The Mueller report, officially titled Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019,[1] and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes. The redactions from the report and its supporting material were placed under a temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege by then-President Trump on May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress,[2] despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump "confirmed" he would not exert privilege.[3]
Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved and due to testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.[18][19][20] This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,[21][22][23] and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment.[19][22][24][21][25] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[26][27] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[28][29][30][31] The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[32][33] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".[34][35][36] The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,[19][37][38] referencing impeachment.[39][40]
On March 24, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion".[41] Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report.[42] Also on March 24, Barr's letter stated that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish" that Trump had obstructed justice.[43][44] On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does"[45] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[46] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.[47] In 2020, a Republican-appointed federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump.[48][49]
Background
Impetus for investigation
On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump dismissed former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, who had been leading an ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials.[51][52] This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats in May 2016 and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.[53][54] Papadopolous had received this suggestion in April 2016, well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton (the Democratic National Committee had in June 2016 announced that a Russian hack occurred).[55][56] Papadopoulos later testified that this "damaging information" was in the form of hacked emails that were stolen from the Democratic Party.[57]
Over 130 Democratic lawmakers of the United States Congress called for a special counsel to be appointed in reaction to Comey's firing.[58] CNN reported that within eight days of Comey's dismissal, an FBI investigation on Trump for obstruction of justice was opened by the acting FBI Director at the time, Andrew McCabe, who cited multiple reasons including Comey's firing.[59] After McCabe was later fired from the FBI, he confirmed that he had opened the obstruction investigation, and gave additional reasons for its launch.[60]
Eight days after Comey's dismissal, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, under 28 CFR § 600.1, as special counsel to take over and expand an existing FBI counterintelligence investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as well as the FBI investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials that Comey was leading.[52][61][62] The special counsel also took over the FBI investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice with Comey.[59] Rosenstein's authority to appoint Mueller arose due to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' March 2017 recusal of himself from investigations into the Trump campaign.[52][62][63]
Scope and mandate
According to its authorizing document,[50] which was signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between President Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government[64][65] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".[50] The authorizing document also included "any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR § 600.4(a)";[50] enabling the special counsel "to investigate and prosecute" any attempts to interfere with its investigation, "such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses".[66]
Proceedings of investigation
The Special Counsel investigation ran from May 17, 2017, to March 22, 2019, and resulted in thirty-four indictments, including against several former members of the Trump campaign and many of which are still being tried. The investigation issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed almost 500 search warrants, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.[67]
The Mueller report included references to 14 criminal investigations that were referred to other offices, 12 of which were completely redacted in the April 18 release. The other two related to Michael Cohen and Gregory Craig, cases that were already public.[68]
Findings
Volume I
Volume I starts on page 1 of the report and focuses on Russian interference and allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.[69]
Russian interference
The Mueller report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".[11][12][70] The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election.[71][72]
Social media campaign
The first method of Russian interference was done through the Internet Research Agency (IRA), waging "a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton".[26] The IRA also sought to "provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States".[73][74]
By February 2016, internal IRA documents showed an order to support the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while IRA members were to "use any opportunity to criticize" Hillary Clinton and the rest of the candidates.[75] From June 2016, the IRA organized election rallies in the U.S. "often promoting" Trump's campaign while "opposing" Clinton's campaign.[76] The IRA posed as Americans, hiding their Russian background, while asking Trump campaign members for campaign buttons, flyers, and posters for the rallies. The Mueller report detailed that the IRA spent $100,000 for over 3,500 Facebook advertisements, which included anti-Clinton and pro-Trump advertisements.[77]
The report lists IRA-created groups on Facebook to include "purported conservative groups" (e.g. 'Tea Party News'), "purported Black social justice groups" (e.g. 'Blacktivist') "LGBTQ groups" (e.g. 'LGBT United'), "and religious groups" (e.g. 'United Muslims of America').[77] The IRA Twitter accounts included @TEN_GOP (claiming to be related to the Tennessee Republican Party), @jenn_abrams, and @Pamela_Moore13 (both claimed to be Trump supporters and both had 70,000 followers).[78] Several Trump campaign members (Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael Flynn) linked or reposted material from the IRA's @TEN_GOP Twitter account listed above. Other people who responded to IRA social media accounts include Michael McFaul, Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, and Michael G. Flynn (Michael Flynn's son).[79]
Hacking and release of material
The second method of Russian interference saw the Russian military intelligence agency GRU hacking into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton presidential campaign, including that of campaign chairman John Podesta, and also hacking into "the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)". As a result, the GRU obtained hundreds of thousands of hacked documents, and the GRU proceeded by arranging releases of damaging hacked material via the WikiLeaks organization and also GRU's false personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0".[80][81][82]
Conspiracy or coordination
The investigation found there were at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, though the contacts were insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy.[83] To establish whether a crime was committed by members of the Trump campaign with regard to Russian interference, investigators "applied the framework of conspiracy law", and not the concept of "collusion", because collusion "is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law".[84][85] They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference." Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination.[86][87]
The special counsel identified two methods the Russian government tried to communicate with the Trump campaign. "The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump Campaign. [...] First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted – typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting – pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States", the report states.[70]
