Mueller Report

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement. ...The President's other stated rationales for why he fired Comey are not similarly supported by the evidence. ...Other evidence ...indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. The day after learning about the FBI's interview of Flynn, the President had a one-on-one dinner with Comey, against the advice of senior aides, and told Comey he needed Comey's "loyalty." When the President later asked Comey for a second time to make public that he was not under investigation, he brought up loyalty again, saying "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know." After the President learned of Sessions's recusal from the Russia investigation, the President was furious and said he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him ...The President also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General "who to investigate." ...[T]he evidence... indicate[s] that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, , through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential . ...When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed... concern about the investigation, saying "[t]his is the end of my Presidency." The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying "you were supposed to protect me.""

"On June 14, 2017, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct that was the subject of widespread media attention. The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed. By mid-June, the Department of Justice had already cleared the Special Counsel's service and the President's advisors had told him that the claimed conflicts of interest were "silly" and did not provide a basis to remove the Special Counsel. On June 13, 2017, the Acting Attorney General testified before Congress that no good cause for removing the Special Counsel existed, and the President dictated a press statement to Sanders saying he had no intention of firing the Special Counsel. But the next day, the media reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice and the Special Counsel was interviewing witnesses about events related to possible obstruction—spurring the President to write critical tweets about the Special Counsel's investigation. The President called McGahn at home that night and then called him on Saturday from Camp David."

"There... is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn... after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office—and McGahn himself—could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel... the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct. ...The President ...knew that the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only. ...[H]e sought that result. The President's initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel's investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed ...[T]he President sought to exclude his and his campaign's conduct from the investigation' s scope. ...[T]he President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions's resignation. That evidence could raise an inference that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated whether to comply with the President's direction..."

"Intent. There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope. By the summer of 2017, the President was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating him personally for obstruction of justice. And in the wake of the disclosures of emails about the June 9 meeting between Russians and senior members of the campaign, see Volume II, Section II.G, supra, it was evident that the investigation into the campaign now included the President's son, son-in-law, and former campaign manager. The President had previously and unsuccessfully sought to have Sessions publicly announce that the Special Counsel investigation would be confined to future election interference. Yet Sessions remained recused. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, the President spoke to Sessions... with only Porter present and told Sessions that he would be a hero if he unrecused. Porter linked that request to the President's desire that Sessions take back supervision of the Russia investigation and direct an investigation of Hillary Clinton. The President said in that meeting that he "just want[ed] to be treated fairly," which could reflect his perception that it was unfair that he was being investigated while Hillary Clinton was not. But a principal effect of that act would be to restore supervision of the Russia investigation to the Attorney General... A reasonable inference... is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation."

"Evidence 2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports ...The President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" ...Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him." Later that day... Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel... Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible... The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article. ...The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire.' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel." McGahn responded, "What you said is, 'Call Rod [Rosenstein], tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel.' " The President responded, "I never said that." The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue... McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, "Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go." The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction," and McGahn said no. ... The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The President... asked, "What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing."

"Obstructive act The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory... The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed... runs counter to the evidence."

"Nexus to an official proceeding. ...If the President were focused solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter "for our records" approximately ten days after the stories had come out—well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story—indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."

"Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians­ could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."

"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..."

"[T]he 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."

"The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation... [T]he Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments... Below, I summarize the principal conclusions..."

"Russian 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... The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia... 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.""

"The... investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. ...attempts by a Russian organization, the (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. ...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. ...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."

"Obstruction of Justice. the report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President... investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. ...[T]he Special Counsel... did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. ...[T]he 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. ...Deputy Attorney General and I have concluded that the evidence ...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."

"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. ...[T]he report identifies no actions that... constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent... beyond a reasonable doubt..."

"[M]y 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."

"[T]he schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 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. ...I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices."

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

"I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly."

"Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time."

"[T]he introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the [Justice] Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

"While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release... that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation."

"Mr. Barr took Mr. Mueller’s words out of context to suggest the president had no motive to obstruct justice."

"Mr. Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of “coordination”."

