University of Connecticut College Democrats and College Republicans are taking away different key points from United States Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Special Counsel’s investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, but they both agree that as much of the full report should be released as possible.
“I think that as much of the report that should be legally released without endangering the identities of members of the grand jury,” UConn College Democrats president Max Seifert said.
UConn College Republicans director of political engagement Jacob Marie echoed this stance.
“Obviously the whole thing should be released to put the whole thing to bed,” Marie said. “I don’t think anyone benefits from keeping it a secret … there are probably reports that are going to be confidential because it has to do with intelligence and national security.”
UConn Department of Political Science department head David Yalof said it’s impossible to tell whether or not the full report would benefit one party over another, but based off of the summary itself, the release would be beneficial to Republicans.
“Should the bulk of the report be released,” Yalof said. “It’s probably in the best interest of the Trump administration.”
Seifert and Marie disagreed on their overall outlooks of the summary as a whole.
“Obviously it is deeply concerning that a 22-month investigation was boiled down to a four-page summary that was drawn up less than 48 hours after the conclusion of the investigation,” Seifert said. “That part is certainly worrisome.”
Marie said this didn’t bother him and that the results were what he was expecting.
“The fact that there was no collusion was very good news for Trump and very bad news for Democrat,” Marie said. “It makes anyone who bought into that look foolish.”
While the summary says there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Seifert said Americans should still be worried.
“It is important to focus on the fact that the meetings that were taking place, while it did not result in collusion, there certainly did seem to be an interest, or a flirtation, of it,” Seifert said.
Marie said it is time to move on.
“The bottom line with this report is a pretty good one,” Marie said. “The fact that because Russia did interfere in our elections, that’s a very different thing than saying one candidate conspired to win the election. That would be a much more serious, blatant attempt to undermine our democracy.”
Luke Hajdasz is a staff writer for The Daily Campus. He can be reached via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.