Secondly, the report details a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. The intent of the meeting was to exchange "dirt" on the Clinton campaign. There was speculation that Trump Jr. told his father. However, the special counsel could not find any evidence that he did.[70] The office declined to pursue charges for two reasons: the office "did not obtain admissible evidence" that would meet the burden of proof principle beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct; secondly, the office expected difficulty in valuing the promised information that "exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation" of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.[88]
The Report cited several impediments to investigators' ability to acquire information, including witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, witnesses deleting electronic communications or using encrypted or self-destructing messaging apps, limitations of interviewing attorneys or individuals asserting they were members of the media, information obtained through subpoenas that was screened from investigators due to legal privilege, and false or incomplete testimony provided by witnesses.[7][8][89][9][90]
While conspiracy or coordination was not proven, Mueller's report left many unanswered questions, such as whether the myriad secret contacts between Trump associates and Russians, which they lied about, constituted, using Mueller's words, "a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election"? Benjamin Wittes has written about this:
Put another way, what is the story these contacts tell if it's not one of active coordination? They surely aren't, in the aggregate, innocent. They aren't normal business practice for a presidential campaign. When Mueller asks whether they constituted some sort of third avenue for Russian interference, he's really asking, in the prosecutorial language available to him, what to make of them.... To my mind, anyway, that's the story Mueller told in this section. It may not be a crime, but it is a very deep betrayal.[91]
George Croner of the Foreign Policy Research Institute has also expressed his concerns with what he describes as a "curiously flaccid" approach taken by Mueller in dealing with what the public would normally interpret as "coordination". He sees Mueller's dependence on a formal "tacit agreement" approach as "an overly cautious" and "legalistic construct":
To most individuals, at some point, persistent parallel conduct coupled with "multiple links" between the participants increasingly suggests that the conduct is coordinated—not coincidentally parallel.... [I]t is not surprising that many are confounded by the Special Counsel's inability, or refusal, to render a conclusion on what is publicly perceived as having been the raison d'être of the inquiry.[92]
Volume II
Volume II starts on page 208 of the official PDF file of the report and details potential instances of obstruction of justice.[93][94][95][96] Page numbering in the file restarts with Volume II.[96]
Trump's reaction to Mueller appointment
According to the report, upon learning that Mueller had been appointed as Special Counsel, Trump said "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked", to Jeff Sessions when they were having a meeting in the Oval Office.[97][98] "You were supposed to protect me", Sessions recalled Trump telling him. "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me", Trump later said, according to Sessions and Jody Hunt, Sessions' then-chief of staff.[98]
Obstruction of justice
Regarding obstruction of justice, the report stated that the investigation "did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference", but investigators wrote that obstruction of justice could still occur "regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong".[99][100] Trump, Barr, Rudy Giuliani and others have persistently and incorrectly maintained that an individual cannot obstruct justice unless the individual committed an underlying crime.[further explanation needed][101][102][103][104]
On obstruction of justice, the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him". Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime",[26] as investigators decided "not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes".[18][37][19] Investigators did not make a judgment about whether to charge Trump with a crime, for two main reasons: Firstly, the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted, a stance taken from the start of the investigation.[21][22][105] Secondly, investigators did not want to charge Trump because a federal criminal charge would hinder a sitting president's "capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct",[106] with a footnote reference to impeachment.[107] Even if charges were recommended in a secret memo or a charging document sealed until Trump's presidency ended, the information could still be leaked.[19][22][70] In addition, the special counsel's office rejected the alternative option of accusing Trump of committing a crime without bringing a charge. Investigators felt that this alternative option would be unfair to Trump, as there would be no trial in which Trump could clear his own name.[21][22][34]
The special counsel's office did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice because they were not confident that Trump was clearly innocent, after examining "evidence [they] obtained about the President's actions and intent".[28][29][30][39] The "investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations".[108] The report noted that once Trump was aware that he was personally being investigated for obstruction of justice, he started "public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the president, while in private, the president engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation."[34] However, President Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." This prevented further obstruction of justice charges "against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed".[34][35][109][110]
The report notes that Congress has the authority to decide if Trump obstructed justice, and then take further action if obstruction occurred, with investigators writing: "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." This phrase was interpreted as a possible reference to Congress potentially initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump.[19][34][37][39][111]
Episodes of alleged obstruction
Some sources such as FactCheck.org, PBS NewsHour, and The New York Times describe the report as detailing eleven episodes where Trump may have possibly obstructed justice; one episode as a presidential candidate or president-elect, and ten episodes while Trump was president:[32][33][112]
Attorney General William Barr stated that there are ten episodes of potential obstruction.[113] Other sources such as The Washington Post and The Hill also report ten episodes; both omit the episode when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[28][114] CBS News counts ten episodes, omitting the one involving Corey Lewandowski.[115]
Quinta Jurecic, the managing editor of Lawfare, created a chart to simplify and summarize Mueller's analysis of these episodes in the report. Jurecic does not analyze the episode that occurred when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[116]
Trump campaign's response to Russian support
Section A of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The report states that the first possible obstruction case was during the 2016 presidential campaign, when questions "arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump". The report states that while Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, Trump and his aides were also trying to obtain information about "any further planned WikiLeaks releases".[117][115] According to the report, shortly after a WikiLeaks release,[which?] Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, was going to LaGuardia Airport with Trump when Trump took a phone call. After the call, "candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming".[118][32] The report also notes that Trump consistently said that he had no business connections to Russia, despite his company trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. "After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election".[119][115][120]
President's conduct in Michael Flynn investigation
