Today’s Full Text Remarks on the Release of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. Plus, Chicago Tribune Counterpoint.
GUEST BLOG / By William P. Barr, United States Attorney
General--Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.
On March 22, 2019, Special
Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to
Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted
his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.
As I said during my Senate
confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest
possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation,
consistent with the law.
At 11:00 this morning, I will
transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the
Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the
report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s
website after it has been delivered to Congress.
I would like to offer a few
comments today on the report.
But before I do that, I want
to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and
for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for
many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege
and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from
public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am
grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special
Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion.
Thank you, Rod.
I would also like to thank
Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his
investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts
to interfere in our electoral process.
As you know, one of the
primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine
whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any
individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the
Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report
describes the results of that investigation.
As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his
“investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired
or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference
activities.”
I am sure that all Americans
share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in
our presidential election. As the
Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to
interfere in our election. But thanks to
the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian
operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of
President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other
Americans for that matter. That is
something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.
The Special Counsel’s report
outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016
election:
First, the report details
efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to
the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through
disinformation and social media operations.
Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the
Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian
nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the
individual defendants remain at large.
But the Special Counsel found
no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump
campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in
carrying out this illegal scheme.
Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify
evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the
IRA’s interference operation.” Put
another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the
IRA’s illegal activity.
Second, the report details
efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into
computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the
Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for
the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into
computers is a federal crime. Following
a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel
brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for
their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the
defendants remain at large.
But again, the Special
Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign
or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the
Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump
campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.
The Special Counsel’s
investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and
documents on the internet. The Special
Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials
through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU
transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document
dumps. The Special Counsel also
investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged
or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these
types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated
in the underlying hacking conspiracy.
Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person
associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination
of the materials.
Finally, the Special Counsel
investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials
and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016
presidential campaign. After reviewing
those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S.
law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump
campaign.
So that is the bottom
line. After nearly two years of
investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness
interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored
efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not
find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.
After finding no underlying
collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether
certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special
Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed
in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional
prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes
involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting
these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the
facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the
Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney
General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is
not sufficient to establish that the President committed an
obstruction-of-justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney
General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and
felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a
matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s
legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as
presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.
In assessing the President’s
actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the
context. President Trump faced an
unprecedented situation. As he entered
into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal
agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking
office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless
speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was
in fact no collusion. And as the Special
Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the
President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation
was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and
fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless,
the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,
providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing
senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no
act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses
necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were
obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any
allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the
investigation.
Now, before I take questions,
I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report
that I am releasing today. As I said
several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four
categories of information. To ensure as
much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and
color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which
categories.
As you will see, most of the
redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to
comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information
bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case
and the Roger Stone case.
These redactions were applied
by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from
the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and
prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases.
The redactions are their work product.
Consistent with long-standing
Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege
over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United
States. Because the White House voluntarily
cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of
the report contain material over which the President could have asserted
privilege. And he would have been well
within his rights to do so. Following my
March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the
opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the
President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with
long-standing practice. Following that
review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full
disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the
Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly,
the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four
categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based
on executive privilege.
In addition, earlier this
week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity
to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly
released. That request was consistent
with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted
individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the
opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not
permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.
In addition to making the
redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to
accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special
Counsel’s investigation. We have been
consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process,
and we will continue to do so.
Given the limited nature of
the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every
American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate
congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders
from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all
redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able
to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception
of that which, by law, cannot be shared.
I believe that this
accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House
Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information
regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Once again, I would like to
thank you all for being here today. I
now have a few minutes for questions.
POINT-COUNTERPOINT
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
No comments:
Post a Comment