“It is absolutely essential that our country move forward with a common set of facts. And regardless of whether those facts comport with one’s political preferences, we should all be willing to accept the facts, whatever they may be. The American people need to know what happened. We can handle the truth.”<doc-sep>Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates Sally Caroline YatesSally Yates: I never thought that I'd be saying, 'Yeah, go Liz Cheney' ABC lands first one-on-one TV interview with Garland since confirmation Appointing a credible, non-partisan Jan. 6 commission should not be difficult MORE said Friday that she believes Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrWatchdog group suing for Trump obstruction memo blasts DOJ for trying to block release Biden DOJ to appeal court order to release Trump obstruction memo CNN reporter's phone and email records secretly obtained by Trump administration: report MORE should release special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerSenate Democrats urge Garland not to fight court order to release Trump obstruction memo Why a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG Barr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel MORE's report as soon as possible. Yates, whom Trump fired last year after she refused to defend his travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries, wrote in an op-ed published in The Washington Post Friday that it was "time for the American people to hear the whole truth." "A week after Mueller issued his report, we don’t know those facts and have only been provided with Attorney General William P. Barr’s four-page summary of Mueller’s estimated 400-page report," she wrote. "It is time for the American people to hear the whole truth. We need to see the report itself." ADVERTISEMENT Yates added that Congress has a "solemn responsibility" to protect the country's democracy, contending that, without access to Mueller's full report, it could not fulfill that directive. "As you read this, the Russian government is undoubtedly hard at work to undermine our next election," she wrote. "Each day that passes without Congress having access to the full Mueller report is a day that Congress is prevented from doing its job of keeping our elections free from Russian espionage efforts." Yates argued that any redactions to the report should be "narrow" and that each one should be explained. "Barr has correctly noted that this is a matter of significant public interest," she wrote. "It was about a foreign adversary’s attempt to subvert our election; it cuts to the very core of our democracy. It is absolutely essential that our country move forward with a common set of facts." Yates's op-ed came shortly after Barr told lawmakers Friday that he expects to have a public version of Mueller's report ready for release by mid-April. Barr also said President Trump Donald TrumpTrump lashes out after grand jury seated for New York criminal probe Schumer tees up vote on Jan. 6 commission bill Senators struggle to save Jan. 6 commission MORE had told him to decide what goes into the redacted document. Mueller last week submitted nearly 400-page report to Barr on his sweeping 22-month-long investigation into Russian election interference and alleged ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. On Sunday, Barr issued a brief summary of the report that said investigators did not find evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Barr also said that there was insufficient evidence to pursue an obstruction of justice charge against the president, but added that the report did not exonerate Trump.<doc-sep>Second, Barr’s letter leaves important questions unanswered concerning what then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates knew about Russian interference, and how they responded to Russian overtures to assist the campaign. While Barr’s letter states that the investigation did not establish that the campaign reached an agreement with the Russian government to take actions to impact the election in Trump’s favor, it reveals that the campaign did field “multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” Yet President Trump and others have repeatedly claimed that they had no contact with Russians, or knowledge that Russians were acting to assist his campaign. Moreover, the Trump campaign did not bring the Russian outreach to the attention of law enforcement but secretly allowed a foreign adversary’s assistance. Remarkably, after the release of the Barr letter — which makes it undeniable that the Russians were seeking to help the Trump campaign — the president still denies it. Why? Why was the Trump campaign willing to allow the help of one of the country’s foremost geopolitical adversaries rather than report the overtures to law enforcement? And, as importantly, does the role that the Russians played in his election have any bearing on Trump’s current approach toward Russia? Only by seeing the full Mueller report can Congress and the American people make an informed assessment.<doc-sep>Attorney General William Barr on Sunday submitted to Congress his summary of the main conclusions from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The full text of his letter is below: 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 and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared. The Special Counsel’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 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. 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. Footnote: 1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russia election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” 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 it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.<doc-sep>
The special counsel’s office deliberated at length with Department of Justice officials about issuing a subpoena for President Trump to be interviewed, but ultimately the decision was made not to move forward with such a significant investigative step, according to a source familiar with the matter. For months, Robert Mueller’s team had requested a sit-down interview with Trump, but the President’s lawyers refused to commit, and negotiations continued. Eventually, last fall, the special counsel submitted written questions to the President concerning the time frame before 2016 election, which Trump answered in late November 2018. The source said the sensitive discussions between DOJ officials and the special counsel team, and the determination that a subpoena would not be pursued, was based on the perception of the evidence and merits of the issues — separate and apart from the fact that current Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting President cannot be indicted. While not directly addressing the issue of a presidential interview, Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress Sunday offers a further glimpse into how officials at the department didn’t believe they had a prosecutable case against Trump on collusion or on the question of obstruction of justice. “In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the (Mueller) 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-of-justice offense,” Barr wrote. The special counsel’s office and the Justice Department declined to comment on internal discussions of a subpoena. Why this matters: In the end, the decision to not make a formal request for a subpoena was critical because that demand — should it have been rejected — would have been communicated by the attorney general to Congress, as the special counsel regulations mandate. Instead, a formal request from Mueller wasn’t made, allowing the Barr to say in his letter to Congress Friday "there were no such instances during the Special Counsel investigation" where Mueller was turned down.