Section B of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The report outlines Michael Flynn's, Trump's first National Security Advisor, contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, shortly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions against Russia on December 29, 2016.[121][122] Later that day, K. T. McFarland, "who was slated to become the Deputy National Security Advisor ... talked by phone about what, if anything, Flynn should communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions".[123] The report details that based on those conversations, "McFarland informed Flynn that incoming Administration officials at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation". Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus "recalled that McFarland may have mentioned at the meeting that the sanctions situation could be 'cooled down' and not escalated".[124][125] Priebus recalls that President-Elect Trump viewed the sanctions "as an attempt by the Obama Administration to embarrass him by delegitimizing his election".[126][125] Later that evening, Flynn called Kislyak and requested how Russia should respond to the newly-placed U.S. sanctions: "only in a reciprocal manner, without escalating the situation".[127][128][129] Afterwards, Flynn briefed McFarland on the call. Flynn said that the Russian response to the sanctions "was not going to be escalatory because Russia wanted a good relationship with the Trump Administration".[130][129] On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia "would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time and would instead 'plan . . . further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration'".[131] Trump responded to the news by tweeting "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!"[131][132] The report details that Trump was warned by Don McGahn and Priebus to not discuss about the Russian investigation with Comey, but Trump did so anyway.[133]
The Mueller report described a November 2017 voicemail Flynn's attorneys received from Trump's "personal counsel", reportedly John Dowd,[134] who stated, "[I]f...there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue,...so, you know, ...we need some kind of heads up",[135] reiterating the president's "feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains".[136] Flynn's attorneys called Trump's attorney to reiterate that they could no longer share information with him because their joint defense agreement was canceled upon Flynn's guilty plea, at which point the attorney became "indignant and vocal in his disagreement", indicating that Trump would be advised that this represented "hostility" toward him.[137][138][139] The New York Times reported on June 9, 2019, that Mueller's office opted to not question Dowd about the voicemail as potential obstruction of justice, possibly leading to Trump, because the ambiguity of the voicemail raised concerns of violating attorney-client privilege and protracted litigation.[140]
President's reaction to the FBI's Russia investigation being publicized
Section C of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
After Trump learned that then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions planned to recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation, Trump sought to prevent Session's move. "After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at Sessions for the decision and then privately asked Sessions to "unrecuse".[141][28][142] On March 20, Comey publicly disclosed the FBI's Russia investigation.[143] "In the days that followed, the President contacted Comey and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort in order to 'lift the cloud' of the ongoing investigation", the report says.[144][145]
Dismissal of James Comey
Section D of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
"In the week leading up to Comey's May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told Don McGahn that it would be the last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation, despite repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement," the report states.[146][147] Trump told his aides that he was going to fire Comey on May 5, and did so on May 9. The report notes that Trump fired Comey before he received a recommendation by the Justice Department. "Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement", the report reads.[146][148] Trump boasted about the firing of Comey to the Russian foreign minister and U.S. Ambassador of Russia in an Oval Office meeting in May 2017, saying: "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."[149]
President's efforts to remove the Special Counsel
Section E of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
When Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Special Counsel investigation, the report notes that Trump said something along the lines of: "that it was the end of his presidency and that Attorney General Sessions had failed to protect him and should resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, which the President ultimately did not accept".[150][151] The report notes that on June 14, 2017, "the press reported that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and the President responded with a series of tweets criticizing the Special Counsel's investigation".[152][148] The following weekend, Trump called McGahn and "directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest".[153] McGahn did not act on the request "for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre and instead prepared to resign".[154][153] McGahn formally departed the Trump administration on October 17, 2018.[155]
President's efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation
Section F of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
On June 19, 2017, two days after Trump tried to have Don McGahn fire the special counsel, Trump went to Sessions. Trump had a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office with Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager who was not working for the government. Trump wanted Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions that would "have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only".[156][157] The report relays that Trump told Lewandowski "that Sessions was weak and that if the President had known about the likelihood of recusal in advance, he would not have appointed Sessions".[158][159] Trump dictated the following message meant for Sessions, and Lewandowski noted it down: "I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . .. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history".[160][161] The message goes on in which Sessions would meet with the Special Counsel and limit its jurisdiction to future election interference. "Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections".[162][161] Trump reportedly said that "if Sessions delivered that statement he would be the 'most popular guy in the country.'"[163] Lewandowski arranged a meeting with Sessions, but it was cancelled "due to a last minute conflict".[164]
On July 19, 2017, Trump again met Lewandowski in the Oval Office, and inquired if Lewandowski passed the message to Sessions. Lewandowski replied that it would be done soon. The report continues: "Lewandowski recalled that the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired".[165][166] Immediately after this second meeting, Lewandowski passed the message to White House official Rick Dearborn to relay to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and chose not to not pass the message, although the report quotes Dearborn as telling Lewandowski that he had "handled the situation".[167][32][39][168]
President's efforts to prevent disclosures about Trump Tower meeting
Section G of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The report cites three different occasions between June 29 and July 9, 2017, when Trump directed Hope Hicks, former White House Communications Director, and others to not disclose information about the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016. These requests were directed to the press and could have constituted obstruction only if Trump "sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigations or the Special Counsel".[157][169] The Special Counsel could not find any evidence to establish that Trump intended on preventing the Special Counsel or Congress from obtaining the emails or information referring to the meeting.[170][171] Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, recalled that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, were meeting.[172] The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to receive "dirt" on the Clinton presidential campaign. Gates testified that Trump Jr. announced at a regular planned meeting that he "had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation".[173][174][175] Gates recalled Manafort saying at the meeting that the Trump Tower meeting "likely would not yield vital information and they should be careful".[172][176] The Special Counsel found Manafort to be correct, as the "dirt" was information regarding the Ziff brothers doing tax evasion and money laundering in Russia and "donated the illegal profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign".[177][157] There was speculation that Trump Jr. told his father. However, the Special Counsel could not find any evidence that he did.[70][175]
