The next is the textual content of the letter United States Legal professional Common William Barr despatched to Congress on Sunday summarizing a report by Particular Counsel Robert Mueller on his investigation into Russia’s position within the 2016 presidential election:
Expensive Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Rating Member Feinstein, and Rating Member Collins:
As a complement to the notification offered on Friday, march 22, 2019, I’m writing at this time to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Particular Counsel Robert Mueller III and to tell you concerning the standing of my preliminary assessment of the report he has ready.
The Particular Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Particular Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination selections” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.eight(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference within the 2016 Presidential Election.” Though my assessment is ongoing, I consider that it’s within the public curiosity to explain the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Particular Counsel and the outcomes of his investigation.
WATCH: Jerrold Nadler says Trump can’t invoke government privilege on Mueller report
The report explains that the Particular Counsel and his employees completely investigated allegations that members of the presidential marketing campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others related to it, conspired with the Russian authorities in its efforts to intrude within the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to hinder the associated federal investigations. Within the report, the Particular Counsel famous that, in finishing his investigation, he employed 19 legal professionals who have been assisted by a workforce of roughly 40 FBI brokers, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and different skilled employees. The Particular Counsel issued greater than 2,800 subpoenas, executed practically 500 search warrants, obtained greater than 230 orders for communication information, issued virtually 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to international governments for proof, and interviewed roughly 500 witnesses.
The Particular Counsel obtained numerous indictments and convictions of people and entities in connection together with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. In the course of the course of his investigation, the Particular Counsel additionally referred a number of issues to different places of work for additional motion. The report doesn’t suggest any additional indictments, nor did the Particular Counsel receive any sealed indictments which have but to be made public. Under, I summarize the principal conclusions set out within the Particular Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference within the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
The Particular Counsel’s report is split into two components. The primary describes the outcomes of the Particular Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference within the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to affect the election and paperwork crimes dedicated by individuals related to the Russian authorities in reference to these efforts. The report additional explains main consideration for the Particular Counsel’s investigation was whether or not any Individuals -including people related to the Trump marketing campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to affect the election, which might be a federal crime. The Particular Counsel’s investigation didn’t discover that the Trump marketing campaign or anybody related to it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to affect the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Because the report states: ” he investigation didn’t set up that members of the Trump Marketing campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian authorities in its election interference actions.”
The Particular Counsel’s investigation decided that there have been two fundamental Russian efforts to affect the 2016 election. The primary concerned makes an attempt by a Russian group, the Web Analysis Company (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the USA designed to sow social discord, finally with the intention of interfering with the election. As famous above, the Particular Counsel didn’t discover that any U.S. particular person or Trump marketing campaign official or affiliate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, though the Particular Counsel introduced felony prices in opposition to numerous Russian nationals and entities in reference to these actions.
WATCH: Public has ‘proper to know’ contents of Mueller report: Schiff
The second aspect concerned the Russian authorities’s efforts to conduct laptop hacking operations designed to collect and disseminate info to affect the election. The Particular Counsel discovered that Russian authorities actors efficiently hacked into computer systems and obtained emails from individuals affiliated with the Clinton marketing campaign and Democratic Get together organizations, and publicly disseminated these supplies by way of numerous intermediaries, together with WikiLeaks. Primarily based on these actions, the Particular Counsel introduced felony prices in opposition to numerous Russian navy officers for conspiring to hack into computer systems in the USA for functions of influencing the election. However as famous above, the Particular Counsel didn’t discover that the Trump marketing campaign, or anybody related to it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian authorities in these efforts, regardless of a number of. gives from Russian-affiliated people to help the Trump marketing campaign.
Obstruction of Justice.
The report’s second half addresses numerous 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 issues. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these issues, the Particular Counsel thought-about whether or not to guage the conduct below Division requirements governing prosecution and declination selections however in the end decided to not make a conventional prosecutorial judgment. The Particular Counsel subsequently didn’t draw a conclusion – come what may – as as to if the examined conduct constituted obstruction. As an alternative, for every of the related actions investigated, the report units out proof on either side of the query and leaves unresolved what the Particular Counsel views as “troublesome points” of regulation and reality regarding whether or not the President’s actions and intent may very well be considered as obstruction .. The Particular Counsel states that “whereas this report doesn’t conclude that the President dedicated a criminal offense, it additionally doesn’t exonerate him.”
The Particular Counsel’s resolution to explain the information of his obstruction investigation with out reaching any authorized conclusions leaves it to the Legal professional Common to find out whether or not the conduct described within the report constitutes a criminal offense. Over the course of the investigation, the Particular Counsel’s workplace engaged in discussions with sure Division officers relating to most of the authorized and factual issues at problem within the Particular Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Particular Counsel’s closing report on these points; consulting with Division officers, together with the Workplace of Authorized Counsel; and making use of the ideas of federal prosecution that information our charging selections, Deputy Legal professional Common Rod Rosenstein and I’ve concluded that the proof developed throughout the Particular Counsel’s investigation shouldn’t be ample to ascertain that the President dedicated an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our dedication was made with out regard to, and isn’t primarily based on, the constitutional issues that encompass the indictment and felony prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this dedication, we famous that the Particular Counsel acknowledged that “the proof doesn’t set up that the President was concerned in an underlying crime associated to Russian election interference,” and that, whereas not determinative, the absence of such proof bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Typically talking, to acquire and maintain an obstruction conviction, the federal government would want to show past an affordable doubt that an individual, appearing with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a ample nexus to a pending or contemplated continuing. In cataloging the President’s actions, lots of which befell 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 accomplished with corrupt intent, every of which, below the Division’s ideas of federal prosecution guiding charging selections, would must be confirmed past an affordable doubt to ascertain an obstruction-ofjustice offense.
WATCH: Will the Mueller report be made public?
Standing of the Division’s Overview
The related laws ponder that the Particular Counsel’s report will probably be a “confidential report” to the Legal professional Common. See Workplace of Particular Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,zero40-41 (July 9, 1999). As I’ve beforehand acknowledged, nevertheless, I’m aware of the general public curiosity on this matter. For that purpose, my objective and intent is to launch as a lot of the Particular Counsel’s report as I can per relevant regulation, laws, and Departmental insurance policies.
Primarily based on my discussions with the Particular Counsel and my preliminary assessment, it’s obvious that the report incorporates materials that’s or may very well be topic to Federal Rule of Legal Process 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of data regarding “matter[ s] occurring earlier than grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) typically limits disclosure of sure grand jury info in a felony investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) materials past 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 distinctive and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for his or her supposed felony justice operate.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report relies upon partly on how shortly the Division can determine the 6( e) materials that by regulation can’t be made public. I’ve requested the help of the Particular Counsel in figuring out all 6( e) info contained within the report as shortly as doable. Individually, I additionally should determine any info that might influence different ongoing issues, together with people who the Particular Counsel has referred to different places of work. As quickly as that course of is full, I will probably be able to maneuver ahead expeditiously in figuring out what might be launched in gentle of relevant regulation, laws, and Departmental insurance policies.
As I noticed in my preliminary notification, the Particular Counsel laws present that “the Legal professional Common might decide that public launch of’ notifications to your respective Committees “could be within the public curiosity.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I’ve so decided, and I’ll disclose this letter to the general public after delivering it to you.
William P. Barr
Legal professional Common