The U.S. Justice Department
released the below:
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.