The office declined to pursue charges for two reasons: the office "did not obtain admissible evidence" that would meet the burden of proof principle beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct; secondly, the office expected difficulty in valuing the promised information that "exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation" of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.[178][88]
President's efforts to have Attorney General control investigation
Section H of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The report notes that between 2017–2018, Trump tried to convince Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal over the Special Counsel investigation. Trump also tried to convince Sessions to launch an investigation into Hillary Clinton and prosecute her.[157] "On multiple occasions in 2017, the President spoke with Sessions about reversing his recusal so that he could take over the Russia investigation and begin an investigation of Hillary Clinton ... There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that could restrict its scope. [...] A reasonable inference from those statements and the President's action is that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation".[145][179][157]
President orders McGahn to deny reports
Section I of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
After the news broke out in late January 2018, that Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller in June 2017, Trump pressured McGahn to deny the reports. "After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel," the report reads.[180][148] Trump told then-White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to tell McGahn to create a record that makes clear Trump never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. "Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file 'for our records' and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. The President referred to McGahn as a 'lying bastard' and said that he wanted a record from him".[181][157] Porter recalled Trump "saying something to the effect of 'If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him'".[182][157] Trump did not fire McGahn, who departed on October 17, 2018.[155]
President's conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, and "redacted name"
Section J of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The report details that Trump took actions "directed at possible witnesses in the Special Counsel's investigation".[183][148] The report notes that actions taken by Trump and his counsel "could have had the potential to affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn's counsel".[184][185] For Manafort, the report details by saying: "With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President's actions had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the government".[186][185]
President's conduct involving Michael Cohen
Section K of Volume II of the report describes the events of this episode.[96]
The final instance of potential obstruction concerns Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer of Trump's. "There is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign-period conduct and statements", the report states.[187][188] The report continues by detailing that Trump encouraged Cohen to "stay strong": "After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip" and privately passes messages of support to him".[189][115] However, the report notes that when Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, Trump publicly criticized him: "Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do 'something else' to make the investigation end. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a 'rat', and suggested that his family members had committed crimes".[189][190]
Appendices
Four appendices were included in the report:
- Appendix A: Order 3915-2017 from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[191][50]
- Appendix B: Glossary of terms used in the report containing "names and brief descriptions of individuals and entities referenced in the two volumes of [the] report".[192]
- Appendix C: President Trump's written answers to the special counsel.[193]
- Appendix D: Special counsel's office transferred, referred, and completed cases.[194]
Events before public release
The report was submitted by the special counsel to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019.[1] Barr assumed oversight of the investigation on February 14, 2019, after being approved by the Senate and sworn in as Attorney General.[195][196] Barr had been previously critical of the investigation before Trump announced his intent to nominate Barr for Attorney General on December 7, 2018.[197][198][199] Barr's predecessor, Jeff Sessions, resigned on November 7, 2018, writing that it was at Trump's request.[200][201][202]
Barr letter
On March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr sent Congress a four-page letter describing the special counsel's conclusions regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.[71] Barr relayed two ways in which Russia interfered in the election: firstly, "disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord"; and secondly, hacking computers for emails from the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[71][72] Barr also quoted the report that the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[203]
On obstruction of justice, Barr wrote that the special counsel "did not draw a conclusion" on obstruction[204][205] and that "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".[72] Barr continued: "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".[206][207]
On Barr's decision to clear him on obstruction, Trump said in late April 2019 that Barr read the Mueller report "and he made a decision right on the spot. No obstruction".[208][209]
After the release of the Barr Letter, media commentators pointed out that in June 2018, prior to joining the Trump administration, Barr sent an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Department of Justice and White House attorneys asserting that Mueller's investigation of President Trump for obstruction is "legally insupportable",[210][211][212][213] and "fatally misconceived".[214][215][216] Barr also discussed the memo with some of Trump's attorneys.[210]
Mueller's reaction
On March 27, 2019, Mueller reportedly wrote to Barr in a letter, as stated in the New York Times "expressing his and his team's concerns that the attorney general had inadequately portrayed their conclusions".[217] This was first reported on April 30, 2019. Mueller thought that the Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the findings of the special counsel investigation that he led.[218] "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation". Mueller also requested Barr release the Mueller report's introductions and executive summaries.[219][220] The March 27 Mueller letter made no mention of media coverage.[220][221]
On March 28, 2019, according to anonymous Justice Department officials, Mueller, in a call to Barr, reportedly expressed concerns about public misunderstandings of the obstruction investigation due to media coverage.[219] On April 30, 2019, a spokeswoman from the Justice Department described the March 28 call between Mueller and Barr: "the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General's March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel's obstruction analysis". Although they discussed whether more context could be provided via Barr releasing more of the report, Barr "ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion".[219][222]
On March 29, 2019, Barr sent a subsequent letter to Congress in which he said that his March 24 letter was not a summary of the Mueller report,[223] but merely presented the report's principal conclusions. Barr also wrote that he would be volunteering to testify before Congress in early May, which Barr did.[219]
Barr testimony of April 9 and 10
On April 9, Attorney General Barr appeared in a congressional hearing before the House. There, Representative Charlie Crist described media reports that "members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the [Mueller] report's findings". Crist asked Barr: "Do you know what they are referencing with that?", Barr replied: "No, I don't. I think – I think – I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries".[224][225]
