Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Barr Summary March 2019

Barr Summary March 2019

Barr Summary March 2019

Page 1: Barr Summary March 2019

Category:

Number of Pages:4

Date Created:March 24, 2019

Date Uploaded to the Library:March 29, 2019

Tags:Barr, 2019, Russian, Trump, FBI


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
March 24, 2019
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman, Committee the Judiciary
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Committee the Judiciary
United States House Representatives
2132 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee the Judiciary
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member, Committee the Judiciary
United States House Representatives
1504 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins: supplement the notification provided Friday, March 22, 2019, writing today advise you the principal conclusions reached Special Counsel Robert Mueller III and inform you about the status initial review the report has prepared.
The SpecialCounsels Report Friday, the Special Counsel submitted confidential report explaining the
prosecution declination decisions has reached, required C.F.R. 600.8(c). This
report entitled Report the Investigation into Russian Interference the 2016 Presidential
Election. Although review ongoing, believe that the public interest describe the
report and summarize the principal conclusions reached the Special Counsel and the results his investigation.
The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated
allegations that members the presidential campaign Donald Trump, and others associated
with it, conspired with the Russian government its efforts interfere the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, sought obstruct the related federal investigations. the report, the
Special Counsel noted that, completing his investigation, employed lawyers who were
assisted team approximately 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
orders authorizing use pen registers, made requests foreign governments for evidence, and
interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained number indictments and convictions individuals and
entities connection with his investigation, all which have been publicly disclosed. During
the course his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters 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 made public. Below, summarize the
principal conclusions set out the Special Counsels report.
Russian Interference the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsels
report divided into two parts. The first describes the results the Special Counsels
investigation into Russias interference the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines
the Russian effort influence the election and documents crimes committed persons associated
with the Russian government connection with those efforts. The report further explains that
primary consideration for the Special Counsels investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies
influence the election, which would federal crime. The Special Counsels investigation did
not find that the Trump campaign anyone associated with conspired coordinated with
Russia its efforts influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. the report states: [T]he
investigation did not establish that members the Trump Campaign conspired coordinated
with the Russian government its election interference activities.
The Special Counsels investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts Russian organization, the Internet
Research Agency (IRA), conduct disinformation and social media operations the United
States designed sow social discord, eventually with the aim interfering with the election.
noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person Trump campaign official
associate conspired knowingly coordinated with the IRA its efforts, although the Special
Counsel brought criminal charges against number Russian nationals and entities connection
with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian governments efforts conduct computer
hacking operations designed gather and disseminate information 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 these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against
number Russian military officers for conspiring hack into computers the United States for
purposes influencing the election. But noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the
Trump campaign, anyone associated with it, conspired coordinated with the Russian
government these efforts, despite multiple .offers from Russian-affiliated individuals assist
the Trump campaign. assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether
members the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian election interference activities.
The Special Counsel defined coordination agreement-tacit express-between the
Trump Campaign and the Russian governm~nt election interference.
Obstruction Justice. The reports second part addresses number actions the
President most which have been the subject public reporting that the Special Counsel
investigated potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making thorough
factual investigation into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether evaluate the
conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but
ultimately determined not make traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel
therefore did not draw conclusion one way the other whether the examined conduct
constituted obstruction. Instead, for each the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out
evidence both sides the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views
difficult issues law and fact concerning whether the Presidents actions and intent could
viewed obstruction The Special Counsel states that while this report does not conclude that
the President committed crime, also does not exonerate him.
The Special Counsels decision describe the facts his obstruction investigation
without reaching any legal conclusions leaves itto the Attorney General determine whether the
conduct described the report constitutes crime. Over the course the investigation, the
Special Counsels office engaged discussions with certain Department officials regarding many the legal and factual matters issue the Special Counsels obstruction investigation. After
reviewing the Special Counsels final report these issues; consulting with Department officials,
including the Office Legal Counsel; and applying the principles federal prosecution that guide
our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and have concluded that the
evidence developed during the Special Counsels investigation not sufficient establish that
the President committed obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without
regard to, and not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution sitting president. making this determination, noted that the Special Counsel recognized that the
evidence does not establish that the President was involved underlying crime related
Russian election interference, and that, while not determinative, the absence such evidence
bears upon the Presidents intent with respect obstruction. Generally speaking, obtain and
sustain obstruction conviction, the government would need prove beyond reasonable doubt
that person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged obstructive conduct with sufficient nexus pending contemplated proceeding. cataloguing the Presidents actions, many which took
place public view, the report identifies actions that, our judgment, constitute obstructive
conduct, had nexus pending contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,
each which, under the Departments principles federal prosecution guiding charging
decisions, would need proven beyond reasonable doubt establish obstruction-ofjustice offense.
Status the Departments Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsels report will
confidential report the Attorney General. See Office Special Counsel, Fed. Reg. 37,038,
See Sitting Presidents Amenability Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, Op. O.L.C.
222 (2000).
37,040-41 (July 1999). have previously stated, however, mindful the public interest this matter. For that reason, goal and intent release much the Special Counsels
report can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based discussions with the Special Counsel and initial review, apparent that
the report contains material that could subject Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 6(e),
which imposes restrictions the use and disclosure information relating matter[s] occurring
before [a] grand jury. Fed. Crim. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure certain
grand jury information criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure 6(e) material
beyond the strict limits set forth the rule crime certain circumstances. See, e.g., U.S.C.
401(3). This restriction protects the integrity grand jury proceedings and ensures that the
unique and invaluable investigative powers grand jury are used strictly for their intended
criminal justice function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends part how
quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that law cannot made public. have
requested the assistance the Special Counsel identifying all 6(e) information contained the
report quickly possible. Separately, also must identify any information that could impact
other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred other offices.
soon that process complete, will position move forward expeditiously
determining what can released light applicable law, regulations, and Departmental
policies. observed initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that the
Attorney General may determine that public release notifications your respective
Committees would the public interest. C.F.R. 600.9(c). have determined, and
will disclose this letter the public after delivering you.
Sincerely,
William Barr
Attorney General