The Attorney General 

Washington, D.C. 

March 24, 2019 

The Honorable Lindsey Graham 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

290 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

2132 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Doug Collins 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

1504 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member 

Collins: 

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today 

to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and 

to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared. 

The SpecialCounsel's Report 

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the 

prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This 

report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 

Election." 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. 

The report explains that the · Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated 

allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated 

with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the 

Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were 

assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and 

other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 

500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 

orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and 

interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. 

.1 
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and 

entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During 

the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices 

for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special 

Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the 

principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report. 

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's 

report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's 

investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines 

the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated 

with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a 

primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans -

including individuals associated with the Trump campaign - joined the Russian conspiracies to 

influence the election, which would be a federal crime. 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." 1 

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts 

to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet 

Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United 

States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As 

noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or 

associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special 

Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection 

with these activities. 

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer 

hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The 

Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and 

obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party 

organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including 

WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a 

number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for 

purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the 

Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian 

government in these efforts, despite multiple . offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist 

the Trump campaign. 

In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether 

members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. 

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the 

Trump Campaign and the Russian governm~nt on election interference." 

2 
Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the 

President - most of which have been the subject of public reporting - that the Special Counsel 

investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough 

factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the 

conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but 

ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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, 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." 

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation 

without reaching any legal conclusions leaves itto the Attorney General to determine whether the 

conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the 

Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many 

of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. 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, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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. Our determination was made without 

regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and 

criminal prosecution of a sitting president. 2 

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the 

evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to 

Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence 

bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and 

sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to 

a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took 

place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive 

conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, 

each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging 

decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-ofjustice offense. 

Status of the Department's Review 

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a 

"confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 

2 See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 

222 (2000). 

3 
37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, 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, and Departmental policies. 

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that 

the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), 

which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter[ s] occurring 

before [a] grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain 

grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material 

beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 

§ 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the 

unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended 

criminal justice function. 

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how 

quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have 

requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the 

report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact 

other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As 

soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in 

determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental 

policies. 

* * * 

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the 

Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective 

Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I 

will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you. 

Sincerely, 

William P. Barr 

Attorney General 

4