On April 10, Attorney General Barr appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Chris Van Hollen asked Barr regarding obstruction: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" Barr replied: "I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."[224][225]
Barr press conference
On April 18, Attorney General Barr held a press conference discussing the report 90 minutes before it was released to Congress and the public.[226] The press conference discussed redacted portions, and "ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense."[227][207]
Barr gave the following elaboration on his decision that the evidence was insufficient to warrant an obstruction of justice charge for Trump: "Although the deputy attorney general [Rod Rosenstein] 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".[114]
Barr also mentioned that Trump's legal team received the redacted version of the report earlier in the week, adding that the president's lawyers "were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions".[207][228] Barr said that 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".[3]
In the press conference, Barr asked that people look into the context, stating that President Trump "faced an unprecedented situation [...] federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. [...] There was relentless speculation in the news media about the President's personal culpability", even though there was, according to Barr, "no collusion". Barr continued that there was "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".[229][230][231] Also in the press conference, Barr said that he asked Mueller "whether or not [Mueller] was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion" that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Barr continued that Mueller "made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position – he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime".[232]
Some political commentators, including Chris Wallace of Fox News, observed that Barr appeared to behave more like Trump's defense attorney than as an attorney general during the press conference.[how?][233][234][235][236]
Following the Barr press conference, The New York Times noticed similarities from Barr's 19-page memo to the Justice Department while not working for the government, in which he criticized this investigation for "proposing an unprecedented expansion of obstruction laws" that would result in "grave consequences" for the institution of the presidency. The New York Times continued that Barr had an "untrammeled view of executive power", and that the 2018 Barr memo "turned out to be an accurate road map to Mr. Barr's handling of the Mueller report".[237]
Public release of redacted report
On April 18, 2019, a redacted version of the special counsel's report was released to Congress and the public. About one-eighth of the lines are redacted.[227][238][239] The report is 448 pages long across two volumes and four appendices. It contains about 200,000 words and over 1,100 footnotes. About 11% of the text is redacted.[240] 40% of the pages had at least one redaction,[241] and there were over 900 redacted text blocks in all.[242][243]
Barr described the four kinds of redactions in the released report: "harm to ongoing matter" (HOM) in white, "personal privacy" (PP) in green, "investigative technique" (IT) in yellow, and "grand jury" material in red.[244] Of those, only the grand jury redactions are required by law due to 6(e) of United States criminal procedure.[245][246][247] Barr characterized the report as being "lightly redacted".[94]
Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter
After the release of the redacted report, the Barr letter was criticized as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller report and its conclusions.[86][248][40][249] Numerous legal analysts accused Barr of glossing over the report, identifying significant discrepancies between Barr's characterizations of its contents and the report's actual findings, while others called for Barr's resignation.[250][251][252][253] The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:[86]
- Omission of language that indicated Trump could be subject to indictment after leaving office.[254][255][256]
- A sentence fragment described only one possible motive for Trump to obstruct justice, while the Mueller report listed multiple possible motives.
- Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.
CNN wrote that while Barr in his letter took it upon himself to deliver a ruling on whether Trump had committed obstruction, the redacted report indicates that Mueller intended that decision to be made by Congress, not Barr.[257]
Numerous other political and legal analysts, including Bob Woodward[258] and Brian Williams,[259] observed significant differences in what Barr said about Mueller's findings in his March 24 summary letter, and in his April 18 press conference, compared to what the Mueller report actually found. This commentary included a comparison of Barr to Baghdad Bob, calling him "Baghdad Bill".[259][250][260][261]
Barr wrote that his letter provided "the principal conclusions" of the Mueller report. Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law and co-editor of Just Security, observed that in 1989 Barr also wrote a letter which he stated contained "the principal conclusions" of a controversial legal opinion he worked on as head of the OLC. Barr declined to provide the full opinion to Congress, but it was later subpoenaed and released to the public, showing that the summary letter did not fully disclose the principal conclusions.[262][263]
Redacted report findings compared to Barr press conference
In the Barr press conference on April 18, prior to the release of the redacted report, Barr said that "the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation". However, Factcheck.org describes that this was "contradicted in the report", which stated that Trump had attacked the investigation in public, tried to control the investigation in private, and encouraged witnesses not to cooperate both in public and private. Factcheck.org also describes the report as saying that President Trump did not fully cooperate for interview requests by investigators, then in written responses answered that he did not remember to over 30 questions, while other answers were "incomplete or imprecise". Investigators protested that the written responses denied them the opportunity to ask follow-up questions, but Trump denied another request for an interview.[32]
Also the Barr press conference on April 18, Barr said that "Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision [on obstruction by Trump] to Congress". The Washington Post described that "the report does not say Mueller intended to leave obstruction-related decisions to Barr", and instead "uses suggestive language about Congress's role", that Congress can subject President Trump to obstruction laws, and made a reference to not wanting to preempt impeachment.[40]
Analysis of redactions
Attributes of the report's text, and its redactions in particular, received significant news coverage and was a noted talking point.[240] Redactions were concentrated on areas about Russian government interference in the elections.[241] The four types of redactions had the following statistics:
- "Harm to ongoing matter" – over 400 redactions and about 45% of the redacted text overall.[243][242]
- "Personal privacy" – an estimated 5–7% of the redactions.[242]
- "Investigative technique" – an estimated 8–10% of the redactions.[242][243]
- "Grand jury" – over 300 redactions and about 38% of the redacted text overall.[242]
Press coverage of the investigation
The Associated Press and Slate observed that the Mueller report mostly corroborated press coverage of the investigation. Kyle Pope, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, remarked that "The media looks a lot stronger today than it did before the release of this report", asserting that Mueller's report absolved the media of its coverage of the investigation, the fairness, accuracy, and objectivity of which was repeatedly derided by President Trump and his allies as "fake news" and a part of a concerted "Witch-Hunt".[264][265] The Washington Post stated that the report "offered a rich portrait of Trump's efforts as president to undermine the investigation and mislead the public".[266]
The Washington Post reported that while some press reports on the investigation proved wrong, or at least were not confirmed by the Mueller report, "the Mueller report was by and large an affirmation of the mainstream media's investigative reporting. Almost all the big stories were confirmed in the report". Notable reports that were not confirmed to be true by the report included:[267]
- Trump had "directed" Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.
