Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III
Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016
Presidential Election
Washington, DC
~
Wednesday, May
29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney
General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special
Counsel’s Office.
The appointment order directed the
office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
election. This included investigating any links or coordination between
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our
investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete.
The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely
public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office.
As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private
life.
I’ll make a few remarks about the
results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that
the office’s written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order
begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an
indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military
launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used
sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the
Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that
information through fake online identities and through the organization
WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our
election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury
alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social
media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere
in the election.
These indictments contain
allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any
specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until
proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other
activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political
system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is
among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated
efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were
of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate
information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an
investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes
at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers
accountable.
Let me say a word about the
report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were
asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details
numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This
volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity,
as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a
broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report
describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation
involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel
authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the
investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of
the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that
investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a
crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a
determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction
to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing
Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he
is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under
seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of
the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department
policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we
could consider.
The Department’s written opinion
explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important
points that further informed our handling of the obstruction
investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will
describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits
the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve
evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other
things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now
be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the
Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to
formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were
guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially
accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual
charge.
So that was the Justice Department
policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them
we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other –
about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final
position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals
about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal
investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by
Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that
it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that
certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General
preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate
that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not
question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only
time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision
myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further
about this matter.
There has been discussion about an
appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go
beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons
for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work
speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I
would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any
appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying
work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today
and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate
for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of
the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not
take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the
attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped
us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These
individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were
of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central
allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to
interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention
of every American.
Thank you.