Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, more commonly known as the Mueller report, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019, and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes. The redactions from the report and its supporting material were placed under a temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege by then-President Trump on May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress, despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump would not exert privilege.
While the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities",Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 173: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined. The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion",Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 1: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies multiple links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials,Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 66: "The Office identified multiple contacts 'links', in the words of the Appointment Order between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government." about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 180: "the Office's investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office evaluated the contacts under several sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate in the United States. After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed in Section IV above with the exception of FARA charges against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates based on their activities on behalf of Ukraine.... several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice." Mueller later stated that his investigation's findings of Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".
Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 2: "Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 1: "The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions' in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. [...] this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction." and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment.Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 1–2: "[...] apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Footnote: See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257–258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President). [...] Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, 'it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy', and if an indictment became public, '[t]he stigma and opprobrium' could imperil the President's ability to govern."Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 2: "[...] a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments." As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 8: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 2: "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".Mueller Report., vol. II, p. 185: "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. [...] The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation." The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 8: "With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. [...] The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." referencing impeachment.
Even before seeing the Mueller report, Barr had already decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. To this end, upon receiving the report, he tasked the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) with writing an internal memo that would provide a pretextual justification for his decision. The four-page Barr letter was written over the course of two days in tandem with a legal memo upon which the letter ostensibly relied and was released to Congress on March 24, purporting to detail the Mueller report's conclusions and announcing Barr's decision not to charge Trump. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that Barr's March 24 letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion". Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report. On April 18, Barr held a 90-minute press conference where he and senior Justice Department officials defended Trump and their decision not to charge him with obstruction, immediately prior to the public release of the Mueller report. Following the release of the Mueller report, Barr's letter was widely criticized as an intentionally misleading effort to shape public perceptions in favor of Trump, with commentators identifying significant factual discrepancies. On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does" and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report. In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.
Background
Impetus for investigation
On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump dismissed former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, who had been leading an ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials. This investigation, code named Crossfire Hurricane, began in July 2016 after the Australian government advised US authorities that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor in the Trump campaign, had met with one of their diplomats in May 2016 and "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia" that Russia could release information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. Papadopolous had received this suggestion in April 2016, well before it was publicly reported that Russia had damaging information about Clinton (the Democratic National Committee had in June 2016 announced that a Russian hack occurred). Papadopoulos later testified that this "damaging information" was in the form of hacked emails that were stolen from the Democratic Party.
Over 130 Democratic lawmakers of the United States Congress called for a special counsel to be appointed in reaction to Comey's firing. CNN reported that within eight days of Comey's dismissal, an FBI investigation on Trump for obstruction of justice was opened by the acting FBI Director at the time, Andrew McCabe, who cited multiple reasons including Comey's firing. After McCabe was later fired from the FBI, he confirmed that he had opened the obstruction investigation, and gave additional reasons for its launch.