- Cohen was in Prague in 2016.
- Russian Alfa Bank server was communicating with a Trump Organization server.
- Paul Manafort secretly met with Julian Assange.
- The 2016 Republican platform eased its policy on Ukraine at the behest of Trump or Russia.
False and misleading public statements by the Trump administration
Politifact published a list of eight notable public assertions Trump and his administration made that the Mueller report showed to be false or misleading:[268]
- Mueller had conflicts of interest and was turned down to become FBI director.[269]
- Trump asserted he hadn't thought about firing Mueller.[270]
- Press secretary Sarah Sanders asserted that Trump fired James Comey because "countless" FBI agents told her they had lost faith in him.[271]
- Sanders asserted that a DOJ internal review had prompted Comey's firing.[272]
- Sanders claimed Trump "certainly didn't dictate" a statement by Donald Trump Jr. regarding the Trump Tower meeting.[273]
- Trump asserted that the Steele dossier triggered the initial FBI investigation and the investigation "was a plan by those who lost the election".[268][274]
- Trump repeatedly asserted, during 2016–2017, that he had no business involvement in Russia.[275]
- Trump claimed Comey sought a dinner with him when actually Trump invited Comey for dinner.[276]
Vox reported that the Mueller report showed Sanders and her predecessor, Sean Spicer, made false statements about the circumstances surrounding the firings of Comey and Michael Flynn.[277]
The Mueller report showed that despite assertions by Hope Hicks and Jason Miller in September 2016 that Carter Page never had any involvement with the campaign, Page actually produced work for the campaign, traveled with Trump to a campaign speech and "Chief policy adviser Sam Clovis expressed appreciation for Page's work and praised his work to other Campaign officials".[278][279][280]
Other findings
The Mueller report devoted over a dozen pages to refute an argument made by Trump's attorneys, and by Barr before he joined the Trump administration, that it was impossible for Trump to obstruct the investigation, regardless of his intentions, due to his presidential authority to oversee federal law enforcement – an interpretation that some legal scholars characterized as dubious because it suggests a president is above the law.[34][281][282]
The report confirmed significant aspects of reporting, primarily by The Wall Street Journal, of efforts by Republican activist Peter Smith to locate deleted Clinton emails, including his communications about it with Michael Flynn and campaign co-chair Sam Clovis, as well as Flynn's actions to spearhead the effort at Trump's repeated requests. In at least one email to an undisclosed list of recipients, Smith claimed to know WikiLeak's schedule about releasing the Clinton emails, writing there was a "tug-of-war going on within WikiLeaks over its planned releases in the next few days", and that WikiLeaks "has maintained that it will save its best revelations for last, under the theory this allows little time for response prior to the U.S. election November 8."[283][284]
The report confirmed significant parts of reporting regarding a January 2017 meeting in Seychelles between Erik Prince, George Nader, and Putin confidant Kirill Dmitriev, among others. Despite Prince's prior congressional testimony that he had no role in the Trump campaign or transition, the report found that Nader had represented Prince to Dmitriev as "designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very very well connected and trusted by the New Team".[285][286] The Mueller Report stated, "According to Nader, Prince had led him to believe that Bannon was aware of Prince's upcoming meeting with Dmitriev, and Prince acknowledged that it was fair for Nader to think that Prince would pass information on to the Transition Team. Bannon, however, told the Office that Prince did not tell him in advance about his meeting with Dmitriev".[287][286] Prince testified to the House Intelligence Committee that "I didn't fly there to meet any Russian guy",[288] although the Mueller Report found that he and Nader made significant preparations to meet Dmitriev.[289][290] Although Prince had previously characterized a second meeting between him and Dmitriev in a bar as a chance encounter of no consequence,[288] the Mueller report found the meeting was actually pre-arranged after Prince had learned from communications back home that Russia had positioned an aircraft carrier off Libya and he wanted to convey that the United States would not accept any Russian involvement in Libya.[286] House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff announced on April 30, 2019, that he was sending a criminal referral to the Justice Department alleging Prince had provided false testimony to the committee.[291][292]
The special counsel sought to interview Trump for more than a year, advising his attorneys that "it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place" and offering "numerous accommodations to aid the President's preparation and avoid surprise".[293][294] Trump's attorneys resisted these requests, which the special counsel accepted written responses to questions.[295] The Mueller report stated that Trump asserted more than thirty times that he could not remember information that had been asked, and that other answers were "incomplete or imprecise".[296][297] Trump did not provide written responses to questions relating to obstruction of justice or events during the transition.[298][299] The special counsel considered subpoenaing Trump's testimony but decided against it because it would likely result in protracted constitutional litigation that would delay conclusion of the investigation, and because investigators had by then acquired information they sought by other means.[300][301]
The Mueller report elaborated on earlier reporting regarding communications between Felix Sater and Michael Cohen during 2015–2016 to pursue construction of Trump Tower Moscow, at a time Trump denied any business involvement in Russia.[115] The report found that Sater, a former Trump business associate, asserted to Cohen that he had Russian contacts who could gain Vladimir Putin's support for the project, adding "I think I can get Putin to [praise Trump's business acumen] at the Trump Moscow press conference", and "We can own this election. Michael my next steps are very sensitive with Putin's very very close people, we can pull this off".[302][303] The report also found that Cohen had discussed particulars of the project with Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.[304][305] The report states, "According to Cohen, he did not consider the political import of the Trump Moscow project to the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the time. Cohen also did not recall candidate Trump or anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign discussing the political implications of the Trump Tower Moscow project with him. However, Cohen recalled conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant 'infomercial' for Trump-branded properties".[306][6]
The Mueller report did not conclude Cohen had been in Prague, as had been described in the Steele dossier and reported by the McClatchy Company, citing his testimony to investigators.[307][267]