"Similarly, Mr. Barr truncated the special counsel explanation of what “coordination” meant — and didn’t mean From William P. Barr 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 government on election interference.’ From Robert S. Mueller III Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than [that which the evidence indicates, i.e.,] the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. [From Charlie Savage] In the second sentence, which Mr. Barr omitted, Mr. Mueller... emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination."

"The President committed crimes. ...Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. ...But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. ...[T]hey describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power... Lewandowski was not a government employee, so this was not... exercising his powers to manage the executive branch. ...He tried to get a private citizen to lobby the attorney general on his behalf for substantive outcomes to an investigation... [T]he step he asked Lewandowski to press Sessions to take was... unethical. ...Limiting the jurisdiction of the special counsel to future elections would have ...precluded the indictments Mueller later issued for Russia’s hacking and social-media operations. It would have precluded the prosecutions of Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Mike Flynn, , and ... [I]t is unlawful obstruction of justice. Full stop."

"Mueller reports that after the news broke that Trump had sought to get then–White House Counsel to fire the special counsel, Trump sought to get McGahn to deny the story. He also sought to get him to create an internal record denying the story. ...It is hard to imagine a plausible defense based on the idea that pressuring an employee to create false government records by way of influencing his ability to tell the truth is within the president’s constitutional authority."

"[T]he report leaves me with little doubt that the president engaged in criminal obstruction of justice on a number of occasions."

"The president also committed impeachable offenses. ...The president... seven days after taking office, demanded loyalty from his FBI director. Shortly thereafter, he isolated Comey in order to ask that he drop a sensitive FBI investigation in which Trump had a personal interest. The president then leaned on Comey to make public statements about his own status in the investigation. And when he couldn’t get Comey to do so, he recruited the deputy attorney general to create a pretext for Comey’s removal. ...[T]here simply is no plausible way to understand this fact pattern as a good-faith exercise of presidential power. It describes a frank abuse of power... this was impeachable conduct at the time. The Mueller report reinforces that belief. ...Ditto the effort to get Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton. ...Even as he was trying to get Sessions to protect him from the FBI, Trump was also trying to induce Sessions to investigate his political opponents. This is... the initiation of injustice. ...molten-core impeachment territory. ...trying to induce the attorney general ...to initiate a criminal investigation based on no known criminal predicate against a private citizen whom he happened to dislike. ...The president hinted that Manafort should not “flip” and that he would take care of him—and Manafort acted in a fashion consistent with his relying on those assurances. ...[T]his activity ...is criminal. It is also a grotesque abuse of power for impeachment purposes. ...[R]epeatedly urging witnesses not to cooperate with federal law enforcement and entertaining the notion of using his Article II powers to relieve them of criminal jeopardy or consequences ...This is ...the sort of conduct the impeachment clauses were written to address."

"Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture. ...If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. ...[T]he Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump... engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails. At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with... ... Russian military intelligence. ...Donald Trump Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database. ...[T]he picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating. Call it Keystone Kollusion."

"[I]f you haven't looked at it [Mueller Report] you really should. I'm definitely going to make it must reading for at least one, if not both of the courses that I teach here. ...Integrity, ability and veracity, when you speak about Mueller, is not at issue here. This report is a product of an incredibly talented team of investigators that did an incredible amount of work. ...Volume I talks about the Russia investigation... It documents over 100 pages of contacts between individuals associated with the [Trump] campaign and people on the Russian side. Volume II then looks at obstruction... if there's not obstruction in Volume II, I don't know what it is."

"[W]hen Boris Yeltsin... was under the gun for corruption, he made Vladimir Putin the director of the FSB, which is really the ... Putin started blackmailing people that were investigating Yeltsin for corruption, and suddenly the word compromat, or compromising blackmailable material came into the lexicon... [H]e started with the equivalent of the Attorney General of Russia. He had a video of him with two prostitutes, and he played it on national television... [which] ended all corruption investigations into... Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin was so happy, he made him the... Deputy Prime Minister of Russia... [T]hen Yeltsin stepped down and Vladimir Putin became the president of Russia and then he turned it into a... capitalist dictatorship which Benito Mussolini used to call Fascism, a corporate dictatorship of the ultra-right. That is where Russia is today, but if you read the Mueller Report, especially section 1, you will find..."

