The Attorney General

11C.
March 24, 212119

The Honorable Lindsey Graham The Honorable Jerrold Hadler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate United States House of Representatives.
291} Russell Senate Uf?cc Building 2132 Rayburn House ?f?ce Building
Washington, D.C. 111511] Washington, DC 23-515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstcin The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate United States House of Representatives
331 Hart Senate le?ee Building 15111-1 Lengworth House thfice Building
Washington, DC. 2113113 Washington, 1113. 211515

Dear Chairman Graham, Chainnan Handler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:

its a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, 1 am writing today
to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. lvlueller and
to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel '5 Reporr

Cm Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a ?con?dential report explaining the
prosecution or declinatien decisions? he has reached, as required by ES C.F.R. This
report is entitled ?Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election.? Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the
report and to summarise the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results
of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated
allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated
with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 US.
presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. in the report, the
Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were
assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and
other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,3131] subpoenas, executed nearly
50D search warrants, obtained more than 231] orders for communication records, issued almost 51]
orders authorising use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and
interviewed approximately 5111] witnesses.

The Special Ccunse] cbtained a ntunher cf indictments and ccnvicticns cf individuals and
entities in ccnnecticn with his investigatinn, all cf which have been publicly During
the ccursc cf his investigaticn, the Special Ceunsel alse referred several matters in ether nf?ces
fur further acticn. The repcrt dues nut recnmmend any further indictments, did the Special
Ccunsel nbtain any sealed indictments that have yet tc be made public. Belcw, I sununariae the
principal cut in the Special Ccunsel?s repert.

Russian Interference in the It'llti US. Presidential Electinu. The Special Ceunsel?s
is divided iutc parts. The ?rst describes the results cf the Special Ccunsel?s
investigaticn intc Russia?s interference in the l?lti US. presidential electicn. The uutlines
the Russian tc in?uence tlte electicn and dccuments crimes ccmmitted by asscciated
with the Russian gevernment in with these The repcrt further explains that a
primary cnnsideraticn fur the Special Cuunsel's investigatiun was whether any Americans 
including individuals asscciated with the Trump campaign jcined the Russian conspiracies tc
in?uence tlte electicn, which wculd be a federal crime. The Special Ccunsel?s investigatien did
?nd that the Trurnp campaign er anycne asscciated with it ct with
Russia in its in?uence the l?lt?i U.S. presidential electicn. As the rech states: ?[Tjhe
investigatiun did establish that members cf the Trump Campaign canspired cr 
with the Russian in its electicn interference activities.?1

The Special Ccunsel?s investigaticn determined that there were twu main Russian 
to in?uence the 2m ti electicn. The ?rst attempts by a Russian crganisaticn, the lntemct
Research Agency tc ccnduct and sc-cial media cperaticns in the United
States designed tn sew sncial discard, eventually with the aim cf interfering with the electicn. As
ncted ahcve, the Special Ccunscl did net ?nd that any US. er Trump campaign ef?cia] ar
asscciate er kncwingly cc-crdinated with the in its the Special
 [Saunsel brcught criminal charges against a number cf Russian naticnais and entities in ccnnecticn
with these activities.

The secund element invcived the Russian gcvernment?s tc ccnduct ccmputer
hacking cperaticns designed tc gather and disseminate inferrnaticn te in?uence the electicn. The
Special Ccunscl feund that Russian acturs successfully hacked intc computers and
chtained emails persens af?liated with the Clintun campaign and Democratic Party
crganiaaticns, and publicly disseminated materials thrnugh varicus intermediaries, including
1 Pv'iltiLealts. Based cn these activities, the Special Ccunse] brcught criminal charges against a
number cf Russian military cf?cers fer tc hack intc in the United States far
purpcses cf in?uencing clecticn. But as ncted abcve, the Special Ccunsel did net ?nd that the
Trump campaign, at anycne asscciated with it, canspired cr with the Russian
gcvemment in these despite multiple affers Russian-af?liated individuals tc assist
the Trump campaign.

 

1 In assessing charges, the Special Ccunsel alsn whether

members cf the Trump campaign with Russian electicn interference activities.
The Special Ccunsel de?ned as an ?agreement?tacit cr express?between the
Tnimp Campaign and the Russian gcvenunent en electicn interference.?

2

IDIbstructiun of Justice. The report?s second part addresses a number of actions by the
President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel
investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of?justice concerns. After making a ?thorough
factual investigation? into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the
conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but
ultimatelyr determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel
therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct
constituted obstruction. instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out
evidence on both sides ofthe question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as
?dif?cult issues? of law and fact conccming whether the President?s actions and intent could be
viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that ?while this report does not conclude that
the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel?s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation
without reaching an},r legal conclusions leaves it to the Attemev General to determine whether the
conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Dver the course of the investigation, the
Special Counsel?s of?ce engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many
of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel?s obstruction investigation. After
reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials,
including the Df?ee of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide
our charging decisions, Deputy.r Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and i have concluded that the
evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not suf?cient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction?of?justice offense. Dur determination was made without
regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president:

in making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ?the
evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to
Russian election interference,? and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence
bears upon the President?s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and
sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a suf?cient nexus to
a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, manyr of which took
place in public view, the report identi?es no actions that, in ourjudgment, constitute obstructive
conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,
each of which, under the Department?s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging
decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-
justice offense.

Stems eft?e Department?s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel?s report will be a
?confidential report? to the General. See Of?ce of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. it,

 

I See .d Sitting President Amount-fifty tn Indictment and Ct"fntint::tiI Prosecution, '24 Up. U.L.C.

ass {soon}.
3

 {July 1999}. its 1 have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest
in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel?s
report as i can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that
the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure I5{e],
which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to ?matter[s] occurring
before grand jury." Fed. R. Grim. F. dieji?jt?l. Rule He] generally limits disclosure of certain
grandjury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. r'd. Disclosure of die} material
beyond the strict limits set forth in the mic is a crime in certain circumstances. See, c. g. IS U.S.C.
This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the
unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended
criminal justice ?anctinn.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how
quickly the Department can identify the 6(a) material that by lav.r cannot be made public. I have
requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all rite} information contained in the
report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact
other ongoing matters, including these that the Special Counsel has referred to other of?ces. As
soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in
determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental
policies.

Ill! 1 i

As I observed in my initial noti?cation, the Special Counsel regulations provide that ?the
Attemey General may determine that public release of" noti?eations to your respective
Committees ?would be in the public interest." ES GER. I have so determined, and I
will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

Willi?ln P. Barr
Attorney General