Book editions
The report was issued as a printed book by three publishers, and collated an aggregate 357,000 sales as of June 2019[update], making it a New York Times bestseller.[308]
Reactions
President Donald Trump
Trump has vacillated in his view of the report, initially saying, "The Mueller report was great. It could not have been better," then one month later characterizing it as a "total 'hit job'", then one month later as "a beautiful report".[309]
The Mueller report reported that Donald Trump's campaign staff, administration officials, and family members, his Republican backers, and his associates lied or made false assertions, whether intentional or unintentional, to the public, Congress, and authorities.[310]
On March 25, when the Barr letter had been released but not the report itself, Trump said of the special counsel's findings: "It's one hundred percent the way it should have been." He further commented on the investigation, its potential origins, and its witnesses: "There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things," adding that they would need to be "looked at".[a][311]
Upon the release of the redacted report on April 18, Trump commented:
It was called, "No collusion. No obstruction." I'm having a good day. There never was, by the way, and there never will be. And we do have to get to the bottom of these things, I will say. [...] This should never happen to another president again, this hoax.[b][312][313]
President Trump sent several tweets about the news, including one that mimicked promotional material for the television series Game of Thrones, featuring Trump turning his back, surrounded in mist, superimposed with the words "No collusion. No obstruction. For the haters and the radical left Democrats – Game Over."[314] HBO, owners of the rights to the series, commented that they "prefer our intellectual property not be used for political purposes". Trump had posted similar pictures on Twitter and Instagram on previous occasions, which HBO had chided.[315][316][317]
On April 19, Trump labeled the report "crazy", saying that some of the report's assertions about him were "total bullshit" and "fabricated and totally untrue". Calling for a new counter-investigation, he tweeted: "It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason."[c][318][319][320] He posted similar tweets in the following days.[321][322]
On April 23, Trump said of the investigation, "I don't believe our country should allow this ever to happen again. This will never happen again. We cannot let it ever happen again." He went on to insinuate that "treasonous acts" were performed against him from "very high up" in the Obama administration.[d][323]
On April 24, Trump attacked the report's writers as "Angry Democrats and Trump Haters", tweeting: "If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court." Legal experts responded that Trump had misunderstood the Constitution, as impeachment is constitutionally within Congress' abilities and responsibilities and not the within that of the courts.[e][324]
On April 25, Trump denied the report's claim that he ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. He tweeted:
As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn't need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless, Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP![325][326]
On April 26, speaking to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Trump said, "They tried for a coup; didn't work out so well. And I didn't need a gun for that one, did I? All was taking place at the highest levels in Washington, D.C. […] Corruption at the highest level. A disgrace. Spying, surveillance, trying for an overthrow – and we caught 'em, we caught 'em. Who would have thought in our country? But it's called […] 'draining the swamp'."[f][327][328]
On May 29, Trump said regarding the report "The Mueller report came out: no obstruction, no collusion, no nothing. It's a beautiful report."[329] The next day Trump made a similar remark about Mueller's report saying "There's no obstruction, there's no collusion, there's no nothing. It's nothing but a witch hunt. A witch hunt by the media and the Democrats, they're partners."[330]
With Mueller set to testify to Congress about his report in July 2019, Trump falsely claimed in June 2019 that Mueller had illegally deleted communication records between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (there were lost records which were later retrieved, but there is no indication Mueller was involved in processes on this matter).[331][332] Trump declared in early July 2019 that Mueller "must" restrict his testimony to "the report".[333] In late July 2019, Trump said that Mueller's testifying would be "bad" for Mueller.[334] With Mueller's aide Aaron Zebley also about to testify to Congress, Trump criticized Zebley, characterizing him as a "Never Trumper lawyer" (Zebley has never donated to any political party). Trump also criticized Zebley for his role in private law practice representing Bill Cooper, who had connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton regarding her emails.[335]
White House interaction with Don McGahn
The Wall Street Journal reported on May 10, 2019, that within a day of the release of the Mueller report, Trump sought to have McGahn declare that he didn't think the president's directive to have Mueller fired constituted obstruction of justice, but McGahn refused.[336]
On May 10, 2019, The New York Times reported that the White House, in April and/or May, asked McGahn twice to declare that Trump never obstructed justice.[337] "His reluctance angered the president, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump's attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation," the New York Times notes. One request was sent to McGahn's lawyer, William A. Burck, before the report was made public but after Trump's lawyers received a copy. Trump's lawyers noticed that Mueller left out McGahn's belief that Trump never obstructed justice. Responding to the first request; "We did not perceive it as any kind of threat or something sinister," Burck replied in a statement. "It was a request, professionally and cordially made."[337] After the Mueller report was released, McGahn passed on the opportunity on putting out the statement. The White House tried once more and asked McGahn to publish the statement. McGahn declined.[337]
September 2019
On September 30, 2019, The New York Times reported that two American officials stated that President Trump told Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to help Attorney General William Barr in a Justice Department inquiry, that, according to The New York Times, Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation and validate his 2016 victory.[338] The White House curbed access to the transcript of the phone call, allegedly done by the request of Barr, however only allowing a small group of aides access.[338] The White House responded by dismissing the reports, claiming that it was part of a routine request to grant Australian authorities access to Department of Justice resources to facilitate an investigation that had been open for several months.[339]
Trump's personal lawyers
