WASHINGTON - The long-awaited report from special counsel Robert Mueller details abundant evidence against President Donald Trump - finding 10 episodes of suspicious behavior - but ultimately concluding it was not Mueller's role to determine whether the commander in chief broke the law.
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment," Mueller's team stated in the report submitted to Congress on Thursday. "At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment."
Since Mueller ended his investigation last month, a central question facing the Justice Department has been why Mueller's team did not reach a conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. The issue was complicated, the report said, by two key factors - the fact that, under department practice, a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, and that a president has a great deal of constitutional authority to give orders to other government employees.
Trump submitted written answers to investigators. The special counsel's office considered them "inadequate" but did not press for an interview with him because doing so would cause a "substantial delay," the report says.
The report said investigators felt they had "sufficient evidence to understand relevant events and to make certain assessments without the President's testimony."
While the report marked the end of Mueller's work, his investigation has already produced criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers. Multiple related investigations involving the president are ongoing.
Trump's legal team called Mueller's report "a total victory" for the president.
"The report underscores what we have argued from the very beginning - there was no collusion - there was no obstruction," they said.
In their statement, Trump's lawyers also attacked former leaders at the FBI for opening "a biased, political attack against the President - turning one of our foundational legal standards on its head."
But if Mueller's report was a victory for the president, it was an ugly one.
Investigators paint an unflattering portrait of a president who believes the Justice Department and the FBI should answer to his orders, even when it comes to criminal investigations.
During a meeting in which the president complained about then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, Trump insisted that past attorneys general had been more obedient to their presidents, referring to the Kennedy brothers and the Obama administration.
"You're telling me that Bobby and Jack didn't talk about investigations? Or Obama didn't tell Eric Holder who to investigate?" Trump told senior White House staffers Stephen Bannon and Donald McGahn, according to the report.
"Bannon recalled that the President was as mad as Bannon had ever seen him and that he screamed at McGahn about how weak Sessions was," the report said.
Repeatedly, it appears Trump may have been saved from more serious legal jeopardy because his own staffers refused to carry out orders they thought were problematic or potentially illegal.
For instance, in the early days of the administration, when the president was facing growing questions concerning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn's conversation about sanctions with a Russian ambassador, the president ordered another aide, KT McFarland, to write an email saying the president did not direct those conversations. She decided not to do so, unsure if that was true and fearing it might be improper.
"Some evidence suggests that the President knew about the existence and content of Flynn's calls when they occurred, but the evidence is inconclusive and could not be relied upon to establish the President's knowledge,' " the report said.
The report also recounts a remarkable moment in May 2017 when Sessions told Trump that Mueller had just been appointed special counsel. Trump slumped back in his chair, according to notes from Jody Hunt, Sessions's then-chief of staff. "Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency," Trump said. Trump further laid into Sessions for his recusal, saying Sessions had let him down.
"Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency," Trump said, according to Hunt's notes. "It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."
The special counsel's report on possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere in the 2016 election is extremely detailed with only modest redactions - painting a starkly different picture for Trump than Attorney General William Barr has offered, and revealing new details about interactions between Russians and Trump associates.
Mueller's team wrote that though their investigation "did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," that assertion was informed by the fact that coordination requires more than two parties "taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
And Mueller made abundantly clear: Russia wanted to help the Trump campaign, and the Trump campaign was willing to take it.
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," Mueller's team wrote.
The report detailed a timeline of contacts between the Trump campaign and those with Russian ties - much of it already known, but some of it new.
For example, Mueller's team asserted that in August 2016, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI has assessed as having ties to Russian intelligence, met with Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, "to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a 'backdoor' way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine."
The special counsel wrote that both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's "assent to success (were he elected President)."
"They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states," the special counsel wrote. "Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
Mueller's report suggests his obstruction of justice investigation was heavily informed by an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted - a conclusion Mueller's team accepted.
"And 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," Mueller's team wrote.
That decision, though, seemed to leave investigators in a strange spot. Mueller's team wrote that they "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes." They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong - deciding, essentially, that they wouldn't decide.
"Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against determining 'that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense.' "
Barr said during a news conference Thursday that Justice Department officials asked Mueller "about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion."
