Today's post is the transcript of Robert Mueller's televised statement. He kindly answered the Big Question posed earlier, "To impeach, or not impeach?"
For those with short attention spans or reading comprehension issues, I emphasized key points and summarized the inevitable conclusion.
~~~~~
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.
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.
~~~~
So, what is the "Big Answer"?
We find the answer in these key elements:
"This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity..."
The Trump campaign accepted and benefited from Russian interference.
"Insufficient evidence to charge" doesn't mean there was no evidence. This only shows obstruction of evidence was partially successful, preventing charges of conspiracy. Cooperation, aka collusion" was the "Trump campaign's response".
"That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation." And, "That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation." And, "the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President."
This means there WAS obstruction.
The damning conclusion is here: "if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."
Instead he said, "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 message to Congress is clearly stated, "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
For the benefit of those still confused, Mueller has just said, in effect, "Since I cannot legally charge him, Congress must hold Crooked Don accountable for colluding with Russian interference against his opponent, and engaging in multiple attempts to obstruct the investigation."
And there it is.
The Big Answer to the Big Question, "To impeach or not impeach", is...
...Hell YES!
Posts