Trump's lawyers said in a statement: "After a 17-month investigation, testimony from some 500 witnesses, the issuance of 2,800 subpoenas, the execution of nearly 500 search warrants, early morning raids, the examination of more than 1.4 million pages of documents, and the unprecedented cooperation of the President, it is clear there was no criminal wrongdoing...This vindication of the President is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again."[340][341]
It has been reported since July 2018, that Trump's personal lawyers are creating a "counter report" to contest the special counsel's findings on obstruction of justice.[342] As of April 2019[update], according to Rudy Giuliani, they are finalizing the report and putting finishing touches.[343] Giuliani has said that the counter report is about 45 pages long and consists of two sections.[344] Giuliani told The Daily Beast in an interview that the contents were: the legitimacy of the Special Counsel investigation due to alleged conflict of interests surrounding Mueller, and alleged coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia including obstruction of justice.[345] Originally, according to Trump, the counter report was 87 pages long: "It has been incorrectly reported that Rudy Giuliani and others will not be doing a counter to the Mueller report. That is Fake News.[g] Already 87 pages done, but obviously cannot complete until we see the final Witch Hunt Report".[347][348]
Since the public release of the Mueller report, Giuliani has suggested that they might not release the report for now: "There's probably a point at which we will use it. Right now we think the public debate is playing out about as well as it can. Why confuse it – it raises a lot of issues that maybe we didn't have to respond to", Giuliani said.[349]
On April 21, Giuliani accused that the special counsel's team "came close to torturing people", and described a lawyer on the special counsel's team as a "hitman". Giuliani also stated: "There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians. It depends on where it came from".[350] Also on April 21, Giuliani falsely stated that "nothing was denied" by the Trump administration to investigators (Factcheck.org notes that the report stated Trump refused interviews). Giuliani additionally falsely stated that "you read that" Don McGahn "gave three different versions" of his conversation with Trump regarding firing Mueller (Factcheck.org also notes that the report stated McGahn only gave one version, and that Trump gave another version).[351]
Trump attorney Emmet Flood mocked the Mueller report as "part 'truth commission' report and part law school exam paper".[352]
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
On April 11, 2019, in his first interview since the conclusion of the Special Counsel he appointed, with The Wall Street Journal, Rosenstein defended Attorney General Barr's handling of the conclusions of the Special Counsel investigation.[353] "He's being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he's trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre", Rosenstein said.[354] Rosenstein also supported Barr's four-page letter by saying: "It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, 'I'm not going to give you the report.'" What he said is, 'Look, it's going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what's in it. I'm going to give you the top-line conclusions.' That's all he was trying to do".[355]
On April 25, 2019, Rosenstein spoke at the Armenian Bar Association's Public Servants Dinner in New York City.[356] Rosenstein said that as a result of the investigation, there was now "overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries [...] our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes."[357][358]
Rosenstein discussed the result of the special counsel investigation, saying that he did agree to oversee it correctly and to its completion, but: "I did not promise to report all results to the public, because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings. It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges".[358] However, according to Rosenstein, "not everybody was happy with [his] decision", as he went on to cite politicians who "need to evaluate everything in terms of the immediate political impact", and the media.[359][360] Rosenstein reserved particular criticism for the media as "mercenary critics" who "launch ad hominem attacks unrestricted by truth or morality. They make threats, spread fake stories, and even attack your relatives. [...] A republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle. Some of the nonsense that passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper was printed on, if anybody bothered to print it."[356][73] Rosenstein further said: "In politics – as in journalism – the rules of evidence do not apply."[361]
Rosenstein criticized the Obama administration for failing to "publicize the full story" about the methods and the "broader strategy" of Russian interference in the American elections.[356][362] Rosenstein also criticized members of the FBI for disclosing classified material, and criticized James Comey's conduct for announcing the counterintelligence investigation while Comey was still FBI Director and alleging that "the president pressured [Comey] to close the investigation" after Comey was fired.[356][363][361]
On April 4, 2021, Rod Rosenstein was interviewed on Kim Wehle's podcast #SimplePolitics. Rosenstein pushed back on the idea that the investigation was a "witch hunt": "From my perspective, it was not a witch hunt. It was never a witch hunt. Bob Mueller doesn't do witch hunts," he said. "That was the criticism that came from the Right during the investigation, but I don't believe that's fair in the way the investigation was conducted."[364]
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller
After the Special Counsel concluded its investigation on March 22, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter about the Special Counsel's conclusions on March 24. On April 30, it was reported Mueller sent a letter to Barr on March 27, that expressed concerns about his four-page letter to Congress.[365][366] Barr called Mueller to discuss about the letter and its contents.[367]
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions", Mueller said in his letter to Barr. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations".[219]
Barr's response to Mueller remarks
On May 30, 2019, CBS This Morning tweeted a clip[368] from an interview with Attorney General William Barr discussing his thoughts on Mueller's remarks on May 29. "The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he's in office. But he [Mueller] could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity."[369][370][371] Barr explained why the Mueller report did not determine whether Trump committed obstruction of justice: "the Deputy attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and I felt it was necessary for us, as the heads of the department, to reach that decision."[369] When asked about whether Mueller was insinuating that Congress could be the other venue for reaching a conclusion on obstruction of justice, Barr replied by saying "Well, I'm not sure what he was suggesting, but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress."[369]