familiar with this behavior. Book is more proof of Trump abusing power and disregarding Constitution and government norms.

[Kerry Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and as infuriating as I thought it would be. Makes clear the special counsel was way too worried about getting fired and way too cautious about what he investigated. And the rationale for not making a finding on obstruction is just as lame in the retelling as it was in the original report. Aggggghhhhh!

[Betsy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a must, must, must read to understand the truth behind the Mueller Report. I wonder how history will judge the last 4+ years. Well, honestly, I don't wonder. I know history will judge us harshly. It helped me muddle through the Mueller Report and to understand how we were deceived. Read it.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a while to get through this book. It was frustrating to read about the evidence that was found and all of the work of investigators and know how it was swept under the rug. Pardons negated the little justice there was.
This book is important as a historical record.

[Laurie Hammons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great combination of detective novel and explanation of the Mueller Investigation. Fascinating.

[Gloria Piper · Rating 5 out of 5]

You've got to read this book. The writing is impressively clear, and the story is interesting. Weissmann introduces us to Mueller and to himself, bringing in a background that eminently qualifies him to help lead in the investigation. As the counsel organizes into teams, top experts are recruited. And then they get to work, initially relying on the press for leads and then taking off on their own.

Weissmann puts a human face on the research, their reactions to uncovering facts, their stress as they work under the threat of being fired by the president. I was impressed by the work standard of the investigation, how they park bipartisanship outside the office and how they toiled every day, occasionally for 24 hours.

Facts point to an ongoing warfare with Russia that is as serious as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It's invisible cyberwarfare that threatens our democracy to this day. The investigators catch many culprits, but the one they are forbidden to thoroughly investigate is Donald Trump. They are forbidden to look into his finances. They can not interview him. They can not indict him, even though they are constantly harassed by his efforts to discredit and fire Mueller, to get people to lie, and to dangle pardons to encourage witnesses to refuse to cooperate. The investigators are forced to pull their punches, to ignore certain leads, to end the investigation before it is completed. They accomplish a lot, but all they are in a position to say about the president is that Trump is not exonerated, thereby leaving it up to Congress to deal with the president as required.

After slogging away for 22 months, imagine Weissmann's shock to find Attorney General Barr serving the president with lies rather than serving the public with truth.

While some of these happenings are familiar to me, there was much to learn. "Where the law ends, tyranny begins." Weissmann shows us how that quote applies.

[Janine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I chose this book as part of my 2022 book challenge to fulfill a challenge to read a book that started with “who, what, when, where or why.” But I also had it on my TBR list to complete my understanding of the Mueller investigation. The book is a concise, fair-handed, factual and thorough examination of the rigor, limitations and pitfalls of the special counsel investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election and presidential obstruction of Justice. Weissmann is scathing as to Barr’s four page report that seemed to exonerate Trump but also due to decisions he didn’t agree with, the report lets Trump off the hook due to a long standing Justice Department protocol not to indict a sitting President. Weissmann handled the Manafort and Gates part of the investigation and if you didn’t believe Manafort is a slimy, crooked grifter and liar, the books lays out the facts for why he is - he even tried to con Trump! Trump is equally a slimy, crooked grifter and liar. His efforts to obstruct Justice and remove the special counsel are again factually laid out. The sad part of the investigation is the efforts to be so fair and even handed to the White House resulted in an investigation that didn’t get to the real relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia which if further investigated as to financial entanglements for example may have conclusively proven that. The book clearly shows Russian interference with lots of hanging questions as to “why.” Nonetheless so much time and energy spent by Trump and his allies like Fox Noise calling the investigation a “witch hunt” or “fake news,” along with Barr’s misleading report leaves the rabid Trump lovers still believing in their megalomaniac fascist hero. Enjoyed the book.

[Richard Gullickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the sad and fascinating story of the Mueller investigation. We learn that Trump unambiguously obstructed justice in many documentable instances including ordering White House attorney Don McGhan to fire Mueller and directing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to lie about the reasons for firing FBI Director Comey. The sad part is the reticence of Mueller to clearly point out Trump’s infractions, allowing Attorney General Barr to mischaracterize the content of the report and providing the foundation for the Senate to decline to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence. Mueller had the authority to require Trump to be interviewed by chose to allow Trump to escape (and avoid likely perjury charges) to avoid rocking the DOJ boat. At least the Mueller investigation resulted in a variety of indictments and convictions including Trump crony Paul Manafort. Although Manafort was successfully flipped, his inability to tell the truth regardless of circumstances or self interested rendered him an ineffective government witness allowing the ultimate criminal to avoid prosecution. Weismann closes by recommending improvements to the special counsel regulations including requiring that the final report be provided simultaneously in unredacted form to both the attorney general and the oversight committees in congress to avoid the Barr mischaracterization fiasco.

[Michael Linton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book but I didn't learn too many more details.
It was interesting to learn how it went with Manafort. He really didn't have any negative things to say about Mueller but he definitely did about Aaron. This book was similar to the Peter Stzok book in the sense, he seemed to have a lot to work out mentally due to Trump. The mental anguish he causes people because of the public humiliation he exerts on people is really abhorrent. It really does affect people.

It's a shame that the investigation was truly hampered due to Trump for several reasons. One, they were always under the fear of getting fired which caused them to move expeditiously as possible. That was repeated throughout the book: Mueller pushing to get done as quickly as possible to get the report out. And the fact they were always under the fear of getting fired, Mueller and Aaron took the path of least résistance to avoid getting fired. It really was a limited investigation and left many questions unanswered because they were just trying to get to end - the report.

[Sandra Armor · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best parts of this audiobook book were the introduction and epilogue, read by the author and written with conviction. In the middle, he does little to clarify exactly what went wrong because he won’t blame Mueller for not taking stronger action. At one point, he raises the issue of public comment on Mueller’s testimony on the report in front of Congress, the suppositions that he had lost a step at a minimum or was cognitively impaired at worst. He raises the issue but never answers it. I was left with much the same frustration as I felt with the report itself. It went nowhere near far enough.

The audiobook narrator was not a good choice. He read the book with a jaunty, cowboy style that was inappropriate. He’s a fine narrator but not right for this book. The author should have read it himself.