Report actually does i would perhaps want to address the question of whether, you know, he didnt come to a finding on obstruction, because he meant to leave that up to congress. I mean, that said, he is doing this at the Justice Department. I think if he does decide to draw those sort of, you know, lines of difference from barr, hes going to do it gently. Unless this is a very different Robert Mueller then everyone at the Justice Department is used to, then Michael Zeldin is used to, were not going to see him coming out and flame throwing. That said, it wouldnt be surprise me if he does take time to thank his team for their hard work and for their professionalism, because they have said nothing in the face of being under attack for two years. If youre just joining us, were expecting Special CounselRobert Mueller here he is. Lets listen in. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel and he created the Special Counsels
office. The Appointment Order directed the office to investigate russian interference in the 2016 president ial election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Now, i have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out 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 Counsels office and as well, im resigning from the department of justice to return to private life. Ill make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the offices written work speak for itself. Let me begin where theAppointment Order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 president ial election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, russian Intelligence Officers who are 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 president ial 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 influence an election. These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 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. And 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 their governments
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 Campaigns 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 theActing Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume ii of our report explains that decision. It explains that under Longstanding 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. A Special Counsels 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 departments Written Opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and li will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president , because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were coconspirators who could be charged now. 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 it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no Court Resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And 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 offices 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 to the american people. At one point in time, i requested that certain portions of the report be released and
the Attorney General preferred to make preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. And i certainly do not question the Attorney Generals good faith in that decision. Now, i hope and expect this to be the only time that i will speak to you in this manner. 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. And 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 ive 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. And its for that reason i will not be taking questions today, as well. Now, before i step away, i want to thank the attorneys, the fbi agents, the analysts, 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 Counsels office were of the highest integrity. And i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were
multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every american. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Sir, if youre subpoenaed will you appear before congress . No questions. A tenminute statement from Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel, soon to be the former Special Counsel with some significant news, jake, especially his point, what he has said, he has said. Not saying anymore. Doesnt want to have to go before congress and testify. He defended the investigation. He was very specific in articulating its conclusions. There were a number of things he said that could be interpreted as specific pushbacks to things that we hear from the white house. But i have to say, the last statement he made, one presumes that he thinks that that is the most important thing that hes saying, because its what hes leaving everybody with. That is, there were multiple, systemic attempts, by the russians, to interfere in the 2016 election. And that is something that amidst all of the political back and forth, all of the false claims from the white house and from the president s detractors, keeps getting lost. Other countries are trying to interfere in our elections and we are not, according to experts, doing enough to stop that. And that is, i think, what he wanted his last message to be. Beyond that, there were a number of things he said that i thought were rather pointed, standing up for the people on his investigation, saying that they are of the highest integrity, despite all of the falsehoods we keep hearing about them from the white house and others. And obviously, saying that if we had evidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so. And he kept saying that the longstanding Justice Department guideline is that a sitting president of the United States cant be indicted, cant be charged with a crime, and as a result, they didnt go ahead and charge him with any crime, in part because of that. And sara murray, one of the things he definitely made clear,Robert Mueller is, i do not want to testify publicly. I want this to be the last of it. If you want to know what i think, read the report. Thats right. He made it very clear that if he is essentially forced to show up, all youre getting from him is whats already in the report. This is his work product. He wouldnt go beyond that. He was speaking publicly. The furthest he went beyond the words of the report is that we would not reach a determination on whether the president obstructed justice. We decided we would not reach a conclusion on this based on our Justice DepartmentDepartment Guidelines and based on our view of fairness. But he wants his work product to stand for itself and not to be a political football. We decided what happened when barr made a determination and barr wrote these letters and then everyone starts to begin feel like its tinged by politics. And i think that Robert Mueller very much feels like he wants this product to stand as is. Although, i should say, he defended mr. Barr, the Attorney General. He really, he did. But i will say, just outside of what i agree with Everything Sarah said. He clearly does not he wants the report to speak for itself, but he also wants to have it the other way. And he essentially punted to congress at that podium today. He said that the constitution requires a process outside of the criminal Justice System, outside of the Justice Department system, to handle what the president is accused of doing here. Hes saying, essentially, what he did not say in this report, by the way, you know, if they had by the way, if he had said that in the report, i think it would have been a lot less speculation about, well, did he was mueller trying to punt to congress. Today, he made clear, i think, that that is exactly what this was intended to do. That we couldnt do it at the Justice Department, we cant even indict a sitting president under seal, and unseal it after he leaves office. What we are allowed to do is investigate and then allow a separate process to handle it, if that is necessary. In this report, obviously, we
said this at the time, is a road map for impeachment. And like evan said, what he just described for the first time, hearing him and seeing him, was why they did this, and more importantly, why he fundamentally did not believe that they could go any further within their probe. He said it would be unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional and just unfair to charge somebody or accuse somebody with a crime and then not allow them to be tried. But i think that what you said earlier is really key. He also explicitly repeated the notion that had he felt he could exonerate the president , he would have done so. Because he said, john king, he said, if the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so. Its very clear Director Mueller does not want to be part of the daily conversation about this. He wants this document to speak for itself. But to the point jake made right out of the gate, he hadnt spoken in two years. He knew every word he said would
be parsed closely and pushed back about every single argument that the president and his team have made about this report. From the beginning, they interfered to damage a president ial candidate. That the russians took sides. The president says, no big deal, they did something, they had some facebook accounts, Jared Kushner has said. No, they interfered to damage a president ial candidate out of the box. He didnt say there was no collusion, to your point. He said, we had insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. Theres a lot of footsie between the Trump Campaign and the russians and wikileaks laid out in this document. He said, insufficient evidence. He didnt say, there was no there there. Then he went on to the Obstruction Part and he said, we did not make a determination as to whether they didnt commit a crime, because he could not. He could not. And he lays out the evidence there. Throughout this. And at the very end, to your point at the very end, not only did he say, come back to the interference and say the integrity of american elections, he said, it deserves the attention of every american. Whats the last thing he said. The president of the United States gives it no attention. Robert mueller knew what he was
saying. Laura jarrett is over at the Justice Department. You were there inside the room, laura, when the Special Counsel spoke out. What were you seeing . Reporter well, it was interesting, wolf, he was be himself. I had wondered whether members of his team, his Core Deputies would be there along with him, some of the faces that weve seen in court when he hasnt been there. And today, it was really just he be himself. There were some toplevel officials from the Justice Department in the criminal division, the National Security division, the Deputy Attorney generals office, which has been overseeing this investigation for the better part of two years. But mueller was by himself. Which was just a striking image to have him be the sole voice there. Obviously, the Attorney General, bill barr, not there either. And given that barr was not in the room, i wondered how much he would contradict barr in terms of, we already had known that he had some issues with how barr had laid out muellers principle conclusions in that controversial fourpage memo. And as all of you have been discussing, he clearly felt
constrained by the longstanding doj protocol on not indicting a sitting president. He said, simply, that it wasnt an option we could consider, they thought it was unconstitutional. So they didnt even get to that point given the longstand, doj protocol. I also thought it was interesting that he pointed out that even if he was to give testimony, it will not go beyond the report. He seemed to be setting the stage there, managing expectations a little bit, on both sides. Obviously, democrats have a lot invested