"He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position - he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime," Barr said.
Mueller did not attend the news conference.
Barr addressed the media before releasing the nearly 400-page report. He made repeated references to "collusion," echoing language the president has stressed even though it is not a legal term.
Barr also described how the nation's top law enforcement officials wrestled with investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice. He and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law" but that they accepted the special counsel's "legal framework" as they analyzed the case, Barr said.
It was the first official acknowledgment of differing views inside the Justice Department about how to investigate the president.
Barr also spoke about the president's state of mind as Trump responded to the unfolding investigation. "As the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks," he said.
Ahead of the report's release, the president lobbed another attack on the investigation. "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!" he tweeted Thursday morning. "The Greatest Political Hoax of all time! Crimes were committed by Crooked, Dirty Cops and DNC/The Democrats."
The Mueller report is considered so politically explosive that even the Justice Department's rollout plan sparked a firestorm, with Democrats suggesting that the attorney general was trying to improperly color Mueller's findings before the public could read them.
Prompted by a reporter, Barr responded to a call earlier Thursday from the top two Democrats in Congress to have Mueller appear before House and Senate committees. "I have no objection to Bob Mueller personally testifying," the attorney general said.
In a letter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said they wanted testimony "as soon as possible" from Mueller. And after Barr's news conference, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., released a letter to the special counsel seeking an appearance before his panel "no later than May 23."
Congressional Democrats have vowed to fight to get the entire report, without redactions, as well as the underlying investigative documents Mueller gathered.
The report has been the subject of heated debate since Barr notified Congress last month that Mueller had completed his work.
Barr told lawmakers he needed time to redact sensitive information before it could be made public, including any grand jury material as well as details whose public release could harm ongoing investigations.
Barr also said he would review the document to redact information that would "potentially compromise sources and methods" in intelligence collection and anything that would "unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."
That language suggests Barr wants to keep secret any derogatory information gathered by investigators about figures who ended up not being central to Mueller's investigation.
- - -
The Washington Post's Philip Rucker, John Wagner and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
- - -
Report Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/robert-mueller-s-report-on-the-investigation-into-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election/?noteId=f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664&questionId=2b6869ce-67e8-47f9-b4d2-ddeeec37f6d4&utm_term=.7d73ce09209b
Video Embed Code
Video: Attorney General William P. Barr on April 18 discussed the release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller's investigation.(The Washington Post)
Embed code: <iframe src="https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/0c2eb169-2624-4d55-a66e-b099366662e8?ptvads=block&playthrough=false" width="480" height="290" data-aspect-ratio="0.5621" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
Video: Attorney General William P. Barr on April 18 defended President Trump's 'sincere belief' that the special counsel investigation was undermining his presidency.(The Washington Post)
Embed code: <iframe src="https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/942405dd-8ed3-4e3d-bac7-3b2cd768b34d?ptvads=block&playthrough=false" width="480" height="290" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
Justin Chae woke up from a nap 10 minutes after Stanford University let early-action applicants for the freshman class of 2023 know whether they'd been admitted. With his camera perched next to him, Chae opened up his laptop.
"You know what they say," Chae said to the camera. "Hope for the best, expect the worst. So, let's see how this goes."
It was December. Chae, who is 17, is a senior in high school in Dallas. He was one of the millions of kids who refresh their inboxes every spring in anticipation of a fateful letter from colleges admissions officers. It's usually a moment of private drama for students, their families and friends, but Chae planned to share his with the world by filming his reaction to the decisions from the five colleges he'd applied to attend. Then he would post the recordings to YouTube.
Stanford was the first. Still sitting on his bed, Chae clicked the "status update" on his Stanford account. A letter popped up on the screen. For a second, Chae said nothing.
"OK, so, rejected from Stanford," he said finally. "Um, that was expected. Yeah. OK."
He would have to wait until March to hear from the others. When it was all over, he would edit the videos together and post all of his reactions as a kind of highlight reel - or maybe lowlight reel, depending on how it all turned out.
