As I have stated since July 2016, the Russia
collusion investigation of Special Prosecutor, Robert S.
Mueller, against U.S. President Donald Trump, is an empty
one. Mueller has ended his ill-fated and embarrassing
investigation with egg on his face, three years after
resorting to very unsavory conduct in trying to build a
case.
Mueller, an attorney, knew better. He knew
he could not prove collusion or obstruction of justice, but
volunteered to bring the case to bully and control President
Trump, who had publicly threatened to unmask high profile
people in Washington whom he accused of corruption ("drain
the swamp").
Many liberals expected Mueller to arrest
Trump. However, as I have stated on the site from day one in
this matter, there is no case regarding Russia and Trump.
Russia did take certain actions of their own accord, in
trying to repair ties between the two nations. They did not
want Hillary Clinton as president, after soured dealings
between her and Russian President Vladimir Putin, when she
was U.S. Secretary of State.
Left to right: former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller and former President Barack Obama entered into a
criminal conspiracy
The Russian government wanted Trump to win
the election and hoped it would be a reset in ties between
the two nations.
Therefore, they decided to expose Clinton in every way they
could, by leaking stories and hacked emails, in trying to
turn the public against her during the election.
I was
proven right in my July 25, 2015 claim that Russia exposed
Clinton as a criminal (Russian Government Hackers Expose Democrats In Email Hack
Leaking Items Revealing Election Rigging And Mocking Bernie
Sanders Leading To Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's Resignation)
2-years after my claims Russia was formally announced as the
source of the DNC hack (12 Russian Military Officers Indicted For Hacking Into DNC And Hillary
Clinton Computers).
U.S. Attorney William Barr has released a
summary of Mueller's toothless report. Barr revealed nothing
therein substantiates collusion or warrants obstruction of
justice charges against the president. Upon release of the
letter, President Trump
labeled Barr's summary a "complete and total exoneration."
Hillary Clinton
Liberals are very upset with Mueller, who
got their hopes up and strung them along for his own
benefit, knowing he had no case. However, I warned from day
one that Mueller is a fraud. I've had experience with
Mueller's FBI and the things I saw and heard were shocking
and abominable. The man is truly evil, as the American
public and the world will discover in full.
William Barr's letter:
The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
March 24, 2019
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
2132 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
1504 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler,
Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided
on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you
of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel
Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of
my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel's Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to
me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or
declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28
C.F.R. $ 600.8(c). 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 summarize 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 U.S.
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 analysts, forensic accountants, and
other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more
than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants,
obtained more than 230 orders for communication records,
issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers,
made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and
interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
Page 1
See Original Document
The Special Counsel obtained a number of
indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in
connection with his investigation, all of which have been
publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation,
the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other
offices for further action. The report does not recommend
any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain
any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.
Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the
Special Counsel's report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S.
Presidential Election.
The Special Counsel's report is divided into
two parts. The first describes the results of the Special
Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the
2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the
Russian effort to influence the election and documents
crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian
government in connection with those efforts. The report
further explains that a primary consideration for the
Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans –
including individuals associated with the Trump campaign –
joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election,
which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's
investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone
associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in
its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities.”
1
The Special Counsel's investigation
determined that there were two main Russian efforts to
influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by
a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA),
to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the
United States designed to sow social discord, eventually
with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted
above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person
or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or
knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although
the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a
number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with
these activities.
The second element involved the Russian
government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations
designed to gather and disseminate information to influence
the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian
government actors successfully hacked into computers and
obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton
campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly
disseminated those materials through various intermediaries,
including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special
Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian
military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in
the United States for purposes of influencing the election.
But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that
the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired
or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts,
despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals
to assist the Trump campaign.
1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges,
the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the
Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election
interference activities. The Special Counsel defined
“coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the
Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election
interference.”
Page 2
See Original Document
Obstruction 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 ultimately
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 of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special
Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact
concerning 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
any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to
determine whether the conduct described in the report
constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation,
the Special Counsel's office 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 Office of Legal Counsel;
and applying the principles of federal prosecution that
guide our charging decisions, 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. Our 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.
2
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 sufficient nexus to a
pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the
President's actions, many of which took place in public
view, the report identifies no actions that, in our
judgment, 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.
Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that
the Special Counsel's report will be a “confidential report
to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64
Fed. Reg. 37,038,
2 See A Sitting President's Amenability to
Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222
(2000).
Page 3
See Original Document
37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I 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 6(e), which imposes
restrictions on the use and disclosure of information
relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits
disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal
investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e)
material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a
crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §
401(3). 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 function.
Given these restrictions, the schedule for
processing the report depends in part on how quickly the
Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot
be made public. I have requested the assistance of the
Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information
contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately,
I also must identify any information that could impact other
ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel
has referred to other offices. 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.
As I observed in my initial notification,
the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney
General may determine that public release of” notifications
to your respective Committees “would be in the public
interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I
will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it
to you.
Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General
https://www.nytimes.com