Pricey Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Rating Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a complement to the notification offered on Friday, March 22, 2019, I’m writing in the present day to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Particular Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to tell you concerning the standing of my preliminary evaluate of the report he has prepared.
The Particular Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Though my assessment is ongoing, I consider that it’s in the public interest to explain the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Particular Counsel and the outcomes of his investigation.
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his employees completely investigated allegations that members of the presidential marketing campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to intrude within the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to impede the associated federal investigations. Within the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 legal professionals who have been assisted by a workforce of roughly 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and different skilled employees. The Particular Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed almost 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication data, issued virtually 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to overseas governments for proof, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Particular Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of people and entities in connection together with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. Through the course of his investigation, the Particular Counsel also referred a number of issues to different workplaces for additional action. The report doesn’t advocate any additional indictments, nor did the Special Counsel acquire any sealed indictments which have yet to be made public. Under, I summarize the principal conclusions laid out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is split into two elements. The first describes the results of the Particular Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to affect the election and documents crimes dedicated by persons associated with the Russian authorities in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a main consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether or not any People — including people associated with the Trump marketing campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump marketing campaign or anybody associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Because the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
(Footnote 1: In assessing potential conspiracy costs, the Special Counsel also thought-about whether members of the Trump marketing campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Particular Counsel outlined “coordination” as an “agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”)
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two essential Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The primary involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Web Research Company (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the USA designed to sow social discord, ultimately with the goal of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Particular Counsel did not discover that any U.S. individual or Trump campaign official or affiliate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Particular Counsel introduced felony costs towards a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second component concerned the Russian authorities’s efforts to conduct pc hacking operations designed to collect and disseminate info to influence the election. The Particular Counsel found that Russian authorities actors efficiently hacked into computer systems and obtained emails from individuals related to the Clinton marketing campaign and Democratic Celebration organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials via numerous intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based mostly on these activities, the Particular Counsel brought legal costs towards a number of Russian army officers for conspiring to hack into computer systems in america for the purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Particular Counsel didn’t find that the Trump campaign, or anybody associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple gives from Russian-affiliated people to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the topic of public reporting — that the Particular Counsel investigated as probably elevating obstruction-of-justice considerations. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Particular Counsel thought-about whether to guage the conduct underneath Department requirements relating to prosecution and conviction however finally determined not to make a standard prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel subsequently didn’t draw a conclusion — by hook or by crook — as as to if the examined conduct constituted obstruction. As an alternative, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on each side of the query and leaves unresolved what the Particular Counsel views as “difficult issues” of regulation and reality regarding whether or not the President’s actions and intent might be seen as obstruction. The Special Counsel’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The Special Counsel’s choice to explain the information of his obstruction investigation without reaching any authorized conclusions leaves it to the Lawyer Basic to find out whether or not the conduct described in the report constitutes a criminal offense. Over the course of the investigation, the Particular Counsel’s workplace engaged in discussions with certain Division officers relating to many of the legal and factual matters at problem within the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Particular Counsel’s last report on these issues; consulting with Department officers, including the Workplace of Legal Counsel; and applying the rules of federal prosecution that guide our charging selections, Deputy Lawyer Basic Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed in the course of the Particular Counsel’s investigation just isn’t adequate to determine that the President dedicated an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our willpower was made with out regard to, and isn’t based mostly on, the constitutional issues that encompass the indictment and legal prosecution of a sitting president.
(Footnote 2: See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Felony Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C, 222 (2000).)
In making this willpower, we famous that the Special Counsel acknowledged that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such proof bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Usually talking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would wish to show beyond an inexpensive doubt that an individual, appearing with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a adequate nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which happened in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, represent obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated continuing, and have been completed with corrupt intent, each of which, beneath the Department’s rules of federal prosecution guiding charging selections, would have to be confirmed beyond an inexpensive doubt to determine an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Status of the Department’s Assessment
The related laws contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report might be a “confidential report” to the Lawyer Basic. See Workplace of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 27,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I’ve previously said, nevertheless, I am aware of the public interest on this matter. For that cause, my aim and intent is to launch as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can according to applicable regulation, laws, and Departmental policies.
Based mostly on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my preliminary assessment, it is apparent that the report incorporates materials that is or could possibly be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Process 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of info referring to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) usually limits disclosure of sure grand jury info in a legal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) materials beyond the strict limits set forth within the rule is a criminal offense in sure circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(three). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for his or her meant legal justice perform.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends partially on how shortly the Department can determine the 6(e) materials that by regulation cannot be made public. I’ve requested the help of the Special Counsel in figuring out all 6(e) info contained in the report as shortly as attainable. Individually, I additionally should determine any info that would influence other ongoing matters, together with people who the Particular Counsel has referred to other workplaces. As soon as that course of is full, I shall be able to maneuver ahead expeditiously in determining what might be released in mild of applicable regulation, laws, and Departmental insurance policies.
As I observed in my preliminary notification, the Special Counsel laws provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose the letter to the general public after delivering it to you.
William P. Barr
This entry was posted on March 25th 2019 at 9:07am/09:07 and is filed beneath Regulation & Justice, Reside Information Column 1. You possibly can comply with any responses to this entry by way of the RSS 2.0 feed.