Social media is filled with content that celebrates (and sells) the college experience, from dorm room tours to "day in the life" videos to productivity tips. Rich influencers like Olivia Jade Giannulli - whose famous parents, actress Lori Loughlin and designer Mossimo Giannulli, pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from a college admissions bribery scam this week - branded themselves as relatable college students, albeit ones with millions of followers and dorm rooms paid for by Amazon.
Reaction videos from non-celebrities, like Chae, offer a different kind of relatability. Some of the viewers are high school juniors and sophomores who are beginning the long process of applying to college themselves. For that audience, the videos aren't just good content, they're glimpses into the future - not the heightened version of their dreams and nightmares but vérité depictions of acceptance and rejection as it happens.
That's how it was for Chae, who watched a few reaction videos before he started applying to colleges. "It's almost infectious seeing people freak out when they get accepted and you can't help but smile and be happy for them," he said in an email to The Washington Post.
But the rejections were valuable, too. They helped motivate him to submit long-shot applications to some of the top schools in the country, Chae says. "I realized that even if I also got rejected, it wouldn't be the end of the world and I would end up in the right place in the end."
He had to live with the Stanford rejection all winter. Finally, an email came from the University of Texas at Austin. Chae pointed his camera at his laptop and clicked on the link. The glare from the screen makes it hard to see the text, but his whoop makes it clear. "Let's go!" he says, grinning and pumping his fist. Then University of Southern California posted a rejection. The Ivy League schools were next. Yale? Rejected. Columbia? Rejected. Finally, he clicked a link from Princeton that left him speechless.
"CONGRATULATIONS!" it began. Chae held his hand to his mouth, which was agape, and looked directly at the camera with an expression of pure joy.
His video currently has more than 300,000 views.
Every year, dozens of students post videos like Chae's to YouTube. In one, a high school senior sits at her computer screen openly weeping as she is rejected on Ivy Day from Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Brown. The only college left is her top choice, the University of Pennsylvania. "I'm freaking out," she says, as her family around her comforts her.
She clicks. She screams. She got in.
That video, from 2018, has more than 1 million views. In another video, a dad pops into frame, whistling with his fingers in celebration as his daughter opens a letter announcing her acceptance to Georgetown. In another, a student who says he's a legacy at Cornell is so excited about his acceptance there that he brings his camera outside to film himself doing a front flip into a swimming pool.
Not all popular college reaction videos end with a dream coming true. A disturbingly world-weary high school senior filmed himself opening up all his college decisions at once. The first is Amherst. He looks at the screen, smiles and claps once. "Fantastic," he says. "So I got rejected from Amherst. Next college. Next college!" The rest of the video is much the same as the student casually leafs from one rejection to the next. (He does get into Carleton College and the University of California at Los Angeles.)
Another video shows a student wearing a Northwestern sweatshirt as he checks his application there. As he finds out he's rejected, he removes the sweatshirt.
The authenticity of the college reaction genre is, like anything viral, primed for possible exploitation. A series of reaction videos from TM Landry, a prep school in Louisiana, attracted millions of views from those who were inspired by the nearly identical footage of students sitting at a laptop, surrounded by their classmates, finding out that they'd been accepted to some of the top schools in the nation. But the school is now the subject of a Louisiana state police investigation, after the New York Times reported allegations that the school helped students win acceptance to those colleges with "falsified transcripts, made up student accomplishments" and other misdeeds that "mined the worst stereotypes of black America to manufacture up-from-hardship tales that it sold to Ivy League schools hungry for diversity." (The school released an internal investigation days ago disputing some portion of the Times's reporting).
But most reaction videos appear to be amateur productions without any shady underpinnings. For Nina Wang, an 18-year-old senior from Massachusetts, the decision to document the big moment almost made itself. "I decided to film my own," she wrote in an email, "simply because I watched so many others (like, so so so many)."
Now, so so so many people have watched her video, which has hundreds of thousands of views.
That puts her in the same category of quasi-celebrity as Justin Chae. He's off to Princeton (although, he told The Post, he hasn't yet officially accepted the offer of admission) and thousands of strangers know it.
Chae wants to keep making videos documenting his college life. He's already mastered the art of the follow-up: "SURPRISING MY MOM WITH MY ACCEPTANCE TO PRINCETON," a video showing Chae springing the news on his mom at her workplace, already has more than 100,000 views.