TRUMP DIDN’T INTERFERE WITH
THE ELECTION
The following is the text
of the letter that the United States Attorney General, William Barr sent to
Congress on March 24th 2019 that summarizes a report by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller on his investigation into the
Russia’s role in the 2016 United States presidential election.
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a
supplement to the notification provided on Friday, march 22, 2019, I am writing
today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller III and to inform you
about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
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.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe
that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the
principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his
investigation.
The report explains that the
Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members
of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it,
conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal
investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing
his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of
approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and
other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas,
executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for
communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers,
made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed
approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel
obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in
connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed.
During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred
several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not
recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any
sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the
principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
The Special Counsel’s report is divided
into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s
investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and
documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in
connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary
consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans
-including individuals associated with the Trump 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 campaign or anyone
associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to
influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states,
the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities. (red emphases mine)
The Special Counsel’s investigation
determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016
election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet
Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in
the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering
with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign
official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special
Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and
entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved
the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations
designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The
Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into
computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign
and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials
through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities,
the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian
military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States
for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not
find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it, conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite
multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump
campaign.
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct
computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to
influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government
actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons
affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and
publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including
WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal
charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack
into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.
But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign,
or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated
individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President
– most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special
Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns.
After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special
Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards
governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not
to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did
not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined
conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions
investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and
leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law
and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed
as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude
that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe
the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal
conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct
described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the
investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain
Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue
in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special
Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials,
including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal
prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein and I have concluded
that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not
sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice
offense. Our determination was made without regard
to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the
indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that
the Special Counsel recognized 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 evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to
obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction
conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a
sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloging the
President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in
our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or
contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s
principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of justice
offense.
The relevant regulations contemplate that
the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney
General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9,
1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public
interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as
much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law,
regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special
Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material
that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which
imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to
“matter[ s] occurring before grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule
6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal
investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the
strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See,
e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). 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 their intended criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for
processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can
identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested
the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information
contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must
identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including
those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that
process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in
determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and
Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification,
the Special Counsel regulations 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 this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General
In my respectful opinion,
both Mueller
and Barr are honorable men so I believe everything that Mueller concluded in
his investigation and Barr’s interpretation of Mueller’s report.
However,
although Trump had nothing to do with the interference with the election as he
always maintained, this doesn’t mean that he is a good president President
Trump’s conduct as a human being and the president of the United States has
much to be desired. In simpler terms, I wouldn’t ever buy a car from him
without first making sure that there is an engine in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment