What’s revealed by the attorney general’s summary of the Trump-Russia investigation? And will the report be made public?
Full four-page letter of Barr’s summaryFollow live coverage of US politicsWilliam Barr: 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.
In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, or in completing his investigation,he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, and forensic accountants,and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, and obtained more than 230 orders for communication records,issued nearly 50 orders authorizing expend of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The report does not recommend any further indictments,nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments yet to be made public.
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.” [br]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, or 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.”
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, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I bear 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.
Generally speaking,to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a fair doubt that a person, or acting with corrupt intent,engaged in obstructive conduct with a a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took station in public view, or the report identifies no actions that,in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, or had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding,and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, or under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions,would need to be proven beyond a fair doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
As I bear previously stated, however, and 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, or Departmental policies.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com