Special counsel Robert Mueller's remarks to reporters at the Department of Justice
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. 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.
[OCS: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s role in this affair, following the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is highly suspect. Even now, the complete appointment order, predicate activities, and the order’s subsequent modifications remain hidden from the American public.]
Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out 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 and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.
[OCS: The 400-page report was not required under the DOJ rules, the report did not have to be given to Congress, the media, or the public. The report was provided to Congress, with only Grand Jury material redacted. There never was a need to include the Grand Jury material, so that failure lies strictly with Mueller and those who wrote the report.]
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 are 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 influence an election.
[OCS: To this date, there is no conclusive evidence that the Russians stole private information from any server because the Democrats refused the FBI's request for forensic access to the allegedly hacked server, the hacking allegations were produced by a vendor associated with the Democrat Party, and there is credible skepticism that the amount of data stolen could have been remotely obtained. It has been suggested that the material was stolen by an insider and provided to Wikileaks.]
These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
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. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
[OCS: This is the pretext which was proffered by those Democrats who wanted to interfere with the election – and especially where it concerned candidate Donald Trump.]
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 their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
[OCS: Considering the actions of the Obama Administration, and especially the actions of Hillary Clinton, this statement is nonsensical as Hillary and her associates destroyed evidence, destroyed documents, and repeatedly lied to the government investigators with impunity and without any apparent consequences.]
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.
[OCS: This should have been the first statement in the report to Attorney General Bill Barr and is sufficient in and of itself to satisfy the guidelines of the DOJ.]
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.
[OCS: The second statement should have been that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with obstruction of justice.]
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
[OCS: Obviously they did not have reliable evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And, since whatever information they obtained during their investigation was not challenged or tested in a court of competent jurisdiction, it remains as a prosecutor’s opinion. Since prosecutors are neither judge nor jury, there is no reason that any “supplementary” material needed to be provided to anyone, especially not Congress, the media, or the public.]
The introduction to the Volume 2 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.
[OCS: This is a clear indication of Mueller’s malfeasance. Had he believed the DOJ opinion was unconstitutional or that the President committed a criminal act while exercising his lawful sworn duties, it was up to Mueller to refer this to the judiciary for determination and adjudication. Anything less is an abdication of his duty.]
A 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 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 for you.
[OCS: While the Special Counsel is bound by DOJ rules, regulations, and protocols, this does not preclude independent legal action to seek a ruling on the appropriate nature of the rules – especially where constitutional issues are being considered.]
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.
[OCS: Funny, this did not explain why one of the the FBI’s reports of General Michael Flynn’s interrogation, one of Mueller’s initial targets, was written approximately seven months after the fact.]
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.
[OCS: While a president may be accused, but not prosecuted, that does not mean that the President gets a free pass. If the matters involve high crimes and misdemeanors, there is nothing preventing the investigation from reporting that fact to its DOJ superiors.]
And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
[OCS: The above paragraph should contain a warning overlay: Bobby’s Bullshit!Yes, it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when the evidence could not be challenged and a fair adjudication received – but that did not stop Special Counsel Mueller from using innuendo and the lack of a determination to infer that a crime could have been committed. By going beyond the prosecutor’s duties to charge or not to charge, Mueller, in effect, attempted to indict and prosecute a sitting President of the United States in the court of public opinion.]
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And 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.
[OCS: This is proof positive that Mueller was engaged in a political action against the President of the United States. His duty was to charge or not to charge – and if he did not have sufficient evidence or believe he could prevail in a court of competent jurisdiction, he should have simply walked away after notifying the Attorney General he was unable to indict and/or be reasonably sure he could prevail in a court action.]
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 to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision.
[OCS: It was Mueller who acted in bad faith. First, by failing to review Attorney General Barr’s 4-page summary of the conclusions; and second, by writing a pissy letter claiming that he should have released more material to avoid media confusion. AG Barr rendered all the political posturing moot when he released the report with only Grand Jury and classified information redacted as required by law.]
Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
[OCS: Robert Mueller’s actions, from the selection of his anti-Trump staff to his final report needs to be placed in context of the entire conspiracy to interfere with an election and, more importantly, to hamstring the activities of a sitting president.]
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. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
[OCS: Ironic, this is a prima facie case of Mueller’s obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress by willfully refusing to respond to questions asked of him by a duly authorized congressional committee. Perhaps Mueller should be asked those questions before a Grand Jury?]
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So, beyond what I've 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. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.
Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.
[OCS: Considering instances of apparent entrapment, coercion of witnesses, and individual wrongdoing by members of the team like Strzok and Page whose emails simply vanished, I would question the fairness and independence of the investigation.]
These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election.
And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.