"On page 2 it says, "There is no legal term called . Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the ... We address the factual question of whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated. Like collusion, coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We applied the term coordination in the sense that... That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were 'informed by' or 'responsive to' other actions or interests." So the next time you rob a bank, don't discuss it. Have one guy open the door, and you come in with a gun and you just stand there, and when everybody hands the money to the other guy and you all walk out the door... You did not collude, you did not coordinate, and you did not conspire because... I will read it again, "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to other actions or interests.""

"Section [Volume] I is 448 pages of conspiracy and collusion, but it did not meet the legal standard that the Special Counsel established for criminal conspiracy. Everyone else in this room will have gone to prison... but for the purposes of this investigation, they built in their own parameters."

"Why... that long... discussion about Vladimir Putin, baby spy? Because this section [Volume I] catalogues all of the Russian contacts with the people in the Trump campaign, but more importantly, it shows that Russia... in order to benefit one person, starting as far back as 2013 (in my books it's earlier)... flooded the zone with every type of intelligence activity imaginable. It's all here [in the Mueller Report]. ...[S]omebody joked on Twitter [that] they should call this the Malcolm Report because I... read it all in Plot to Hack America and Plot to Destroy Democracy. No, there's more stuff in here. First... we all know about the hackings. The hackings were the easy part. ...All intelligence is information warfare. ...I drop a cruise missile on top of you because you don't know that I know that every Thursday at 7 o'clock... you go out and smoke a shisha at a certain bar... We kill people with intelligence. ...But in the world, which this report involves, that's what we call... spy hunting... I was ridiculed... It's all a conspiracy theory, but I said this on national television... This investigation started because we had suspicions that American citizens were working with a foreign intelligence agency and may have been trying to affect the fundamental system of our democracy, elections."

"[T]he investigation itself seemed to have... pulled a lot of punches. There were things in here [Meller Report] that... I have some of the greatest legal scholars in the United States sit in the green room with me and go, "How is this not what it is?"... [C]ollusion is a term that the president has chosen... but what... most of this report will tell you in great detail is that there was a massive, ginormous, multi-year Russian intelligence operation to break the American system of democracy and to choose a president of the United States."

"I was expecting ... to come busting through the door... and start arresting some people. ...When Al Capone ordered the ... he was in Florida. ...There was a garage full of dead bodies in Chicago. ...But he was seen. He had witnesses. None of the evidence tied it to him... but he ordered the... Massacre. ...But Al Capone would be convicted and sent to prison on tax evasion... [T]hat is how justice works. This report, for some people, was supposed to be the end-all, be-all... They [Russians] did flood the zone of this nation... [T]hey started a strategic framework around this election... [T]he report says 2015, and that the started in 2014. We have evidence from other hearings that showed [it] hired its top managers two months before the pageant in 2014. ...This operation ... most likely started right after the election of Barack Obama for his second term. ... ...wrote a Facebook post about it where he said that night he and Donald Trump were DMing [Direct Messaging] each other and Trump said we should be marching on Washington. How could we allow this guy... to win and beat Mitt Romney. ...Rykov said to him... Donald, if you want to run for president, I will support you. Donald Trump DM'd him giving the double thumbs-up. One week later he registered Make America Great Again PAC. That's November of 2012. So the Internet Research Agency starts up 10 months later. Two months after that the pageant happens, and we know is being discussed in there. ...Trump is already talking about giving Vladimir Putin a 50 million dollar bribe in the form of a penthouse on top of it. Then Russia invades Crimea in the spring of 2014. Donald Trump will not criticize him but criticizes Barack Obama. Then in 2014 the Mueller Report identifies the Internet Research Agency starts full-scale operations. The election's not even for two years. This is called strategic framing. ...We've also seen that they started... co-opting the National Rifle Association in 2010, by sending and to the United States... Then Evangelicals in 2010. Russia had a strategic plan and this report spells out, in horrific detail, how they moved from strategic framing, used the Internet Research Agency to do... meta-narrative framing... where you build an information bubble around your opponents. ...[T]he information bubble they started with in ...2014 was "Russia good, Hillary bad, Donald Trump good." That's it. ...In this report they said Facebook had 740 accounts that put out over 80,000 posts that reached 126 million Americans. Twitter had some insane number like 7,000 accounts that put out 1.5 million tweets that all framed those three things, "Russia good, Hillary bad, Donald Trump... president of the United States.""

"This was a multi-year effort, before we ever get into when they started flooding the zone with humans. ...Kislyak, the diplomat, to give prime cover to all of these people. He would be first point of contact, He would go and they would meet people like Michael Flynn, bring them to Russia, give him a speech where he earns... $50,000. Sit him next to Vladimir Putin, former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency. Jill Stein is on the other end of that table. ...All of this occurred in 2015. Donald Trump hadn't even announce that he was running for president. is going into full steam. Every aspect of the American experience with this election, on one side of the ledger, had the word "Russia" attached to it."

"I was recently called... a conspiracy theorist. ...A conspiracy theorist is someone who works in no facts, or takes those facts and molds them. ...Well, I have one reference now to all of my books [holds up the Mueller Report]... I've got 440 pages of reference. By the way, my last book Plot to Destroy Democracy [had] 600 references, because in my world... I have to show my work. I don't make these things up. What you saw with your own eyes exists. Just because Bill Barr jumped up and said "No collusion! No obstruction!" there's this report here, and it says... They found that there were 77... instances of lying [to the FBI] where they did not want to talk about what would most likely have shown . Good example, . They said for all of the two months that he was working, back and forth, with a guy who was suspected of being an asset of [the Russian government], and a mysterious woman [Olga Polonskaya] who was claimed to be Vladimir Putin's niece... trying to arrange a summit with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, trying to get dirt on Hillary Clinton back to Donald Trump, they concluded there was no collusion or conspiracy because they could not identify if he had turned or briefed anyone on the campaign. ...The problem is, it also says in the next sentence that people destroyed evidence, people lied to the Special Counsel, and information could not be found because people were deliberately obstructing them. ...[T]here's a sentence here [in the Mueller Report]... page one or two... because so many people lied, destroyed information, put things on encrypted apps, and then deleted them, that this information could not be validated or verified. ...Now in my crazy world, where there's a little gap in information ...I will make the little leap, and if you say he went through all this effort for months... to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and didn't tell anybody. How many of you believe that? Why would multiple... "dirty tricks teams", there were identified six separate dirty tricks teams: , the Trump Tower and Michael Cohen trying to do a peace plan for the Ukraine that would essentially give half of the Ukraine to Russia, trying to lift sanctions, each one of these teams was looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton, and it all had a nexus in Russia, and it's all in [the Mueller Report] this book."

"As Members of Congress and former prosecutors, we believe that respect for the law and duty to honor the truth are of utmost importance. Given the recent release of a document written by Special Counsel Mueller to the Attorney General objecting to his severe mischaracterization of the Special Counsel's report, it appears the the Attorney General has at best misled Congress and the American people, and at worst perjured himself before the Senate and House. As such, we formally request an ethics investigation by the Virginia State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar into Mr. Barr's conduct for review and possible disbarment."

"In a letter to Congress on March 24th, 2019 characterizing the Special Counsel's report, Mr. Barr stated: "In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent..." ...In reality we know that Special Counsel Mueller found "substantial evidence" of criminal intent and nexus to a specific proceeding as it relates to at least four, if not more, obstructive acts taken by the President of the United States. We know he directed aides to fabricate internal documents, lie about their actions, attempted to fire the Special Counsel, get then-Attorney General Sessions to "un-recuse" himself so as to exert greater control over the investigation's direction, and likely tamper with witnesses."

"While it would be despicable enough if the Attorney General had thus mischaracterized the report, we now have evidence he appears to have lied to Congress twice about the extent of his knowledge of the Special Counsel's reaction to Barr's mischaracterization... "No, I don't," Barr said, when asked by Rep. ... whether he knew what was behind the reports that members of Mueller's team were frustrated by the attorney general's summary... "I don't know," he said the next day, when asked by Sen. ... whether Mueller supported his finding that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice."

"[A] letter dated March 27, 2019 from Special Counsel Mueller to Attorney General Barr... requested that the Attorney General, rather than summarize... immediately release executive summaries crafted by Mueller's team. Second, he wrote that Barr's summary sent to Congress "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25...""

"We agree with Robert Mueller when he says that this behavior "threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel.""

"As you know, the Virginia State Bar and D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 "Candor Toward the Tribunal" prevents a lawyer from making "a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." Furthermore, Rule 8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.""

"[T]he conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."